Natalie M. Gallagher, Jordan S. Daley, Galen V. Bodenhausen
Abstract We examined whether perceptions of the health and economic threats posed by COVID‐19 predict different patterns of intergroup attitudes, using data gathered during the early phase of the pandemic. Using data from 1339 geographically and politically diverse White US residents, we show that subjective economic threat predicted general anti‐outgroup attitudes, while subjective health threat predicted negative attitudes towards both Asian and Latinx (“stereotypically foreign”) outgroups but not towards other outgroups. Among 303 geographically and politically diverse Black US residents, the pattern instead suggested that threat (regardless of type) was associated with reduced evaluative differentiation between racial ingroups and outgroups.
{"title":"Thinking of threats: Economic threat appraisals and health threat appraisals predict differential racial attitudes during COVID‐19","authors":"Natalie M. Gallagher, Jordan S. Daley, Galen V. Bodenhausen","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12882","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12882","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We examined whether perceptions of the health and economic threats posed by COVID‐19 predict different patterns of intergroup attitudes, using data gathered during the early phase of the pandemic. Using data from 1339 geographically and politically diverse White US residents, we show that subjective economic threat predicted general anti‐outgroup attitudes, while subjective health threat predicted negative attitudes towards both Asian and Latinx (“stereotypically foreign”) outgroups but not towards other outgroups. Among 303 geographically and politically diverse Black US residents, the pattern instead suggested that threat (regardless of type) was associated with reduced evaluative differentiation between racial ingroups and outgroups.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135535334","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 Mask mandates were commonplace around the world during the COVID‐19 pandemic and essential to slowing the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2. However, it is still unclear whether and how masks impact social bonding. Building on past research examining the effects of masking on emotion recognition and social perception, the current research examines the effect of masking on feelings of social connectedness. Three studies (total N = 177) using videotaped introductions of masked and unmasked peers and varied assessments of desire for social connectedness yielded no differences as a function of masking. Although participants reported more difficulty hearing masked (vs. unmasked) peers, masking did not significantly impact other facets of communication or perception related to social bonding. When participants filmed their own introductory videos (Study 3), results showed increased expressivity within the masked (vs. unmasked) conditions, perhaps as a compensatory measure to aid bonding. These findings speak to the resiliency of the human need to belong and belonging‐maintenance processes.
{"title":"Do face masks undermine social connection?","authors":"Megan L. Knowles, Kristy K. Dean","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12889","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12889","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mask mandates were commonplace around the world during the COVID‐19 pandemic and essential to slowing the spread of SARS‐CoV‐2. However, it is still unclear whether and how masks impact social bonding. Building on past research examining the effects of masking on emotion recognition and social perception, the current research examines the effect of masking on feelings of social connectedness. Three studies (total N = 177) using videotaped introductions of masked and unmasked peers and varied assessments of desire for social connectedness yielded no differences as a function of masking. Although participants reported more difficulty hearing masked (vs. unmasked) peers, masking did not significantly impact other facets of communication or perception related to social bonding. When participants filmed their own introductory videos (Study 3), results showed increased expressivity within the masked (vs. unmasked) conditions, perhaps as a compensatory measure to aid bonding. These findings speak to the resiliency of the human need to belong and belonging‐maintenance processes.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134886900","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}
Harrison J. Schmitt, Tyler Jimenez, Isaac F. Young
Abstract Neoliberalism is the political‐economic system that has characterized the United States for the past half century. Structurally, neoliberalism has involved privatization, deregulation, and government divestment from public health systems. Cultural psychologists have begun to outline the ways that neoliberalism is reflected in attitudes, ways of being, and ideologies, such as in the form of heightened individualism, justification of inequality, depoliticization, and precarity. We argue that neoliberal structures and psychologies may contribute to deleterious outcomes in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. We demonstrate that neoliberalism at the US state level ( n = 51) is associated with higher COVID mortality and case fatality rates, as well as lower vaccination rates (Study 1). We also demonstrate that individual‐level ( n = 8280) neoliberal ideology predicts less adaptive beliefs and attitudes such as the belief that the federal response to the pandemic was too fast and belief in COVID‐related misinformation (Study 2). We demonstrate using multilevel modeling that state‐level neoliberalism predicts individual‐level COVID‐related attitudes, which is explained in part by heightened neoliberal ideology in more neoliberal states (Study 2). This study contributes to an understanding of the structural and cultural psychological factors that have contributed to the severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the US.
