Abstract Disclosing personal feelings could reduce stress during a difficult time, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic. The current study examined the linear and curvilinear relationships between willingness to self‐disclose to a romantic partner and COVID stress. Participants completed questionnaires online regarding willingness to self‐disclose, COVID stress, relationship factors, and self‐esteem. Results showed a marginally significant inverted U‐shaped curvilinear relationship between willingness to self‐disclose and COVID stress, suggesting the trend that individuals who were willing to self‐disclose at a low or high level had lower COVID stress compared to individuals who were willing to self‐disclose at a medium level. This relationship was mediated by commitment and self‐esteem. Future research could examine the impact of self‐disclosure on COVID stress using an experimental or longitudinal design.
{"title":"Willingness to self‐disclose in romantic relationships only marginally predicts COVID stress but there are indirect effects of self‐esteem and relationship commitment","authors":"Lijing Ma, Eddie M. Clark","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12888","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12888","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Disclosing personal feelings could reduce stress during a difficult time, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic. The current study examined the linear and curvilinear relationships between willingness to self‐disclose to a romantic partner and COVID stress. Participants completed questionnaires online regarding willingness to self‐disclose, COVID stress, relationship factors, and self‐esteem. Results showed a marginally significant inverted U‐shaped curvilinear relationship between willingness to self‐disclose and COVID stress, suggesting the trend that individuals who were willing to self‐disclose at a low or high level had lower COVID stress compared to individuals who were willing to self‐disclose at a medium level. This relationship was mediated by commitment and self‐esteem. Future research could examine the impact of self‐disclosure on COVID stress using an experimental or longitudinal design.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135938559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract In the US, higher conservatism has consistently been linked to lower receptiveness toward COVID‐19 safety precautions. The present studies extended these findings by examining how specific dimensions of conservatism contributed to this relationship. Three studies (total N = 1123) found that conservatives with higher Libertarian Independent attitudes reported less support for and participation in COVID‐19 safety precautions. These effects remained robust after controlling for demographics, general political orientation, COVID‐19 threat perception, and personality. These findings offer nuanced insight into how those with different conservative ideologies responded to COVID‐19 safety precautions.
{"title":"Libertarian independent ideologies predict lower support for and participation in COVID‐19 safety precautions among Americans","authors":"Elise Coberly, Xiaowen Xu","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12886","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12886","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In the US, higher conservatism has consistently been linked to lower receptiveness toward COVID‐19 safety precautions. The present studies extended these findings by examining how specific dimensions of conservatism contributed to this relationship. Three studies (total N = 1123) found that conservatives with higher Libertarian Independent attitudes reported less support for and participation in COVID‐19 safety precautions. These effects remained robust after controlling for demographics, general political orientation, COVID‐19 threat perception, and personality. These findings offer nuanced insight into how those with different conservative ideologies responded to COVID‐19 safety precautions.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"47 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136192526","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Satisfying romantic relationships offer numerous social and health benefits, making it critical to understand the trajectory of relationship satisfaction. In recent years, research has begun to examine the role of automatic processes in relationship contexts. In particular, a growing number of studies have incorporated indirect (implicit) measures developed by socio‐cognitive researchers to capture people's automatic partner attitudes—the spontaneous affective reactions toward their partner that people may at times be unable to access or unwilling to self‐report in more direct (explicit) measures like questionnaires. In this paper, we review work illustrating how automatic partner attitudes can help explain, predict, and promote both the functioning and the well‐being of romantic couples. That is, we integrate theoretical perspectives on interdependence, attachment, and attitudes to discuss empirical evidence relative to why automatic partner attitudes differ from self‐reported judgments of relationship satisfaction, how such attitudes form in the context of real‐world relationship experiences, and under which conditions they affect dyadic interactions in everyday life. Further, we identify important questions that remain unanswered and provide recommendations that may benefit future work on couples and beyond.
