Pub Date : 2023-10-17DOI: 10.1027/2512-8442/a000137
Lena Hahn, Eva Walther
Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed life around the world. To fight the pandemic, preventive measures were implemented. Despite being accepted by a majority of citizens in Germany, these measures elicited fierce protest from others. It seems that people either like or dislike them. Given the immense complexity of the topic, it is also likely that people hold ambivalent attitudes (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative). Aims: The purpose of this study is to explore ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures in vaccinated and unvaccinated German citizens. Method: Vaccinated ( N = 136) and unvaccinated ( N = 170) participants indicated their positivity, negativity and experienced ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures (e.g., mask mandatory). Results: The structure of positive and negative evaluations (i.e., objective ambivalence) indicates that unvaccinated people are more univalent (negative) and vaccinated people are neutral toward the preventive measures. Interestingly, results indicate a dissociation between objective ambivalence and experienced ambivalence. Limitation: The results are limited by the measurement choice, data collection time, and sample. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the experienced ambivalence increases with increasing personal costs. Implications for behavior change interventions and health psychology are discussed.
{"title":"Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens","authors":"Lena Hahn, Eva Walther","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000137","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed life around the world. To fight the pandemic, preventive measures were implemented. Despite being accepted by a majority of citizens in Germany, these measures elicited fierce protest from others. It seems that people either like or dislike them. Given the immense complexity of the topic, it is also likely that people hold ambivalent attitudes (i.e., simultaneously positive and negative). Aims: The purpose of this study is to explore ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures in vaccinated and unvaccinated German citizens. Method: Vaccinated ( N = 136) and unvaccinated ( N = 170) participants indicated their positivity, negativity and experienced ambivalence toward the (non-)implementation of preventive measures (e.g., mask mandatory). Results: The structure of positive and negative evaluations (i.e., objective ambivalence) indicates that unvaccinated people are more univalent (negative) and vaccinated people are neutral toward the preventive measures. Interestingly, results indicate a dissociation between objective ambivalence and experienced ambivalence. Limitation: The results are limited by the measurement choice, data collection time, and sample. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the experienced ambivalence increases with increasing personal costs. Implications for behavior change interventions and health psychology are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136033505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-10-01DOI: 10.1027/2512-8442/a000136
Elena Gallitto, Craig Leth-Steensen
Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 virus is a worldwide pandemic health emergency. Although preventative measures have been put in place in an attempt to control its spread, their implementation has been met with resistance. Aims: To verify the nature of the health belief and personality factors associated with favorable attitudes toward face-mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Methods: A sample of N = 680 completed an online survey that included attitudes toward wearing face masks, measures of both malevolent (Machiavellianism, grandiose narcissism, and psychopathy) and benevolent (socially responsible) personality traits, along with a set of health beliefs surrounding COVID-19 (perceived severity and susceptibility, etc.) and the use of face masks (perceived benefits and barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy). Results: Lower perceived susceptibility, lower perceived benefits, and higher perceived barriers to face-mask use, being more motivated by cues to action, being female, and lower levels of grandiose narcissism were uniquely related to more favorable attitudes toward wearing face masks. The relation between socially responsible personality and mask-wearing attitudes was moderated by perceived severity. Namely, higher levels of socially responsible personality predicted more favorable attitudes but only when perceived severity was also high (with the reverse being evident for those who perceived the severity as being low). Limitations: The data relies on self-reports obtained cross-sectionally from a sample of university students. Conclusions: This study sheds light on the link between pro-mask attitudes and both benevolent/malevolent personality traits and the social-contextual factors related to the enactment of preventative health behaviors.