{"title":"Pandemic precarity: A multi‐level study of neoliberal precarity and COVID‐Related outcomes in the United States","authors":"Harrison J. Schmitt, Tyler Jimenez, Isaac F. Young","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12902","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12902","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Neoliberalism is the political‐economic system that has characterized the United States for the past half century. Structurally, neoliberalism has involved privatization, deregulation, and government divestment from public health systems. Cultural psychologists have begun to outline the ways that neoliberalism is reflected in attitudes, ways of being, and ideologies, such as in the form of heightened individualism, justification of inequality, depoliticization, and precarity. We argue that neoliberal structures and psychologies may contribute to deleterious outcomes in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic. We demonstrate that neoliberalism at the US state level ( n = 51) is associated with higher COVID mortality and case fatality rates, as well as lower vaccination rates (Study 1). We also demonstrate that individual‐level ( n = 8280) neoliberal ideology predicts less adaptive beliefs and attitudes such as the belief that the federal response to the pandemic was too fast and belief in COVID‐related misinformation (Study 2). We demonstrate using multilevel modeling that state‐level neoliberalism predicts individual‐level COVID‐related attitudes, which is explained in part by heightened neoliberal ideology in more neoliberal states (Study 2). This study contributes to an understanding of the structural and cultural psychological factors that have contributed to the severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic in the US.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135858106","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}
Jaren D. Crist, Rebecca J. Schlegel, Phia S. Salter, Grace N. Rivera, Masi Noor, Michael J. Perez, Ciara Coger
Abstract During the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that Black and Latinx communities experienced a disproportionate burden of illness. The goal of this study is to investigate laypeople's attribution of these disparities. We hypothesized the following four potential attributions: external causes (e.g. systemic racism), internal causes (e.g. personal choices), cultural causes (e.g., being close knit), or genetic causes (e.g., being more vulnerable for genetic reasons). Data from 447 participants revealed that lay theories involving external factors were the most endorsed, whereas theories relating to genetic causes were the least endorsed. Our analyses further revealed that external attributions predicted broader COVID‐19 relevant outcomes (i.e., perceived threat of COVID‐19, adherence to CDC guidelines, and support for government policies in response to COVID‐19), even after controlling for political orientation, participant race, and other attributions. This research provides insight into how lay people's explanations for disparities can predict their reactions to the pandemic.
