From zero to hero: An exploratory study examining sudden hero status among nonphysician health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic
Sophie Hennekam, Jamie Ladge, & Yuliya Shymko
Abstract:
The recent COVID-19 pandemic has raised the visibility of health care workers to the level of public heroes. We study this phenomenon by exploring how nonphysician health care workers, who traditionally believed they were invisible and undervalued, perceive their newfound elevated status during the pandemic. Drawing from a qualitative study of 164 health care workers, we find that participants interpreted the sudden visibility and social valorization of their work as temporary and treated it with skepticism, incredulity, and as devoid of genuinely transformative power. We seek to contribute to the recent call to develop novel approaches to understanding the contours of the paradoxical nature of invisibility in the workplace by offering insights into what makes "invisible" workers accept or reject publicly driven elevation in their sudden social valorization.
Sophie Hennekam, Jamie Ladge, & Yuliya Shymko
Abstract:
The recent COVID-19 pandemic has raised the visibility of health care workers to the level of public heroes. We study this phenomenon by exploring how nonphysician health care workers, who traditionally believed they were invisible and undervalued, perceive their newfound elevated status during the pandemic. Drawing from a qualitative study of 164 health care workers, we find that participants interpreted the sudden visibility and social valorization of their work as temporary and treated it with skepticism, incredulity, and as devoid of genuinely transformative power. We seek to contribute to the recent call to develop novel approaches to understanding the contours of the paradoxical nature of invisibility in the workplace by offering insights into what makes "invisible" workers accept or reject publicly driven elevation in their sudden social valorization.
Getting back to the “new normal”: Autonomy restoration during a global pandemic
Eric M. Anicich, Trevor A. Foulk, Merrick R. Osborne, Jake Gale, & Michael Schaerer
Abstract:
We investigate the psychological recovery process of full-time employees during the 2-week period at the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). Past research suggests that recovery processes start after stressors abate and can take months or years to unfold. In contrast, we build on autonomy restoration theory to suggest that recovery of impaired autonomy starts immediately even as a stressor is ongoing. Using growth curve modeling, we examined the temporal trajectories of two manifestations of impaired autonomy-powerlessness and (lack of) authenticity-to test whether recovery began as the pandemic unfolded. We tested our predictions using a unique experience-sampling dataset collected over a 2-week period beginning on the Monday after COVID-19 was declared a "global pandemic" by the World Health Organization and a "national emergency" by the U.S. Government (March 16-27, 2020). Results suggest that autonomy restoration was activated even as the pandemic worsened. Employees reported decreasing powerlessness and increasing authenticity during this period, despite their subjective stress-levels not improving. Further, the trajectories of recovery for both powerlessness and authenticity were steeper for employees higher (vs. lower) in neuroticism, a personality characteristic central to stress reactions. Importantly, these patterns do not emerge in a second experience-sampling study collected prior to the COVID-19 crisis (September 9-20, 2019), highlighting how the pandemic initially threatened employee autonomy, but also how employees began to recover their sense of autonomy almost immediately. The present research provides novel insights into employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests that psychological recovery can begin during a stressful experience.
Eric M. Anicich, Trevor A. Foulk, Merrick R. Osborne, Jake Gale, & Michael Schaerer
Abstract:
We investigate the psychological recovery process of full-time employees during the 2-week period at the onset of the Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19). Past research suggests that recovery processes start after stressors abate and can take months or years to unfold. In contrast, we build on autonomy restoration theory to suggest that recovery of impaired autonomy starts immediately even as a stressor is ongoing. Using growth curve modeling, we examined the temporal trajectories of two manifestations of impaired autonomy-powerlessness and (lack of) authenticity-to test whether recovery began as the pandemic unfolded. We tested our predictions using a unique experience-sampling dataset collected over a 2-week period beginning on the Monday after COVID-19 was declared a "global pandemic" by the World Health Organization and a "national emergency" by the U.S. Government (March 16-27, 2020). Results suggest that autonomy restoration was activated even as the pandemic worsened. Employees reported decreasing powerlessness and increasing authenticity during this period, despite their subjective stress-levels not improving. Further, the trajectories of recovery for both powerlessness and authenticity were steeper for employees higher (vs. lower) in neuroticism, a personality characteristic central to stress reactions. Importantly, these patterns do not emerge in a second experience-sampling study collected prior to the COVID-19 crisis (September 9-20, 2019), highlighting how the pandemic initially threatened employee autonomy, but also how employees began to recover their sense of autonomy almost immediately. The present research provides novel insights into employee well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic and suggests that psychological recovery can begin during a stressful experience.