{"title":"Automatic partner attitudes: Sources, implications, and future directions","authors":"Ruddy Faure, James K. McNulty, Johan C. Karremans","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12887","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12887","url":null,"abstract":"Satisfying romantic relationships offer numerous social and health benefits, making it critical to understand the trajectory of relationship satisfaction. In recent years, research has begun to examine the role of automatic processes in relationship contexts. In particular, a growing number of studies have incorporated indirect (implicit) measures developed by socio‐cognitive researchers to capture people's automatic partner attitudes—the spontaneous affective reactions toward their partner that people may at times be unable to access or unwilling to self‐report in more direct (explicit) measures like questionnaires. In this paper, we review work illustrating how automatic partner attitudes can help explain, predict, and promote both the functioning and the well‐being of romantic couples. That is, we integrate theoretical perspectives on interdependence, attachment, and attitudes to discuss empirical evidence relative to why automatic partner attitudes differ from self‐reported judgments of relationship satisfaction, how such attitudes form in the context of real‐world relationship experiences, and under which conditions they affect dyadic interactions in everyday life. Further, we identify important questions that remain unanswered and provide recommendations that may benefit future work on couples and beyond.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86121931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
As the number of single (unpartnered) individuals continues to rise, researchers across various disciplines have started to pay more attention to single individuals' lives. Yet, compared to the accumulated knowledge about experiences within romantic relationships, there is far less known about various experiences within singlehood. For singlehood research to grow in both quantity and quality, it is essential that research findings are critically evaluated both in terms of robustness of the evidence and validity of the inferences. In this paper, we review three broad approaches researchers have taken to understand singlehood that centered on (a) between‐group status (i.e., single vs. in a relationship) differences, (b) within‐person status differences, and (c) within‐group variability among singles. With a focus on well‐being as an outcome, we illustrate how each approach provides unique insights into singlehood and what caveats there are in interpreting results derived from each approach. Finally, we identify questions or methods that have not been extensively explored within each approach and offer suggestions for future research directions.
{"title":"Three methodological approaches to studying singlehood","authors":"Yoobin Park, Yuthika U. Girme, Geoff MacDonald","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12884","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12884","url":null,"abstract":"As the number of single (unpartnered) individuals continues to rise, researchers across various disciplines have started to pay more attention to single individuals' lives. Yet, compared to the accumulated knowledge about experiences within romantic relationships, there is far less known about various experiences within singlehood. For singlehood research to grow in both quantity and quality, it is essential that research findings are critically evaluated both in terms of robustness of the evidence and validity of the inferences. In this paper, we review three broad approaches researchers have taken to understand singlehood that centered on (a) between‐group status (i.e., single vs. in a relationship) differences, (b) within‐person status differences, and (c) within‐group variability among singles. With a focus on well‐being as an outcome, we illustrate how each approach provides unique insights into singlehood and what caveats there are in interpreting results derived from each approach. Finally, we identify questions or methods that have not been extensively explored within each approach and offer suggestions for future research directions.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76153509","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Using a novel approach, in this work, we establish an association between self‐reported compliance with COVID‐19 preventive behaviors and fear of the virus with morbidity rates (i.e., actual tests and their outcome). In two nationally representative samples that were collected in Israel during the first (April 2020: N = 507) and second (August 2020: N = 515) waves of the COVID‐19 pandemic, participants responded to items assessing their compliance with the COVID‐19 preventive behaviors and their fear of contracting the virus. Participants' compliance and fear self‐reports served as a proxy for morbidity rates. Specifically, we assessed the association between sociodemographic variables (gender, age, or belonging to a minority group), self‐reports, and morbidity rates (as reported in publicly open databases of the Israeli health ministry). We found that self‐reports of compliance and fear were mirrored and aligned with actual morbidity rates across sociodemographic variables and studies. By establishing a clear connection between specific behavior (i.e., compliance with covid regulations) and emotion (i.e., fear of getting infected by the virus), self‐reports and sociodemographic variables represent a real related phenomena (i.e., covid 19 morbidity rates), our findings overall validate numerous studies that used self‐reports to assess compliance with COVID‐19 preventive behaviors.
