<p>Dear ERNESTO SUÁREZ, Gladys Rolo-González, Gabriel Muinos, Cristina Chinea-Montesdeoca, Isabel Duarte-Lores, Domingo Gil-Giménez:</p>
<p>Thank you very much for your submission for consideration in &nbsp;<em>Revista Interamericana de Psicología</em>/Interamerican Journal of Psychology, "</p>
<p>I have now received evaluations from three reviewers. All of the reviewers felt that the manuscript covered an important topic that could make a significant contribution to the literature., however sll recommended majoer revisiosn that oculd improve the paper. &nbsp;I also believe there are concerns that have been raised which do merit further attention. &nbsp;As such I would like to request a revision of your manuscript attending to the areas outlined by the reviewers. One reviewer has also generously given you suggested refernces you may incorporate.</p>
<p>I hope you will accept my invitation to resubmit and look forward to seeing your revised manuscript. You have until July 30 to resubmit, should you decide to do so.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Melissa L. Morgan, Ph.D.</p>
<p>Associate Editor</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><br><br><br><br></p>
<p>Melissa L. Morgan</p>
<p><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer A:<br>Recommendation: Resubmit for Review<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>The purpose of the present study was to assess conditions of isolation, health and economic risk perception, affect, and participation in activities during the early days of lockdown among Spanish adults. The large sample and adequate alphas of the measures are strengths of the study.<br><br>The primary limitation, however, is that there is no control group nor pretest data. Therefore, it is impossible to infer that your findings were specifically related to the lockdown. The data were collected at a single point in time, making your study correlational (cross-sectional). Therefore please do not use causal language, such as effect or consequences (for example the heading on page 9, “Emotional and well-being effects….”. Not only that, but your data were collected during the second week of lockdown, extremely early, before all the effects could be realized. The data are not likely to representative of participants’ long term adjustment to the lockdown.<br><br>You chose to do only nonparametric tests with your data. Typically, Likert-type scales (although technically ordinal) are treated as parametric data. Your analyses could be much more sophisticated had you subjected the scales to parametric analyses. For example, you could use regression to predict affect from housing, use of open air-spaces, and risk assessment. Regression can readily incorporate variables that are dichotomous (such as participating in activity or not). If they are the criterion (dependent) variable a binomial logistic regression is the appropriate procedure. I also wondered if you have an implicit model of how your measured variables are related. If you do have a model, you might consider more advanced techniques such as mediation and moderation analyses via PROCESS (Hayes, 2018). <br><br>In addition, please attend to the cultural validity of your measures. It seems that the CD-RISC has been adapted for use in Spain, but information about the cultural validity of the MLM-10 and the PANAS is missing.<br><br>Some details are:<br><br>You need to refer to your study and its findings in the past tense, e.g. on page 4 “The average number of people with whom participants lived WAS 2.44.” Or on page 12, “Results obtained SHOWED that the COVID-19 pandemic WAS perceived…”<br><br>Reporting Pearon’s r in APA style:<br>The APA has precise requirements for reporting the results of statistical tests, which means as well as getting the basic format right, you need to pay attention to the placing of brackets, punctuation, italics, and so on.The basic format for citing Pearson's r is not too complex, as you can see here (you substitute the appropriate value from your study).<br><br>r(degrees of freedom) = the r statistic, p = p value. <br>Retrieved from https://www.socscistatistics.com/tutorials/correlation/default.aspx<br><br>I presume that the instruments and instructions were administered in Spanish. Was any translation needed? If so, how was that carried out?<br><br>I am not certain about the policies or scope of RIP, but what are the implications of this study for psychology of the Americas?<br><br>In sum, the authors of this paper should re-think their analyses and their interpretation of their findings. I wish them good luck and good health.</blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Rewrite and resubmit:</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer B:<br>Recommendation: Revisions Required<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Satisfactory</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Satisfactory</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Satisfactory</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Very Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Very Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>The manuscript entitled, “Psychological impact of a country-wide lockdown: Role of personal, behavioral, social, and physical conditions on negative and positive affect and meaning in life,” was submitted to The Interamerican Journal of Psychology as a regular article (though perhaps this is a special issue on COVID-19). <br>The authors conducted the study at the start of the pandemic in Spain, just after a lock-down order was issued by the government on March 12, 2020. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the participants’ perceptions of risk to their physical and economic health in relation to the conditions under which they were adhering to the stay-at-home orders (e.g., if they suffered from a chronic disease, if they spent time outside, if they got laid off from work). The researchers used nonparametric statistics to calculate the strength of correlations between participants’ coping strategies or psychological resilience or quarantine activities and the participants’ perceptions of risk, the intensity of their negative and positive affect and the strength of their sense of meaning in life. The sample size was nonrandom and quite large; n=1343 adults. A survey was administered online using Qualtrics. The survey questions related to the participants’ quarantine conditions were designed by the researchers. Pre-existing measures that were used to evaluate dimensions of participants’ personal well-being. <br><br>The topic of this paper is timely and is well-suited for publication in The Interamerican Journal of Psychology. Though the sample consists solely of Spaniards, the study has broad applicability in the context of the global pandemic, especially because it was conducted at a time when lock-downs were being executed in numerous industrialized countries. <br><br>Areas for Improvement<br><br>Originality<br><br>This was a strictly empirical study with the following aim: “to analyze the affective response to compulsory home isolation during the COVID-19 outbreak in Spain. Specifically, to analyze: a) risk perception regarding personal health and economic conditions; b) the impact of others and environmental conditions during home isolation on personal well-being (positive affect, negative affect, and meaning in life); c) the influence of psychological resilience and positive coping activities as factors promoting well-being” (p. 3). The investigation was exploratory in nature. No hypotheses were proposed or tested. The investigation was not grounded in a specific theory of disaster mental health, coping, or resilience.<br><br>The article is timely and absolutely relevant to current global concerns. Given the rise in coronavirus variants and the nonzero likelihood that the human beings will face another pandemic in the future, the results of this research will have lasting value even though it is not theoretically or methodologically innovative. <br><br>Literature Review<br><br>The literature review on empirical investigations of the impact of pandemic conditions, natural disasters and other unexpected traumatic events was thorough and current. The authors cited seven studies completed in 2020 on COVID-19 from a range of countries (e.g., Bo et al., 2020; Li et al., 2020). They also referenced research from previous epidemics including H1N1 (Cowling et al., 2010; Han et al., 2014; Prati et al., 2011), Ebola (Green et al., 2018), SARS (Ko et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2012; Mihashi et al., 2009), natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina; Lee et al., 2018), industrial accidents (e.g., Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; Osofsky et al., 2011), and gun violence (e.g., Washington, DC Sniper Killings; Moore et al., 2004). The authors also referenced the World Health Organization’s directives and recommendations (WHO; 2020a; 2020b) regarding COVID-19. These topics were well covered. <br><br>However, the concepts of resilience, the role of positive emotion and coping, and meaning in life are neglected topics in the Introduction. There was insufficient attention to their importance. Why study these psychological phenomena in particular? What is the salience of these psychological constructs to coping with the threat of COVID-19 and home confinement? These questions seem especially important for the concepts of resilience, positive affect, and meaning in life which comprise the most significant results and are a central part of the Discussion. <br><br>Recommendation: Include definitions of these constructs and look to the literature that describes their role in coping with stress and anxiety. Define what you mean by meaning in life (MIL) and discuss its importance and is associations with positive emotion. This discussion will help substantiate why you chose the Morgan and Robinson version (2013) of the Morgan and Farsides’ (2009) Meaningful Life Measure when there are others that are better established (e.g., Meaning in Life Questionnaire; MLQ; Steger et al., 2006). There is a significant literature on MIL. The authors might find value in the following papers:<br><br>Heintzelman, S.J., &amp; King, L.A. (2014). Life is pretty meaningful. American Psychologist, 69, 561-574. http://dx.doi/10.1037/a0035049<br>Park, C. (2010). Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 257-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018301<br>Park, C. L., &amp; George, L.S. (2013). Assessing meaning and meaning making in the context of stressful life events: Measurement tools and approaches. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8, 483-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.830762<br>Steger, M.F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., &amp; Kaler, M. (2006). The Meaning in Life Questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 80-93. http://dx.doi/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80<br><br>Method<br><br>Participants. A strength of this study is the description of the participants’ living situations. Tables 1 and 2 are particularly helpful in getting a clear picture of the circumstances in which participants were living at the time of the study. <br><br>It is curious that there is no information on the ethnicity of the participants. I googled the population of Spain and there is a significant immigrant population which would imply some degree of cultural/ethnic diversity in the sample. Ethnic identity/immigration status may be tied to conditions in which participants were enduring the lock-down and access to resources like open spaces, which depend on location of housing. <br><br>Recommendation: If such information on culture/ethnicity and/or immigrant status is available and salient, please report it. Additionally, the sample seems quite educated. It would be helpful to contrast this sample with the educational levels of Spaniards as a whole as part of the Limitations Section in the Discussion. <br><br>Materials. There is not a clear rationale for why the measures used were selected. The foundation for such selection could be made in the Literature Review as suggested above, followed by a reference to each measure’s salience to the research questions herein. <br><br>Recommendation: Please provide a rationale for the selected measures and provide more detail on the reliability and validity of the measures. The alpha