Women’s leadership is associated with fewer deaths during the COVID-19 crisis: Quantitative and qualitative analyses of United States governors
Kayla Sergent & Alexander D. Stajkovic
Abstract:
The coronavirus disease that emerged in 2019 (COVID-19) spotlights the need for effective leadership in a crisis. Leadership research in applied psychology suggests that women tend to be preferred over men as leaders during uncertain times. We contribute to this literature by examining, in the context of COVID-19, whether states with women governors had fewer deaths than states with men governors, and why. We tested this research question with publicly available data on COVID-19 deaths in the United States as of May 5, 2020 and found that states with women governors had fewer COVID-19 deaths compared to states with men governors. Governor sex also interacted with early stay-at-home orders; states with women governors who issued these orders early had fewer deaths compared to states with men governors who did the same. To provide insight into psychological mechanisms of this relationship, we conducted a qualitative analysis of governor briefings that took place between April 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 (251 briefings, 38 governors, 1.2 million words). Compared to men, women governors expressed more empathy and confidence in their briefings. Practical implications are discussed.
Kayla Sergent & Alexander D. Stajkovic
Abstract:
The coronavirus disease that emerged in 2019 (COVID-19) spotlights the need for effective leadership in a crisis. Leadership research in applied psychology suggests that women tend to be preferred over men as leaders during uncertain times. We contribute to this literature by examining, in the context of COVID-19, whether states with women governors had fewer deaths than states with men governors, and why. We tested this research question with publicly available data on COVID-19 deaths in the United States as of May 5, 2020 and found that states with women governors had fewer COVID-19 deaths compared to states with men governors. Governor sex also interacted with early stay-at-home orders; states with women governors who issued these orders early had fewer deaths compared to states with men governors who did the same. To provide insight into psychological mechanisms of this relationship, we conducted a qualitative analysis of governor briefings that took place between April 1, 2020 and May 5, 2020 (251 briefings, 38 governors, 1.2 million words). Compared to men, women governors expressed more empathy and confidence in their briefings. Practical implications are discussed.
Changes to the work–family interface during the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining predictors and implications using latent transition analysis
Hoda Vaziri, Wendy J. Casper, Julie Holliday Wayne, & Russell A. Matthews
Abstract:
Employees around the world have experienced sudden, significant changes in their work and family roles due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, applied psychologists have limited understanding of how employee experiences of work-family conflict and enrichment have been affected by this event and what organizations can do to ensure better employee functioning during such societal crises. Adopting a person-centered approach, we examine transitions in employees' work-family interfaces from before COVID-19 to after its onset. First, in Study 1, using latent profile analysis (N = 379; nonpandemic data), we identify profiles of bidirectional conflict and enrichment, including beneficial (low conflict and high enrichment), active (medium conflict and enrichment), and passive (low conflict and enrichment). In Study 2, with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, we replicate Study 1 profiles and explore whether employees transition between work-family profiles during the pandemic. Results suggest that although many remain in prepandemic profiles, positive (from active/passive to beneficial) and negative (from beneficial to active/passive) transitions occurred for a meaningful proportion of respondents. People were more likely to go through negative transitions if they had high segmentation preferences, engaged in emotion-focused coping, experienced higher technostress, and had less compassionate supervisors. In turn, negative transitions were associated with negative employee consequences during the pandemic (e.g., lower job satisfaction and job performance, and higher turnover intent). We discuss implications for future research and for managing during societal crises, both present and future.