{"title":"Personality Factors and Health Beliefs Related to Attitudes Toward Wearing Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Elena Gallitto, Craig Leth-Steensen","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000136","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Background: The COVID-19 virus is a worldwide pandemic health emergency. Although preventative measures have been put in place in an attempt to control its spread, their implementation has been met with resistance. Aims: To verify the nature of the health belief and personality factors associated with favorable attitudes toward face-mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Methods: A sample of N = 680 completed an online survey that included attitudes toward wearing face masks, measures of both malevolent (Machiavellianism, grandiose narcissism, and psychopathy) and benevolent (socially responsible) personality traits, along with a set of health beliefs surrounding COVID-19 (perceived severity and susceptibility, etc.) and the use of face masks (perceived benefits and barriers, cues to action, and self-efficacy). Results: Lower perceived susceptibility, lower perceived benefits, and higher perceived barriers to face-mask use, being more motivated by cues to action, being female, and lower levels of grandiose narcissism were uniquely related to more favorable attitudes toward wearing face masks. The relation between socially responsible personality and mask-wearing attitudes was moderated by perceived severity. Namely, higher levels of socially responsible personality predicted more favorable attitudes but only when perceived severity was also high (with the reverse being evident for those who perceived the severity as being low). Limitations: The data relies on self-reports obtained cross-sectionally from a sample of university students. Conclusions: This study sheds light on the link between pro-mask attitudes and both benevolent/malevolent personality traits and the social-contextual factors related to the enactment of preventative health behaviors.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135324814","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-07-20DOI: 10.1027/2512-8442/a000134
Lisa Felgendreff, Frank Renkewitz, C. Betsch
Abstract: Background: A fact box is a promising tool for benefit-risk communication. This compact table summarizes the benefits and harms of a health-related intervention and compares the intervention to a control group. Although previous research has demonstrated that fact boxes are well understood, little is known about how they affect risk perceptions. Risk perception is particularly relevant to vaccination behavior. Aims: Two experiments investigated how different profiles of vaccine benefits and harms influence risk perceptions and the intention to vaccinate. Method: In Experiment 1, 430 participants were included in a 4 (benefits [vaccine effectiveness]) × 2 (harms [probability of vaccine adverse events]) between-subjects design. In Experiment 2, 541 participants were included in a 2 (benefits) × 2 (harms) × 2 (comprehension test conducted before or after assessment of risk perceptions) between-subjects design. Measures: Perceived risk of vaccination, intention to vaccinate, comprehension, and, in Experiment 2 only, perceived risk of non-vaccination. Results: Greater benefits decreased the perceived risk of vaccination and increased the intention to vaccinate. More harms increased the perceived risk of vaccination and, in Experiment 2 only, decreased the intention to vaccinate. More benefits increased the perceived risk of non-vaccination. Exploratory analyses showed that the comprehension and position of a comprehension test influenced risk perceptions. Limitations: The experiments used MTurk convenience samples and a fictitious disease. Conclusion: Communicating vaccine profiles in fact boxes affects risk perceptions. Additional measures may cue a deeper elaboration of the vaccine profile.
{"title":"How Communicating Vaccine Benefits and Harms in Fact Boxes Affects Risk Perceptions","authors":"Lisa Felgendreff, Frank Renkewitz, C. Betsch","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000134","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Background: A fact box is a promising tool for benefit-risk communication. This compact table summarizes the benefits and harms of a health-related intervention and compares the intervention to a control group. Although previous research has demonstrated that fact boxes are well understood, little is known about how they affect risk perceptions. Risk perception is particularly relevant to vaccination behavior. Aims: Two experiments investigated how different profiles of vaccine benefits and harms influence risk perceptions and the intention to vaccinate. Method: In Experiment 1, 430 participants were included in a 4 (benefits [vaccine effectiveness]) × 2 (harms [probability of vaccine adverse events]) between-subjects design. In Experiment 2, 541 participants were included in a 2 (benefits) × 2 (harms) × 2 (comprehension test conducted before or after assessment of risk perceptions) between-subjects design. Measures: Perceived risk of vaccination, intention to vaccinate, comprehension, and, in Experiment 2 only, perceived risk of non-vaccination. Results: Greater benefits decreased the perceived risk of vaccination and increased the intention to vaccinate. More harms increased the perceived risk of vaccination and, in Experiment 2 only, decreased the intention to vaccinate. More benefits increased the perceived risk of non-vaccination. Exploratory analyses showed that the comprehension and position of a comprehension test influenced risk perceptions. Limitations: The experiments used MTurk convenience samples and a fictitious disease. Conclusion: Communicating vaccine profiles in fact boxes affects risk perceptions. Additional measures may cue a deeper elaboration of the vaccine profile.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"74 2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80976190","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-07DOI: 10.1027/2512-8442/a000133
L. Uhlmann, J. Wegge
Abstract: Background: Being a member of multiple social groups (multiple group membership, MGM) has beneficial effects on several health outcomes as stated by the social identity theory. MGM can also buffer the negative influences of life-altering events on well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic can be characterized as such an event. Aims: The present study investigated whether MGM is associated with better well-being for older people during the pandemic and if it has a buffer effect on the relationship between pandemic-induced fear and well-being. Method: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a representative sample ( N = 2,062) of citizens of Dresden, Germany aged 60 or older during the COVID-19 pandemic. MGM was operationalized in two different ways: as a self-assessment of the number of different social groups participants considered themselves a member of and as the number of formal groups people participated in, such as sports groups, clubs, or religious groups. Results: It was found, as expected, for both indicators that people who were members of multiple social groups reported better well-being than people with just one group membership. Participants with no group memberships had the lowest psychological well-being. MGM did, however, not buffer the negative impact of the pandemic-induced fear on well-being. Limitations: Limitations are based on our measurement methods (cross-sectional design and self-reported data). Conclusion: MGM is an important resource for older people even during a pandemic. Potential limitations of the social cure imposed by social distancing rules are discussed and related suggestions for practice are presented.
