大流行病期间工作场所的欺骗行为:阴谋信念、心理功能和 Covid-19 经历的差异。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Reports Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-12-05 DOI:10.1177/00332941221144606
Richard Rogers, Minqi Pan, Sara E Hartigan, Yi-Ting Chang, Jordan E Donson
{"title":"大流行病期间工作场所的欺骗行为:阴谋信念、心理功能和 Covid-19 经历的差异。","authors":"Richard Rogers, Minqi Pan, Sara E Hartigan, Yi-Ting Chang, Jordan E Donson","doi":"10.1177/00332941221144606","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The global pandemic has disrupted virtually all countries on health, psychological functioning, and economies, to name a few. Accurate information has also fallen victim to the pandemic, which has been rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories. The current study investigated Covid-19 deceptions related to employment. With complete anonymity via MTurk, 389 participants from the United States rated their likelihood of deception regarding hypothetical four workplace scenarios. The first set of analyses examined differences between high and low risk of deceptions for each scenario based on participants' self-appraisals. The largest differences were found for general conspiracy beliefs and affective disorders, specifically major depression and generalized anxiety. The second set of analyses focused across the workplace scenarios on two operationalized groups with Likely-Deceptive (<i>n</i> = 189) vastly outnumbering Likely-Genuine (<i>n</i> = 55). Personal experiences with Covid-19 dramatically increased deceptions. Testing positive for Covid-19 increased the odds of being in the Likely-Deceptive by twelve-fold. Two discriminant models examined cognitive misbeliefs and psychological functioning. When both were combined, depression and Covid-19 misinformation produced the strongest structure coefficients followed closely by general conspiracy beliefs and generalized anxiety. The far-ranging implications of these findings are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Workplace Deceptions During the Pandemic: Differences in Conspiracy Beliefs, Psychological Functioning, and Covid-19 Experiences.\",\"authors\":\"Richard Rogers, Minqi Pan, Sara E Hartigan, Yi-Ting Chang, Jordan E Donson\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941221144606\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The global pandemic has disrupted virtually all countries on health, psychological functioning, and economies, to name a few. Accurate information has also fallen victim to the pandemic, which has been rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories. The current study investigated Covid-19 deceptions related to employment. With complete anonymity via MTurk, 389 participants from the United States rated their likelihood of deception regarding hypothetical four workplace scenarios. The first set of analyses examined differences between high and low risk of deceptions for each scenario based on participants' self-appraisals. The largest differences were found for general conspiracy beliefs and affective disorders, specifically major depression and generalized anxiety. The second set of analyses focused across the workplace scenarios on two operationalized groups with Likely-Deceptive (<i>n</i> = 189) vastly outnumbering Likely-Genuine (<i>n</i> = 55). Personal experiences with Covid-19 dramatically increased deceptions. Testing positive for Covid-19 increased the odds of being in the Likely-Deceptive by twelve-fold. Two discriminant models examined cognitive misbeliefs and psychological functioning. When both were combined, depression and Covid-19 misinformation produced the strongest structure coefficients followed closely by general conspiracy beliefs and generalized anxiety. The far-ranging implications of these findings are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221144606\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/12/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941221144606","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/12/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全球大流行病几乎扰乱了所有国家的健康、心理功能和经济等等。准确的信息也成为大流行病的牺牲品,其中充斥着错误信息和阴谋论。本研究调查了与就业有关的 Covid-19 欺骗。在通过 MTurk 进行完全匿名的情况下,来自美国的 389 名参与者就假设的四种工作场所情景对其受骗的可能性进行了评分。根据参与者的自我评价,第一组分析考察了每种情景下高风险和低风险欺骗之间的差异。发现一般阴谋信念和情感障碍(特别是重度抑郁和广泛焦虑)的差异最大。第二组分析的重点是工作场所情景中的两个操作组,其中 "可能受骗 "组(n = 189)的人数远远超过 "可能真实 "组(n = 55)。使用 Covid-19 的个人经历大大增加了欺骗性。Covid-19检测呈阳性的人被归入 "可能受骗者 "的几率增加了12倍。两个判别模型检查了认知错误信念和心理功能。当两者结合起来时,抑郁和 Covid-19 错误信息产生了最强的结构系数,紧随其后的是一般阴谋信念和普遍焦虑。本文讨论了这些发现的深远影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Workplace Deceptions During the Pandemic: Differences in Conspiracy Beliefs, Psychological Functioning, and Covid-19 Experiences.

The global pandemic has disrupted virtually all countries on health, psychological functioning, and economies, to name a few. Accurate information has also fallen victim to the pandemic, which has been rife with misinformation and conspiracy theories. The current study investigated Covid-19 deceptions related to employment. With complete anonymity via MTurk, 389 participants from the United States rated their likelihood of deception regarding hypothetical four workplace scenarios. The first set of analyses examined differences between high and low risk of deceptions for each scenario based on participants' self-appraisals. The largest differences were found for general conspiracy beliefs and affective disorders, specifically major depression and generalized anxiety. The second set of analyses focused across the workplace scenarios on two operationalized groups with Likely-Deceptive (n = 189) vastly outnumbering Likely-Genuine (n = 55). Personal experiences with Covid-19 dramatically increased deceptions. Testing positive for Covid-19 increased the odds of being in the Likely-Deceptive by twelve-fold. Two discriminant models examined cognitive misbeliefs and psychological functioning. When both were combined, depression and Covid-19 misinformation produced the strongest structure coefficients followed closely by general conspiracy beliefs and generalized anxiety. The far-ranging implications of these findings are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
期刊最新文献
"Alexithymia, Cognitive Distortion and internet Addiction: Moderating Role of Emotional Intelligence". The Development and Preliminary Validity and Reliability of Self-Disclosure to Romantic Partner (SDRP) Scale. Phubbing Makes the Heart Grow Callous: Effects of Phubbing on Pro-social Behavioral Intentions, Empathy and Self-Control. A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of COVID-19 on Optimism Prediction. Should Adolescents Listen to Their Hearts? A Closer Look at the Associations Between Interoception, Emotional Awareness and Emotion Regulation in Adolescents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1