Hoda Vaziri, Wendy J. Casper, Julie Holliday Wayne, & Russell A. Matthews
Abstract:
Employees around the world have experienced sudden, significant changes in their work and family roles due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, applied psychologists have limited understanding of how employee experiences of work-family conflict and enrichment have been affected by this event and what organizations can do to ensure better employee functioning during such societal crises. Adopting a person-centered approach, we examine transitions in employees' work-family interfaces from before COVID-19 to after its onset. First, in Study 1, using latent profile analysis (N = 379; nonpandemic data), we identify profiles of bidirectional conflict and enrichment, including beneficial (low conflict and high enrichment), active (medium conflict and enrichment), and passive (low conflict and enrichment). In Study 2, with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, we replicate Study 1 profiles and explore whether employees transition between work-family profiles during the pandemic. Results suggest that although many remain in prepandemic profiles, positive (from active/passive to beneficial) and negative (from beneficial to active/passive) transitions occurred for a meaningful proportion of respondents. People were more likely to go through negative transitions if they had high segmentation preferences, engaged in emotion-focused coping, experienced higher technostress, and had less compassionate supervisors. In turn, negative transitions were associated with negative employee consequences during the pandemic (e.g., lower job satisfaction and job performance, and higher turnover intent). We discuss implications for future research and for managing during societal crises, both present and future.
Working in a pandemic: Exploring the impact of COVID-19 health anxiety on work, family, and health outcomes
John P. Trougakos, Nitya Chawla, & Julie M. McCarthy
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has unhinged the lives of employees across the globe, yet there is little understanding of how COVID-19 health anxiety (CovH anxiety)—that is, feelings of fear and apprehension about having or contracting COVID-19—impacts critical work, home, and health outcomes. In the current study, we integrate transactional stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) to advance and test a model predicting that CovH anxiety prompts individuals to suppress emotions, which has detrimental implications for their psychological need fulfillment. In turn, lack of psychological need fulfillment hinders employees’ abilities to work effectively, engage with their family, and experience heightened well-being. Our model further predicts that handwashing frequency—a form of problem-focused coping—will mitigate the effects of CovH anxiety. We test our propositions using a longitudinal design that followed 503 employees across the first four weeks that stay-at-home and social distancing orders were enacted. Consistent with predictions, CovH anxiety was found to impair critical work (goal progress), home (family engagement) and health (somatic complaints) outcomes due to increased emotion suppression and lack of psychological need fulfillment. Further, individuals who frequently engage in handwashing behavior were buffered from the negative impact of CovH anxiety. Combined, our work integrates and extends existing theory and has a number of important practical implications. Our research represents a first step to understanding the work-, home-, and health-related implications of this unprecedented situation, highlighting the detrimental impact of the anxiety stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
John P. Trougakos, Nitya Chawla, & Julie M. McCarthy
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has unhinged the lives of employees across the globe, yet there is little understanding of how COVID-19 health anxiety (CovH anxiety)—that is, feelings of fear and apprehension about having or contracting COVID-19—impacts critical work, home, and health outcomes. In the current study, we integrate transactional stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) with self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) to advance and test a model predicting that CovH anxiety prompts individuals to suppress emotions, which has detrimental implications for their psychological need fulfillment. In turn, lack of psychological need fulfillment hinders employees’ abilities to work effectively, engage with their family, and experience heightened well-being. Our model further predicts that handwashing frequency—a form of problem-focused coping—will mitigate the effects of CovH anxiety. We test our propositions using a longitudinal design that followed 503 employees across the first four weeks that stay-at-home and social distancing orders were enacted. Consistent with predictions, CovH anxiety was found to impair critical work (goal progress), home (family engagement) and health (somatic complaints) outcomes due to increased emotion suppression and lack of psychological need fulfillment. Further, individuals who frequently engage in handwashing behavior were buffered from the negative impact of CovH anxiety. Combined, our work integrates and extends existing theory and has a number of important practical implications. Our research represents a first step to understanding the work-, home-, and health-related implications of this unprecedented situation, highlighting the detrimental impact of the anxiety stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on job search behavior: An event transition perspective
Lynn A. McFarland, Sydney Reeves, W. Benjamin Porr, & Robert E. Ployhart
Abstract:
This study examines how job search behavior changed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the weeks following the event’s onset, and if the physical contact required by different jobs moderated these trends. Based on event system theory, we argue that the onset of the pandemic created a strong event because it was highly novel, disruptive, and critical. We test this by examining 16 weeks of job applications for 14 organizations that differ in terms of whether the jobs require employees to work from home or face-to-face. We use Bliese, Adler, and Flynn’s (2017) transition framework and discontinuous random coefficient growth curve modeling to test the pandemic’s effect on job search behavior both during the event onset and then the weeks following the onset. Importantly, we include a 9-week preonset baseline period to provide more rigorous tests of change. Results show that the onset of the pandemic created an immediate increase in job search behavior (job applications), and this effect endured into the postonset period. Job type moderated these trends, such that the onset and postonset applications were substantially greater for work-from-home jobs (which followed a negatively accelerated curve) compared to face-to-face jobs. These findings advance the job search literature by introducing event system theory and transition frameworks to better understand how and why events uniquely influence job search behavior over time.