coefficients for the current study are reported, but there is no other information from which to discern the value of these tools. <br><br>Results<br><br>Analyses. The selection of nonparametric statistics seems appropriate. <br><br>The p values of p&lt;.001 in relation to the effect sizes η2, which are notably small, may warrant double-checking the analyses. The very low p values are not consistent with such small effect sizes. Another way to check the analyses is to report a Z-score for each of the U statistics. This may be accomplished because the U statistic has a normal distribution due to the large sample sizes. <br><br>Recommendation: Check analyses and/or compute a Z-Score for each statistic. <br><br>The most significant results, including the “difference in affect and meaning in life depending on frequency of coping behaviors” (See Table 3) yielded effect sizes that are quite small. For example, the effect of varying levels of exercise on negative affect is significant at the p&lt;.001 level but η2 is .018, which is extraordinarily small. If η2 is .018, this means that only 1.8% of the variance in negative affect is explained by the frequency of exercise. Similarly, the following percent variance in positive affect was explained by Keeping Routines (4.3%), Exercising (4.6%), Video calls, (1.4%), Online Creative Activities (7.3%), Community Participation (2.3%), Helping Others (1.2%) and Art and Online Activities (2,2%) (pp. 11-12). It is not clear how potent the coping behaviors actually are, given these small effect sizes. <br><br>Recommendation: Discuss the small effect sizes. <br><br>Discussion<br><br>I am not surprised that coping behaviors were not related to changes negative affect, but were related to increases in positive affect. Retrospective measures of positive and negative affect are known to be independent of one another (Diener &amp; Emmons, 1984; Ganzach, et al., 2020) with caveats related to measurement (Green &amp; Salovey, 1999). However, I do not think that this is intuitive to most people. One way to discuss the implications of this result is to refer to Conoley and Scheel’s work on Goal Focused Positive Psychotherapy (2018) and reiterate their metaphor of using a psychological rather than physical sciences metaphor to discuss the benefits of positive coping behaviors (e.g., helping others and exercise). GFPP and Positive Psychotherapy (Rashid &amp; Seligman, 2018) describe positive approaches to psychotherapy as ones that build positive emotion, which enhances capacity for wellness even in the context of negative events and emotions. Such a reference might make a good addition to the discussion of implications of the results. <br><br>Clarity of Writing<br><br>There is some awkward phrasing in the writing and odd use of terms. The Abstract needs to be revised for greater clarity. <br><br>An example of lack of clarity is the first sentence under the header Data Analysis, which states “Spearman’s correlations were carried out, as well as Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test” (p. 8). This section needs to be revised because it is unclear which variables were used for these statistics. Also “carried out” is colloquial. How about “computed”?<br><br>Similarly, page 8, par. 4 reads, “We decided to study two specific types of risk perception that may be key [my emphasis] in this context, health risk perception, due to the origins of the lockdown as a health-related issue, and economic risk perceptions, due to the massive impact on the economic infrastructure cause by the lockdown measures” (p. 8). Key to what? Please clarify. <br><br>Several of the paragraphs are only two sentences long and might be collapsed. Page 3 include a paragraph that has only 1 sentence, which is not consistent with APA style. <br><br>Minor Edits<br><br>APA Style dictates not starting a sentence with a number (see page 3 line 20). <br><br>References<br><br>Conoley, C. W., &amp; Scheel, M. J. (2018). Goal focused positive psychotherapy: A strengths-based approach. Oxford University Press. <br>Diener, E., &amp; Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1105–1117. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105<br>Ganzazh, Y., Yaor, E., Shatz, T.M., Bulmash, B., Greenberg, D. (2020). The retrospective independence of positive and negative affect. Social Cognition, 38, 470-488. <br>Green, D.P., &amp; Salovey, P. I(1999). n what sense are positive and negative affect independent? A reply to Tellegen, Watson, and Clark. Psychological Science, 10, 304-306. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00158<br>Rashid, T., &amp; Seligman, M. (2018). Positive psychotherapy: A clinician’s manual. Oxford University press. </blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Publish pending major revisions:</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br>Reviewer D:<br>Recommendation: Resubmit for Review<br><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br></p>
<p>Does the abstract provide the main purposes of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what conditions, if any, were participants exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide what type of design was used?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the abstract provide main findings and conclusions?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the abstract?</p>
<blockquote>Poor</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide the background and context for the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what in current theory, research, or clinical work makes this study useful, important, or of interest?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what is different or special about the study in focus, methods, or design to address a need in the area?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide a clear the rationale regarding the constructs to be assessed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the introduction provide what specifically were the purposes, predictions, or hypotheses?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is you overall rating of the introduction?</p>