摘要:背景:社会认同理论指出，作为多个社会群体(multiple group membership, MGM)的成员对多种健康结果有有益影响。米高梅还可以缓冲改变生活的事件对幸福感的负面影响。COVID-19大流行可以被描述为这样一个事件。目的:本研究调查了MGM是否与大流行期间老年人更好的幸福感有关，以及它是否对大流行引起的恐惧与幸福感之间的关系具有缓冲作用。方法:对2019冠状病毒病大流行期间德国德累斯顿60岁及以上市民进行代表性样本(N = 2062)的横断面调查。MGM以两种不同的方式运作:作为参与者认为自己是不同社会群体成员的数量的自我评估，以及作为人们参与的正式群体的数量，如体育团体、俱乐部或宗教团体。结果:正如预期的那样，在这两项指标中，属于多个社会群体的人比只属于一个群体的人报告的幸福感更好。没有小组成员的参与者心理幸福感最低。然而，米高梅并没有缓解流行病引发的恐惧对福祉的负面影响。局限性:局限性是基于我们的测量方法(横断面设计和自我报告的数据)。结论:即使在大流行期间，米高梅也是老年人的重要资源。讨论了社会距离规则施加的社会治疗的潜在局限性，并提出了相关的实践建议。
{"title":"A Social Cure in Times of Pandemic Distancing","authors":"L. Uhlmann, J. Wegge","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000133","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000133","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Background: Being a member of multiple social groups (multiple group membership, MGM) has beneficial effects on several health outcomes as stated by the social identity theory. MGM can also buffer the negative influences of life-altering events on well-being. The COVID-19 pandemic can be characterized as such an event. Aims: The present study investigated whether MGM is associated with better well-being for older people during the pandemic and if it has a buffer effect on the relationship between pandemic-induced fear and well-being. Method: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a representative sample ( N = 2,062) of citizens of Dresden, Germany aged 60 or older during the COVID-19 pandemic. MGM was operationalized in two different ways: as a self-assessment of the number of different social groups participants considered themselves a member of and as the number of formal groups people participated in, such as sports groups, clubs, or religious groups. Results: It was found, as expected, for both indicators that people who were members of multiple social groups reported better well-being than people with just one group membership. Participants with no group memberships had the lowest psychological well-being. MGM did, however, not buffer the negative impact of the pandemic-induced fear on well-being. Limitations: Limitations are based on our measurement methods (cross-sectional design and self-reported data). Conclusion: MGM is an important resource for older people even during a pandemic. Potential limitations of the social cure imposed by social distancing rules are discussed and related suggestions for practice are presented.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88733076","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-04-21DOI: 10.1027/2512-8442/a000131
Katja Heyduck-Weides, J. Bengel, E. Farin, M. Glattacker
Abstract: Background: Validated English language measures for dyadic assessment and analyses of family asthma management are still rare and no such measure is available in the German Language so far. Aim: The aim of our study was the development and psychometric evaluation of a dyadic questionnaire allowing consideration of both adolescent and caregiver perceptions about responsibility sharing and collaboration in family asthma management. Method: The Dyadic Asthma Management Questionnaire (DAMQ) was developed with a combined theory-driven and empirical approach. For psychometric evaluation, structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and readability was tested in a sample of N = 150 adolescents with asthma and their primary caregivers ( N = 125). Analyses included a dyadic methodology and examination of measurement invariance across different age groups. Results: The DAMQ was generated as a two-part measure assessing (1) responsibility sharing and (2) collaboration in adolescent-caregiver asthma management. For both parts of the DAMQ and both adolescent and caregiver versions, a coherent factor structure with interpretable subscales and good psychometric properties (e.g., Cronbach’s α, ω, and glb > 70 for all scales) could be confirmed. Indices for older adolescents (≥ 14 years) proved to be better than those for younger adolescents (< 14 years). Limitations: Limitations concerning sampling, chosen factor analytic procedures, and the need for further research are discussed. Conclusion: The DAMQ has the potential to serve as a useful clinical tool to identify and compare adolescents’ and caregivers’ perspectives on asthma management, providing a potential starting point for targeted clinical interventions.