Lynn A. McFarland, Sydney Reeves, W. Benjamin Porr, & Robert E. Ployhart
Abstract:
This study examines how job search behavior changed at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the weeks following the event’s onset, and if the physical contact required by different jobs moderated these trends. Based on event system theory, we argue that the onset of the pandemic created a strong event because it was highly novel, disruptive, and critical. We test this by examining 16 weeks of job applications for 14 organizations that differ in terms of whether the jobs require employees to work from home or face-to-face. We use Bliese, Adler, and Flynn’s (2017) transition framework and discontinuous random coefficient growth curve modeling to test the pandemic’s effect on job search behavior both during the event onset and then the weeks following the onset. Importantly, we include a 9-week preonset baseline period to provide more rigorous tests of change. Results show that the onset of the pandemic created an immediate increase in job search behavior (job applications), and this effect endured into the postonset period. Job type moderated these trends, such that the onset and postonset applications were substantially greater for work-from-home jobs (which followed a negatively accelerated curve) compared to face-to-face jobs. These findings advance the job search literature by introducing event system theory and transition frameworks to better understand how and why events uniquely influence job search behavior over time.
The mind, the heart, and the leader in times of crisis: How and when COVID-19-triggered mortality salience relates to state anxiety, job engagement, and prosocial behavior
Jia Hu, Wei He, & Kong Zhou
Abstract:
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disruptive event devastating to the workplace and the global community. Drawing on terror management theory, we develop and test a model that explains how COVID-19-triggered mortality salience influences employees’ state anxiety and their responses at and outside work. We conducted an experience sampling method study using employees from an information technology firm in China when COVID-19 was surging there and two experiments using employees from a variety of industries in the United States when it became a new epicenter of the global outbreak. Results from 3 studies largely supported our theoretical hypotheses. Specifically, our research showed that mortality salience concerning COVID-19 was positively related to employees’ state anxiety (general anxiety in Study 1 and Study 2 and death-specific anxiety in Study 3). Our studies also found that servant leadership is particularly crucial in guiding employees with state anxiety associated with COVID-19 mortality salience to be engaged in their jobs and to contribute more to the broader community. Our findings offer timely, valuable implications for theory and practice.
Jia Hu, Wei He, & Kong Zhou
Abstract:
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a disruptive event devastating to the workplace and the global community. Drawing on terror management theory, we develop and test a model that explains how COVID-19-triggered mortality salience influences employees’ state anxiety and their responses at and outside work. We conducted an experience sampling method study using employees from an information technology firm in China when COVID-19 was surging there and two experiments using employees from a variety of industries in the United States when it became a new epicenter of the global outbreak. Results from 3 studies largely supported our theoretical hypotheses. Specifically, our research showed that mortality salience concerning COVID-19 was positively related to employees’ state anxiety (general anxiety in Study 1 and Study 2 and death-specific anxiety in Study 3). Our studies also found that servant leadership is particularly crucial in guiding employees with state anxiety associated with COVID-19 mortality salience to be engaged in their jobs and to contribute more to the broader community. Our findings offer timely, valuable implications for theory and practice.