{"title":"Internal, external, genetic, or cultural? Lay theories about racial health disparities predict perceived threat, adherence, and policy support","authors":"Jaren D. Crist, Rebecca J. Schlegel, Phia S. Salter, Grace N. Rivera, Masi Noor, Michael J. Perez, Ciara Coger","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12896","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12896","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract During the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that Black and Latinx communities experienced a disproportionate burden of illness. The goal of this study is to investigate laypeople's attribution of these disparities. We hypothesized the following four potential attributions: external causes (e.g. systemic racism), internal causes (e.g. personal choices), cultural causes (e.g., being close knit), or genetic causes (e.g., being more vulnerable for genetic reasons). Data from 447 participants revealed that lay theories involving external factors were the most endorsed, whereas theories relating to genetic causes were the least endorsed. Our analyses further revealed that external attributions predicted broader COVID‐19 relevant outcomes (i.e., perceived threat of COVID‐19, adherence to CDC guidelines, and support for government policies in response to COVID‐19), even after controlling for political orientation, participant race, and other attributions. This research provides insight into how lay people's explanations for disparities can predict their reactions to the pandemic.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"69 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135858107","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}
Nader Hakim, Rachel Eggert, Christina La Rosa, Amelia Zhao
Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic placed preexisting racial health disparities in stark relief. Recent studies have already established that, among prejudiced Whites, exposure to such racial disparities reduced concern about the pandemic and support for mitigation policies (Harrel & Lieberman, 2021; Stephens‐Dougan, 2022). In response to such results, one cautionary line of reasoning argues that communicating the disparity figures without explanatory context can perpetuate (or at least not undermine) myths that African Americans are more likely to contract COVID‐19 due to genetic predispositions or maladaptive behavioral tendencies (Chowkwanyun & Reed, 2020). In two studies, we test the claims that (a) explanatory context mitigates the tendency to attribute racial disparities to essential racial differences and (b) that perceptions of racial disparities are attuned to specific racial inequalities in the U.S., and not merely expressions of outgroup bias. In Study 1, we found that exposure to racial disparities with explanatory context (vs. without explanatory context) did not reduce racial essentialism or stereotyping, but did promote support for healthcare equity. In Study 2, we found that black disadvantage frames (vs. white vs. Hispanic) uniquely promoted support for equitable healthcare and multicultural inclusion. Importantly, and contrary to other recent findings, exposure to black disadvantage did not preclude support for equity.
{"title":"The role of explanatory context for racial disparities in predicting sociopolitical attitudes during COVID‐19","authors":"Nader Hakim, Rachel Eggert, Christina La Rosa, Amelia Zhao","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12897","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12897","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID‐19 pandemic placed preexisting racial health disparities in stark relief. Recent studies have already established that, among prejudiced Whites, exposure to such racial disparities reduced concern about the pandemic and support for mitigation policies (Harrel & Lieberman, 2021; Stephens‐Dougan, 2022). In response to such results, one cautionary line of reasoning argues that communicating the disparity figures without explanatory context can perpetuate (or at least not undermine) myths that African Americans are more likely to contract COVID‐19 due to genetic predispositions or maladaptive behavioral tendencies (Chowkwanyun & Reed, 2020). In two studies, we test the claims that (a) explanatory context mitigates the tendency to attribute racial disparities to essential racial differences and (b) that perceptions of racial disparities are attuned to specific racial inequalities in the U.S., and not merely expressions of outgroup bias. In Study 1, we found that exposure to racial disparities with explanatory context (vs. without explanatory context) did not reduce racial essentialism or stereotyping, but did promote support for healthcare equity. In Study 2, we found that black disadvantage frames (vs. white vs. Hispanic) uniquely promoted support for equitable healthcare and multicultural inclusion. Importantly, and contrary to other recent findings, exposure to black disadvantage did not preclude support for equity.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135816455","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 Data from two U.S. online samples ( N = 613) indicated that conservatives consistently perceived face mask use as less important than did liberals. This difference was attenuated with high counterfactual engagement. Both studies provide correlational evidence of this robust moderation. Study 2 provides further insight into differences between liberals' and conservatives' emotional responses to COVID‐19 information, and suggests that during on‐going negative events, downward counterfactuals may not provide relief. Overall, these studies document the politicization of public health behavior, and find that emphasizing the causal links between behavior and COVID‐19 prevention may improve conservatives' attitudes toward CDC guidelines.