{"title":"Validating self‐reported compliance with COVID‐19 regulations: Demonstrating group‐level sociodemographic self‐reported compliance that mirrors actual morbidity rates","authors":"Jonathan Slater, Maayan Katzir, E. Halali","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12855","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12855","url":null,"abstract":"Using a novel approach, in this work, we establish an association between self‐reported compliance with COVID‐19 preventive behaviors and fear of the virus with morbidity rates (i.e., actual tests and their outcome). In two nationally representative samples that were collected in Israel during the first (April 2020: N = 507) and second (August 2020: N = 515) waves of the COVID‐19 pandemic, participants responded to items assessing their compliance with the COVID‐19 preventive behaviors and their fear of contracting the virus. Participants' compliance and fear self‐reports served as a proxy for morbidity rates. Specifically, we assessed the association between sociodemographic variables (gender, age, or belonging to a minority group), self‐reports, and morbidity rates (as reported in publicly open databases of the Israeli health ministry). We found that self‐reports of compliance and fear were mirrored and aligned with actual morbidity rates across sociodemographic variables and studies. By establishing a clear connection between specific behavior (i.e., compliance with covid regulations) and emotion (i.e., fear of getting infected by the virus), self‐reports and sociodemographic variables represent a real related phenomena (i.e., covid 19 morbidity rates), our findings overall validate numerous studies that used self‐reports to assess compliance with COVID‐19 preventive behaviors.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73832709","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Because personal health decisions can impact the health of the broader community, researchers have increasingly sought to understand the psychological bases for different responses to public health communications and prescriptions. We contribute to this literature in two ways. First, we analyze the relationship between Big Five personality traits and three critical beliefs and behaviors in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. These are vaccine hesitancy, engagement in risky (vs. self‐protective) pandemic social behaviors, and conspiratorial beliefs surrounding the origins, consequences, and public health response to COVID‐19. Second, we draw on theory from political psychology to model the joint effects of personality and ideology. Our analysis of two American samples (MTurk = 510; Representative = 441) indicated that political liberalism mediated the relationship between Openness and COVID‐related attitudes and behaviors.
{"title":"Big five personality and COVID‐19 beliefs, behaviors, and vaccine intentions: The mediating role of political ideology","authors":"Adam R. Panish, Steven G. Ludeke, J. Vitriol","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12885","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12885","url":null,"abstract":"Because personal health decisions can impact the health of the broader community, researchers have increasingly sought to understand the psychological bases for different responses to public health communications and prescriptions. We contribute to this literature in two ways. First, we analyze the relationship between Big Five personality traits and three critical beliefs and behaviors in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. These are vaccine hesitancy, engagement in risky (vs. self‐protective) pandemic social behaviors, and conspiratorial beliefs surrounding the origins, consequences, and public health response to COVID‐19. Second, we draw on theory from political psychology to model the joint effects of personality and ideology. Our analysis of two American samples (MTurk = 510; Representative = 441) indicated that political liberalism mediated the relationship between Openness and COVID‐related attitudes and behaviors.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72601991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
During the COVID‐19 pandemic people had to gauge their personal health risks in order to decide which protective behaviors to adopt. We explored whether mortality risk perceptions varied by demographic background. Using data from a nationally representative U.S. survey, we analyzed bi‐weekly mortality estimates of 8339 individuals from 1 April 2020 to 21 July 2021. Consistent with a White Male Effect, White men estimated the risk of death to be lower than White women, non‐White men, and non‐White women. Furthermore, when linking those estimates to the actual risk of dying from COVID‐19, as reflected in official fatality rates recorded by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), White men were indeed less likely to die from the coronavirus than would be expected based on their proportion of the populations. In contrast, deaths in non‐White men and non‐White women were higher than would be expected. Thus, subjective risk perceptions tracked objective mortality risks. Because White men tend to disproportionally hold positions with high decision‐making power, although biased risk estimates may be less likely to have negative consequences for themselves, they may be especially detrimental to those for whom such decisions are made.