Economic stressors and the enactment of CDC-recommended COVID-19 prevention behaviors: The impact of state-level context
Tahira M. Probst, Hyun Jung Lee, & Andrea Bazzoli
Abstract:
In order to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a list of recommended preventative health behaviors for Americans to enact, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and limiting nonessential trips from home. Drawing upon scarcity theory, the purpose of this study was to examine whether the economic stressors of perceived job insecurity and perceived financial insecurity are related to employee self-reports of enacting such behaviors. Moreover, we tested propositions regarding the impact of two state-level contextual variables that may moderate those relationships: the generosity of unemployment insurance benefits and extensiveness of statewide COVID-19-related restrictions. Using a multilevel data set of N = 745 currently employed U.S. workers nested within 43 states, we found that both job insecurity and financial insecurity were negatively related to the enactment of the CDC-recommended guidelines. However, the state-level variables acted as cross-level moderators, such that the negative relationship between job insecurity and compliance with the CDC guidelines was attenuated within states that have a more robust unemployment system. However, working in a state with more extensive COVID-19 restrictions seemed to primarily benefit more financially secure workers. When statewide policies were more restrictive, employees reporting more financial security were more likely to enact the CDC-recommended guidelines compared to their financially insecure counterparts. We discuss these findings in light of the continuing need to develop policies to address the public health crisis while also protecting employees facing economic stressors.
Tahira M. Probst, Hyun Jung Lee, & Andrea Bazzoli
Abstract:
In order to combat the spread of the novel coronavirus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed a list of recommended preventative health behaviors for Americans to enact, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and limiting nonessential trips from home. Drawing upon scarcity theory, the purpose of this study was to examine whether the economic stressors of perceived job insecurity and perceived financial insecurity are related to employee self-reports of enacting such behaviors. Moreover, we tested propositions regarding the impact of two state-level contextual variables that may moderate those relationships: the generosity of unemployment insurance benefits and extensiveness of statewide COVID-19-related restrictions. Using a multilevel data set of N = 745 currently employed U.S. workers nested within 43 states, we found that both job insecurity and financial insecurity were negatively related to the enactment of the CDC-recommended guidelines. However, the state-level variables acted as cross-level moderators, such that the negative relationship between job insecurity and compliance with the CDC guidelines was attenuated within states that have a more robust unemployment system. However, working in a state with more extensive COVID-19 restrictions seemed to primarily benefit more financially secure workers. When statewide policies were more restrictive, employees reporting more financial security were more likely to enact the CDC-recommended guidelines compared to their financially insecure counterparts. We discuss these findings in light of the continuing need to develop policies to address the public health crisis while also protecting employees facing economic stressors.
Socioeconomic status and well-being during COVID-19: A resource-based examination
Connie R. Wanberg, Borbala Csillag, Richard P. Douglass, Le Zhou, & Michael S. Pollard
Abstract:
The authors assess levels and within-person changes in psychological well-being (i.e., depressive symptoms and life satisfaction) from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic for individuals in the United States, in general and by socioeconomic status (SES). The data is from 2 surveys of 1,143 adults from RAND Corporation’s nationally representative American Life Panel, the first administered between April–June, 2019 and the second during the initial peak of the pandemic in the United States in April, 2020. Depressive symptoms during the pandemic were higher than population norms before the pandemic. Depressive symptoms increased from before to during COVID-19 and life satisfaction decreased. Individuals with higher education experienced a greater increase in depressive symptoms and a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 in comparison to those with lower education. Supplemental analysis illustrates that income had a curvilinear relationship with changes in well-being, such that individuals at the highest levels of income experienced a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 than individuals with lower levels of income. We draw on conservation of resources theory and the theory of fundamental social causes to examine four key mechanisms (perceived financial resources, perceived control, interpersonal resources, and COVID-19-related knowledge/news consumption) underlying the relationship between SES and well-being during COVID-19. These resources explained changes in well-being for the sample as a whole but did not provide insight into why individuals of higher education experienced a greater decline in well-being from before to during COVID-19.