{"title":"Counterfactual thinking may attenuate polarization of COVID‐19 prevention behavior","authors":"Eva A. García Ferrés, Mary Turner DePalma","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12891","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12891","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Data from two U.S. online samples ( N = 613) indicated that conservatives consistently perceived face mask use as less important than did liberals. This difference was attenuated with high counterfactual engagement. Both studies provide correlational evidence of this robust moderation. Study 2 provides further insight into differences between liberals' and conservatives' emotional responses to COVID‐19 information, and suggests that during on‐going negative events, downward counterfactuals may not provide relief. Overall, these studies document the politicization of public health behavior, and find that emphasizing the causal links between behavior and COVID‐19 prevention may improve conservatives' attitudes toward CDC guidelines.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"2015 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136235945","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 Self‐regulation often involves foregoing short‐term pleasures and impulses in favor of long‐term goals, such as pursuing a particular career, raising a family, or maintaining good health to promote longevity. Like many other fields in psychology, the study of self‐regulation has experienced some growing pains in the wake of the replication crisis, with previously held theories called into question, including seemingly intuitive phenomena such as ego depletion. Despite these challenges, there is burgeoning interest in characterizing people's experiences of self‐regulation success and failure in real world settings. In this review, I argue that utilizing tools and approaches from neuroscience will yield valuable insights into how self‐regulatory processes are engaged in daily life, which in turn will refine and advance self‐regulation models and theorizing, as well as generate new hypotheses. I also unpack some conceptual and practical considerations when combining neuroscience methods with real‐world assessment of behaviors, such as ecological momentary assessment. With these issues and points for consideration taken together, I hope this review will help pave a fruitful path forward for the field with implications for how we might become better self‐regulators.
{"title":"Self‐regulation in daily life: Neuroscience will accelerate theorizing and advance the field","authors":"Richard B. Lopez","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12898","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12898","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Self‐regulation often involves foregoing short‐term pleasures and impulses in favor of long‐term goals, such as pursuing a particular career, raising a family, or maintaining good health to promote longevity. Like many other fields in psychology, the study of self‐regulation has experienced some growing pains in the wake of the replication crisis, with previously held theories called into question, including seemingly intuitive phenomena such as ego depletion. Despite these challenges, there is burgeoning interest in characterizing people's experiences of self‐regulation success and failure in real world settings. In this review, I argue that utilizing tools and approaches from neuroscience will yield valuable insights into how self‐regulatory processes are engaged in daily life, which in turn will refine and advance self‐regulation models and theorizing, as well as generate new hypotheses. I also unpack some conceptual and practical considerations when combining neuroscience methods with real‐world assessment of behaviors, such as ecological momentary assessment. With these issues and points for consideration taken together, I hope this review will help pave a fruitful path forward for the field with implications for how we might become better self‐regulators.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136153236","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}
Maria Casteigne, Erin M. O’Mara Kunz, Joy Losee, Liz Kerner
Abstract Perceptions of the COVID‐19 virus varied drastically in the United States, with many people highly concerned by health‐related consequences (realistic threats) and many others concerned by sociocultural implications (symbolic threats). Across three studies, we tested whether differing realistic and symbolic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions varied along gender and political identity near the 2020 US Presidential Election. In all three studies, we found that realistic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions were positively associated with a liberal political identity; this pattern did not vary by gender. In Studies 1 and 3, symbolic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions were positively associated with a conservative political identity and also did not vary by gender. In Study 2, however, the association between symbolic threat and political identity did vary by gender. Symbolic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions were positively associated with a conservative identity for men but not women; for women, threat and political identity were unrelated.