<blockquote>Good</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide who were the participants and how many of them were there in this study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why was this sample selected in light of the research goals?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was this sample obtained, recruited, and selected?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what are the participant (s) demographic characteristics of the sample (e.g., gender, age, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status)? What if any inclusion and exclusion criteria were invoked (i.e., selection rules to obtain participants)?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many of those participants eligible or recruited actually were selected and participated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if and it was informed consent solicited? How and from whom, if special populations were used?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what is the design (e.g., longitudinal, cross-sectional, relationship, comparison) and how does the design relate to the goals of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Disagree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide&nbsp;how were participants assigned to groups or conditions?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how many groups were included in the design?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how were the groups similar and different in how they were treated in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide why were these groups critical to address the questions of interest?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the constructs of interest and how were they measured?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide the relevant reliability and validity data from previous research (and from the present study) that support the use of these measures for the present purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide multiple measures and methods used to assess the constructs?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide response sets or styles relevant to the use and interpretation of the measures?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide how was the assessment conducted? By whom (as assessors/observers)? In what order were the measures administered?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide if raters were used in any facet of assessment, what is the reliability (inter- or intrajudge consistency) in rendering their judgments/ratings?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide where was the study conducted (setting)?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what materials, equipment, or apparatuses were used in the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what was the chronological sequence of events to which participants were exposed?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what intervals elapsed between different aspects of the study (e.g., assessment occasions)?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what procedural checks were completed to avert potential sources of bias in implementation of the manipulation and assessments?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what checks were made to ensure that the conditions were carried out as intended?</p>
<p>Does the methodology provide what other information does the reader need to know to understand how participants were treated and what conditions were provided?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the methodology?</p>
<blockquote>Satisfactory</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the primary measures and data on which the predictions depend?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the scores on the measures of interest for the different groups and sample as a whole (e.g., measures of central tendency and variability)?</p>
<p>Does the results provide how the scores compare with those of other study, normative, or standardization samples?</p>
<p>Does the results provide the groups of interest within the study similar on measures and variables that could interfere with interpretation of the hypotheses?</p>
<p>Does the results provide the analyses were used and how specifically did these address the original hypotheses and purposes?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide the assumptions of the data analyses met?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide if multiple tests were used, what means were provided to control error rates?</p>
<p>Does the results provide if more than one group was delineated, were they similar on variables that might otherwise explain the results (e.g., diagnosis, age)?</p>
<p>Does the results provide if data was missing due to incomplete measures (not filled out completely by the participants) or due to loss of participants? If so, how were these handled in the data analyses?</p>
<p>Does the results provide ancillary analyses that might further inform the primary analyses or exploratory analyses that might stimulate further work?</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the results?</p>
<blockquote>Satisfactory</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the discussion provide what were the major findings of the study?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide how do these findings add to research and how do they support, refute, or inform current theory? What alternative interpretations can be placed on the data?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Does the results provide what limitations or qualifiers must be placed on the study given methodology and design issues? What research follows from the study to move the field forward?</p>
<blockquote>Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>What is your overall rating of the Discussion?</p>
<blockquote>Satisfactory</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Is the manuscript well written, grammatically correct, free of spelling errors, cohesive, and logically organized?</p>
<blockquote>Strongly Agree</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Are conclusions stated clearly?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>Do the author(s) appropriately reference primary and secondary sources using the APA publication manual?</p>