{"title":"The ‘White Male Effect’ in perceptions of risk of dying from COVID‐19","authors":"Ekim Luo, Simone Schnall","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12877","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12877","url":null,"abstract":"During the COVID‐19 pandemic people had to gauge their personal health risks in order to decide which protective behaviors to adopt. We explored whether mortality risk perceptions varied by demographic background. Using data from a nationally representative U.S. survey, we analyzed bi‐weekly mortality estimates of 8339 individuals from 1 April 2020 to 21 July 2021. Consistent with a White Male Effect, White men estimated the risk of death to be lower than White women, non‐White men, and non‐White women. Furthermore, when linking those estimates to the actual risk of dying from COVID‐19, as reflected in official fatality rates recorded by the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), White men were indeed less likely to die from the coronavirus than would be expected based on their proportion of the populations. In contrast, deaths in non‐White men and non‐White women were higher than would be expected. Thus, subjective risk perceptions tracked objective mortality risks. Because White men tend to disproportionally hold positions with high decision‐making power, although biased risk estimates may be less likely to have negative consequences for themselves, they may be especially detrimental to those for whom such decisions are made.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"54 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77901997","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Economic inequality is one of the defining challenges of our era. Social science research links higher levels of economic inequality to a range of undesirable outcomes, including more crime, social anomie, and ill health. Social psychological research is at the forefront of investigating how economic inequality shapes the human mind and behavior, but it has mostly focused on explaining how economic inequality at the societal level causes individual level manifestations. In this review, we reconceptualize economic inequality as a dynamic system, and we adopt a socioecological perspective to explain how economic inequality and psychological tendencies mutually constitute each other. First, we show how the psychological experience of economic inequality is afforded by social and physical environments that people interact with. Next, we show that through mechanisms such as norm formation, individuals and institutions can maintain or change economic inequality. Our socioecological perspective highlights the self‐reinforcing cycle of economic inequality and individual behavior, and it discusses to what extent lived experiences and psychological manifestations of economic inequality may differ across economic strata. We end by discussing the implications of our model for the research agenda in the social psychology of economic inequality.
{"title":"The dynamic socioecological model of economic inequality and psychological tendencies: A cycle of mutual constitution","authors":"Matthias S. Gobel, Héctor Carvacho","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12875","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12875","url":null,"abstract":"Economic inequality is one of the defining challenges of our era. Social science research links higher levels of economic inequality to a range of undesirable outcomes, including more crime, social anomie, and ill health. Social psychological research is at the forefront of investigating how economic inequality shapes the human mind and behavior, but it has mostly focused on explaining how economic inequality at the societal level causes individual level manifestations. In this review, we reconceptualize economic inequality as a dynamic system, and we adopt a socioecological perspective to explain how economic inequality and psychological tendencies mutually constitute each other. First, we show how the psychological experience of economic inequality is afforded by social and physical environments that people interact with. Next, we show that through mechanisms such as norm formation, individuals and institutions can maintain or change economic inequality. Our socioecological perspective highlights the self‐reinforcing cycle of economic inequality and individual behavior, and it discusses to what extent lived experiences and psychological manifestations of economic inequality may differ across economic strata. We end by discussing the implications of our model for the research agenda in the social psychology of economic inequality.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78602234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The COVID‐19 pandemic has led to a worldwide increase in the use of face masks to prevent viral transmission. However, as mask‐wearing was a new behavior in many countries, there was a limited understanding of how mask‐wearers are perceived and how such perceptions impact one's own mask‐wearing behavior. Mask‐wearers may be seen as contagious or prosocial, and these perceptions may vary based on the race of the mask‐wearer and the country of the observer, particularly given the rise in pandemic‐related anti‐Asian rhetoric in the U.S. In three experiments (N = 579), we investigated these questions, conducting two studies in the United States (May and July 2020), where mask‐wearing was new and anti‐Asian rhetoric has been prevalent, and one study in South Korea (November 2020), where mask‐wearing was relatively common. Results indicate that masked individuals are perceived as less contagious and more prosocial, regardless of target race or participant nation. These perceptions were more pronounced among American political liberals, Americans who are more sensitive to infection transmission (Study 2), and Koreans who self‐perceived a greater vulnerability to infection (Study 3). Especially in the U.S., perceiving the masked target as more prosocial predicted more self‐reported mask‐wearing, while perceiving the masked target as more contagious and less prosocial predicted less mask‐wearing (Study 2). These findings provide insights into social perceptions of masks and race during the pandemic.