{"title":"COVID‐19‐related threat perceptions, political identity, and voting in the 2020 presidential election","authors":"Maria Casteigne, Erin M. O’Mara Kunz, Joy Losee, Liz Kerner","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12893","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12893","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Perceptions of the COVID‐19 virus varied drastically in the United States, with many people highly concerned by health‐related consequences (realistic threats) and many others concerned by sociocultural implications (symbolic threats). Across three studies, we tested whether differing realistic and symbolic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions varied along gender and political identity near the 2020 US Presidential Election. In all three studies, we found that realistic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions were positively associated with a liberal political identity; this pattern did not vary by gender. In Studies 1 and 3, symbolic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions were positively associated with a conservative political identity and also did not vary by gender. In Study 2, however, the association between symbolic threat and political identity did vary by gender. Symbolic COVID‐19 related threat perceptions were positively associated with a conservative identity for men but not women; for women, threat and political identity were unrelated.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135063842","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 Given that the relationship between educational level, gender, and the fact of getting vaccinated does not seem to be clear, the aim of this research has been to verify if the beliefs towards vaccines and the fear of COVID‐19 are mediating this relationship in a general Spanish sample of 761 participants. A logistic regression with latent variables was estimated using Mplus. The results showed that there is no direct effect of gender or educational level on vaccination but both, fear of COVID‐19 and attitudes towards vaccines, act as mediators. Specifically, people with university studies show higher scores in trust of vaccine benefits, which in turn is a good predictor of getting vaccinated or not. So that having university studies and confidence in vaccines better predict getting vaccinated. Furthermore, being a woman with high levels of fear of COVID‐19, as well as having up to higher education and showing high levels of fear of COVID‐19, better predict getting vaccinated. However, this is a non‐probabilistic sample, and similar studies should be carried out with a representative sample of the Spanish population and of another countries, in which the rate of people vaccinated against other viruses is declining. This study reports the importance of a model including mediating variables when analyzing the influence of sociodemographic variables on deciding to get vaccinated or not, because this kind of model allow the detection of specific groups with low probability of vaccination, which would allow the design of specific strategies.
{"title":"Do gender and educational level predict vaccination? The mediating role of attitudes towards vaccines and fear of COVID‐19","authors":"Begoña Espejo, Irene Checa","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12879","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12879","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Given that the relationship between educational level, gender, and the fact of getting vaccinated does not seem to be clear, the aim of this research has been to verify if the beliefs towards vaccines and the fear of COVID‐19 are mediating this relationship in a general Spanish sample of 761 participants. A logistic regression with latent variables was estimated using Mplus. The results showed that there is no direct effect of gender or educational level on vaccination but both, fear of COVID‐19 and attitudes towards vaccines, act as mediators. Specifically, people with university studies show higher scores in trust of vaccine benefits, which in turn is a good predictor of getting vaccinated or not. So that having university studies and confidence in vaccines better predict getting vaccinated. Furthermore, being a woman with high levels of fear of COVID‐19, as well as having up to higher education and showing high levels of fear of COVID‐19, better predict getting vaccinated. However, this is a non‐probabilistic sample, and similar studies should be carried out with a representative sample of the Spanish population and of another countries, in which the rate of people vaccinated against other viruses is declining. This study reports the importance of a model including mediating variables when analyzing the influence of sociodemographic variables on deciding to get vaccinated or not, because this kind of model allow the detection of specific groups with low probability of vaccination, which would allow the design of specific strategies.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"43 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135396509","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 This research investigated how implicit theories of mental health (ITMH) influence people's experience of anxiety and depression symptoms during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China. Two thousand and 44 Chinese completed the study during an emergent outbreak of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Shaanxi, China. The results suggested that ITMH significantly influence people's experience of anxiety and depression symptoms. Both active and passive coping styles significantly mediated the relationship between ITMH and anxiety/depression, with active coping style as a stronger mediator than passive coping style. Implications of the current research for improving people's mental health during pandemics of infectious diseases and directions for future research are discussed.
{"title":"Implicit theories of mental health predict anxiety and depression during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China: The mediating effect of coping styles","authors":"Lefan Jin, Ning Zhang, Wenbo Chen","doi":"10.1111/spc3.12892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12892","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This research investigated how implicit theories of mental health (ITMH) influence people's experience of anxiety and depression symptoms during the COVID‐19 pandemic in China. Two thousand and 44 Chinese completed the study during an emergent outbreak of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Shaanxi, China. The results suggested that ITMH significantly influence people's experience of anxiety and depression symptoms. Both active and passive coping styles significantly mediated the relationship between ITMH and anxiety/depression, with active coping style as a stronger mediator than passive coping style. Implications of the current research for improving people's mental health during pandemics of infectious diseases and directions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":53583,"journal":{"name":"Social and Personality Psychology Compass","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135437103","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：