<blockquote>Undecided</blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Please provide a narrative</p>
<p>Suggested guidelines for narrative review:</p>
<ul>
<li class="show">Do not indicate recommendation for publication</li>
<li class="show">Do not include reviewer-identifying information</li>
<li class="show">Narrative should serve as constructive guidance for author, serve a mentoring function to help author identify ways to improve/orient the paper appropriately for this journal</li>
<li class="show">Suggested structure:
<ul>
<li class="show">Summarize paper (1-2 sentences)</li>
<li class="show">Overall strengths and areas for improvement and recommendations including what excites or interests the reviewer, what the paper might potentially contribute to the literature</li>
<li class="show">Specific recommendations (this section should be clearly organized and allow the author to specifically address the concerns) for example, how the manuscript could be more relevant to the Interamerican Psychology.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>Abstract:<br>El resumen no destaca los resultados importantes de esta investigación (el resumen debe escribirse con mayor claridad).<br><br>Introducción:<br>El objetivo de la investigación es interesante y aporta mucho a la literatura para la atención del COVID<br>El manuscrito explica la importancia de este estudio. <br>Se presentan evidencias recientes para sustentar el estudio. <br>Los autores no presentaron por ejemplo lo que se ha hecho hasta ahora en Latinoamérica con relación al tema de interés. <br><br>Método<br>Aunque el método presenta una descripción de la muestra, no queda claro la caracterización de la edad de los participantes. Sugiero poder entender cómo está clasificada la muestra no solo quienes son menores de 30 años y mayores de 65 años.<br>¿Cuáles fueron los criterios de inclusión y exclusión? ¿por qué usaron estos criterios? Sugiero desarrollar esto.<br>Los autores no indican claramente el diseño del estudio. Tampoco las variables que se estudiaron en la investigación están claras. Sugiero incluir la definición de las variables de interés y posteriormente presentar los instrumentos que ayudaron a medir cada una. Esto facilitaría al lector comprender las razones para estudiar esas variables y, lo que es más importante, por qué se eligió el análisis presentado.<br>Los autores deberían incluir el número de registro o comité de ética por el que pasó el estudio para ser realizado.<br>El apartado análisis estadístico debe contener todos los aspectos de los análisis realizados en cada uno de los subapartados de la sección resultados y eliminar esta explicación de la sección resultados. Esto haría que el trabajo tuviera mayor calidad y más fácil seguimiento por parte de los lectores.<br><br>Resultados<br>Presentación de datos y tablas. Este es un punto que debe de mejorarse, sugiero que el autor(es) pueda(n) revisar el siguiente texto: Presenting your findings. A practical guide for creating tables, de Adelheid A. M. Nicool and Penny M. Pexman. Sixt Edition. Este texto puede serle de gran ayuda para presentar sus resultados y buscar una mejor opción dado que las tablas que se presentan no están hechas de la forma adecuada. Esta recomendación es para el presente artículo como también para futuras publicaciones. <br>¿Variable edad? El análisis es bastante simple, el estudio no probó el efecto / interacción de esta variable con otras, esto podría haber hecho el estudio un poco más interesante. Sugiero incluirlo dado que la literatura muestra que la resiliencia de las personas es diferente según la edad, así como el manejo de sus afectos. <br><br>Discusión<br>Considero que la discusión final, así como las contribuciones, no se articularon de manera comprensible. Se debe de cuidar la redacción y tratar de mantener una conexión entre las ideas presentadas, como también entre los párrafos.<br>Sería recomendable y aunque lo hacen de manera superficial en el último párrafo, que se expusiera qué implicaciones prácticas y clínicas tienen los resultados que se derivan.<br><br>Referencias<br>Las citas en el texto parecen adecuadas, sin embargo, no se pudo revisar el apartado de referencias porque no se adjuntó en el manuscrito, razón por la cual no se puedo evaluar si siguieron las normas de la APA.<br><br>Conclusión de la evaluación: sé que escribir un artículo implica un esfuerzo importante y hay muchos aspectos positivos en el texto, principalmente porque es un tema de indudable interés en la actualidad., no obstante, hay otros que hacen que a nivel metodológico presente aspectos a prestar atención, antes de ser considerado para su publicación. <br>Espero que mis comentarios sean tomados positivamente y contribuyan a trabajo futuro de los investigadores.</blockquote>
<p>Based on the answers to these questions what is your&nbsp;disposition&nbsp;for the manuscript?</p>
<blockquote>Publish pending major revisions:</blockquote>
<p><br>------------------------------------------------------<br><br><br></p><br/><p>The following message is being delivered on behalf of Revista Interamericana de Psicología/Interamerican Journal of Psychology. ______________________________________</p>
<div>
<div id="Zm-_Id_-Sgn" data-zbluepencil-ignore="true">
<div><strong><span class="size">Dr. Fernando Andres Polanco</span></strong></div>
<div><em>Editor</em></div>
<div><a href="mailto:fernando.polanco@sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">fernando.polanco@sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>Sociedad Interamericana de Psicología</div>
<div>Web:&nbsp;<a href="http://sipsych.org" target="_blank" rel="noopener">http://sipsych.org</a>&nbsp;</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><a href="https://www.facebook.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Facebook</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/sipsych" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Twitter</a> &nbsp;|&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.instagram.com/sipsych/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Instagram</a>&nbsp; |&nbsp; <a href="https://www.youtube.com/user/SIPChannel2013" target="_blank" rel="noopener">YouTube</a></div>
</div>
</div>