Connie R. Wanberg, Borbala Csillag, Richard P. Douglass, Le Zhou, & Michael S. Pollard
Abstract:
The authors assess levels and within-person changes in psychological well-being (i.e., depressive symptoms and life satisfaction) from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic for individuals in the United States, in general and by socioeconomic status (SES). The data is from 2 surveys of 1,143 adults from RAND Corporation’s nationally representative American Life Panel, the first administered between April–June, 2019 and the second during the initial peak of the pandemic in the United States in April, 2020. Depressive symptoms during the pandemic were higher than population norms before the pandemic. Depressive symptoms increased from before to during COVID-19 and life satisfaction decreased. Individuals with higher education experienced a greater increase in depressive symptoms and a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 in comparison to those with lower education. Supplemental analysis illustrates that income had a curvilinear relationship with changes in well-being, such that individuals at the highest levels of income experienced a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 than individuals with lower levels of income. We draw on conservation of resources theory and the theory of fundamental social causes to examine four key mechanisms (perceived financial resources, perceived control, interpersonal resources, and COVID-19-related knowledge/news consumption) underlying the relationship between SES and well-being during COVID-19. These resources explained changes in well-being for the sample as a whole but did not provide insight into why individuals of higher education experienced a greater decline in well-being from before to during COVID-19.
Work-family strategies during COVID-19: Examining gender dynamics among dual-earner couples with young children
Kristen M. Shockley, Malissa A. Clark, Hope Dodd, & Eden B. King
Abstract:
There are several existing typologies of dual-earner couples focused on how they dually manage work and family; however, these all assume that couples can outsource childcare during normal work hours and that work is largely conducted outside of the home. Early attempts to control COVID-19 altered these assumptions with daycares/schools closing and the heavy shift to remote work. This calls into question whether couples tended to fall back on familiar gendered patterns to manage work and family, or if they adopted new strategies for the unique pandemic situation. We addressed this question using a sample of 274 dual-earner couples with young children. We content coded couples’ qualitative responses about their plans for managing childcare and work commitments and used these codes in a latent class analysis to identify subgroups. Seven classes were identified, with 36.6% of the sample using strategies where women did most or all childcare, 18.9% of the sample using strategies that were not clearly gendered or egalitarian, and 44.5% of the sample using unique egalitarian strategies. We also obtained data from 133 of these couples approximately 7 weeks later regarding their well-being and job performance. Results suggested that women in the Remote Wife Does It All class had the lowest well-being and performance. There were nuanced differences between the egalitarian strategies in their relationships with outcomes, with the Alternating Days egalitarian category emerging as the overall strategy that best preserved wives’ and husbands’ well-being while allowing both to maintain adequate job performance.
Kristen M. Shockley, Malissa A. Clark, Hope Dodd, & Eden B. King
Abstract:
There are several existing typologies of dual-earner couples focused on how they dually manage work and family; however, these all assume that couples can outsource childcare during normal work hours and that work is largely conducted outside of the home. Early attempts to control COVID-19 altered these assumptions with daycares/schools closing and the heavy shift to remote work. This calls into question whether couples tended to fall back on familiar gendered patterns to manage work and family, or if they adopted new strategies for the unique pandemic situation. We addressed this question using a sample of 274 dual-earner couples with young children. We content coded couples’ qualitative responses about their plans for managing childcare and work commitments and used these codes in a latent class analysis to identify subgroups. Seven classes were identified, with 36.6% of the sample using strategies where women did most or all childcare, 18.9% of the sample using strategies that were not clearly gendered or egalitarian, and 44.5% of the sample using unique egalitarian strategies. We also obtained data from 133 of these couples approximately 7 weeks later regarding their well-being and job performance. Results suggested that women in the Remote Wife Does It All class had the lowest well-being and performance. There were nuanced differences between the egalitarian strategies in their relationships with outcomes, with the Alternating Days egalitarian category emerging as the overall strategy that best preserved wives’ and husbands’ well-being while allowing both to maintain adequate job performance.