{"title":"Contagious or prosocial? Perceptions of mask‐wearers toward Whites and Asians: A cross‐cultural comparison during the early stage of the COVID‐19 pandemic","authors":"Ahra Ko, Jarrod E. Bock, Junseok Ko, J. Krems","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12880","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID‐19 pandemic has led to a worldwide increase in the use of face masks to prevent viral transmission. However, as mask‐wearing was a new behavior in many countries, there was a limited understanding of how mask‐wearers are perceived and how such perceptions impact one's own mask‐wearing behavior. Mask‐wearers may be seen as contagious or prosocial, and these perceptions may vary based on the race of the mask‐wearer and the country of the observer, particularly given the rise in pandemic‐related anti‐Asian rhetoric in the U.S. In three experiments (N = 579), we investigated these questions, conducting two studies in the United States (May and July 2020), where mask‐wearing was new and anti‐Asian rhetoric has been prevalent, and one study in South Korea (November 2020), where mask‐wearing was relatively common. Results indicate that masked individuals are perceived as less contagious and more prosocial, regardless of target race or participant nation. These perceptions were more pronounced among American political liberals, Americans who are more sensitive to infection transmission (Study 2), and Koreans who self‐perceived a greater vulnerability to infection (Study 3). Especially in the U.S., perceiving the masked target as more prosocial predicted more self‐reported mask‐wearing, while perceiving the masked target as more contagious and less prosocial predicted less mask‐wearing (Study 2). These findings provide insights into social perceptions of masks and race during the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"21 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81162070","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Quinnehtukqut McLamore, Stylianos Syropoulos, Mengyao Li, Ezra Fabian Mentrup, B. Leidner, K. Young, Wai Lan Victoria Yeung, Tasneem Mohammad, Jennifer Tamkin, Lam Ha Ngyuen, Julia Baracewicz
Emergent research identifies cultural tightness‐looseness as an important factor for understanding cross‐national outcome differences during the coronavirus pandemic. Because perceived tightness‐looseness can be measured as an individual‐level difference rather than a nation‐level difference, and because tightness‐looseness may shift during large‐scale crises, we investigated whether such shifts occurred early in the coronavirus pandemic in both China (a relatively tight nation, n = 3642) and the U.S. (a relatively loose nation, n = 3583) across three cohorts. Tightness increased across cohorts in China and reduced across cohorts in the U.S. These changes transmitted corresponding indirect effects whereby compliance and institutional trust (scientific and government) about the pandemic were increased in China across cohorts, but decreased in the U.S. across cohorts. These patterns extend advice that national governments can increase compliance and trust via “tightening” by cautioning against norm‐setters signaling the reverse (that norms about compliance are loose) given the outcomes observed in the U.S. samples.
{"title":"Tightness shifts in the U.S. and China: Implications of tightening or loosening norms during the coronavirus pandemic","authors":"Quinnehtukqut McLamore, Stylianos Syropoulos, Mengyao Li, Ezra Fabian Mentrup, B. Leidner, K. Young, Wai Lan Victoria Yeung, Tasneem Mohammad, Jennifer Tamkin, Lam Ha Ngyuen, Julia Baracewicz","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12883","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12883","url":null,"abstract":"Emergent research identifies cultural tightness‐looseness as an important factor for understanding cross‐national outcome differences during the coronavirus pandemic. Because perceived tightness‐looseness can be measured as an individual‐level difference rather than a nation‐level difference, and because tightness‐looseness may shift during large‐scale crises, we investigated whether such shifts occurred early in the coronavirus pandemic in both China (a relatively tight nation, n = 3642) and the U.S. (a relatively loose nation, n = 3583) across three cohorts. Tightness increased across cohorts in China and reduced across cohorts in the U.S. These changes transmitted corresponding indirect effects whereby compliance and institutional trust (scientific and government) about the pandemic were increased in China across cohorts, but decreased in the U.S. across cohorts. These patterns extend advice that national governments can increase compliance and trust via “tightening” by cautioning against norm‐setters signaling the reverse (that norms about compliance are loose) given the outcomes observed in the U.S. samples.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87067379","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"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：