{"title":"The Dyadic Asthma Management Questionnaire for Adolescents and Their Caregivers","authors":"Katja Heyduck-Weides, J. Bengel, E. Farin, M. Glattacker","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000131","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000131","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Background: Validated English language measures for dyadic assessment and analyses of family asthma management are still rare and no such measure is available in the German Language so far. Aim: The aim of our study was the development and psychometric evaluation of a dyadic questionnaire allowing consideration of both adolescent and caregiver perceptions about responsibility sharing and collaboration in family asthma management. Method: The Dyadic Asthma Management Questionnaire (DAMQ) was developed with a combined theory-driven and empirical approach. For psychometric evaluation, structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, and readability was tested in a sample of N = 150 adolescents with asthma and their primary caregivers ( N = 125). Analyses included a dyadic methodology and examination of measurement invariance across different age groups. Results: The DAMQ was generated as a two-part measure assessing (1) responsibility sharing and (2) collaboration in adolescent-caregiver asthma management. For both parts of the DAMQ and both adolescent and caregiver versions, a coherent factor structure with interpretable subscales and good psychometric properties (e.g., Cronbach’s α, ω, and glb > 70 for all scales) could be confirmed. Indices for older adolescents (≥ 14 years) proved to be better than those for younger adolescents (< 14 years). Limitations: Limitations concerning sampling, chosen factor analytic procedures, and the need for further research are discussed. Conclusion: The DAMQ has the potential to serve as a useful clinical tool to identify and compare adolescents’ and caregivers’ perspectives on asthma management, providing a potential starting point for targeted clinical interventions.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87019876","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-03-29DOI: 10.1027/2512-8442/a000128
Katharina Loibnegger-Traußnig, A. Schwerdtfeger, F. Flaggl
Abstract: Background: Evidence for behavioral weight loss interventions demonstrates promising effects, but stress management training for weight loss and stress reduction in patients with lymphedema and obesity during rehabilitation has not been investigated yet. Aim: This study aims to examine innovative psychological treatment options for weight loss and stress management through a multifaceted approach in patients with lymphedema and obesity. Method: Seventy-one patients with lymphedema and obesity participating in an existing rehabilitation took part in this clinical trial. Half of them ( n = 36) were allocated to an additional stress management intervention. At the beginning of rehabilitation and the end (after 3 weeks; n = 66) participants’ weight, physical fitness, heart rate variability (HRV), and perceived stress were assessed. After around 8 months ( n = 28) chronic and perceived stress were evaluated again. Results: Irrespective of group allocation, rehabilitation had a positive, but short-term effect on perceived stress ( d = 0.60). Although patients receiving the additional stress management training did neither show a decrease in perceived stress nor an increase of HRV from pre- to post-assessment, they lost more weight and improved physical fitness at post-assessment as compared to the control group. Limitations: A stress-reducing effect of the training was not found, thus questioning the underlying mechanism of the applied intervention. Conclusions: Findings suggest a clinically relevant impact of psychological interventions in patients with lymphedema and a promising pathway for further research.
{"title":"Effects of a Stress Management Training in Patients With Lymphedema and Obesity During Rehabilitation","authors":"Katharina Loibnegger-Traußnig, A. Schwerdtfeger, F. Flaggl","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000128","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Background: Evidence for behavioral weight loss interventions demonstrates promising effects, but stress management training for weight loss and stress reduction in patients with lymphedema and obesity during rehabilitation has not been investigated yet. Aim: This study aims to examine innovative psychological treatment options for weight loss and stress management through a multifaceted approach in patients with lymphedema and obesity. Method: Seventy-one patients with lymphedema and obesity participating in an existing rehabilitation took part in this clinical trial. Half of them ( n = 36) were allocated to an additional stress management intervention. At the beginning of rehabilitation and the end (after 3 weeks; n = 66) participants’ weight, physical fitness, heart rate variability (HRV), and perceived stress were assessed. After around 8 months ( n = 28) chronic and perceived stress were evaluated again. Results: Irrespective of group allocation, rehabilitation had a positive, but short-term effect on perceived stress ( d = 0.60). Although patients receiving the additional stress management training did neither show a decrease in perceived stress nor an increase of HRV from pre- to post-assessment, they lost more weight and improved physical fitness at post-assessment as compared to the control group. Limitations: A stress-reducing effect of the training was not found, thus questioning the underlying mechanism of the applied intervention. Conclusions: Findings suggest a clinically relevant impact of psychological interventions in patients with lymphedema and a promising pathway for further research.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1,"publicationDate":"2023-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79806854","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：