我们对我:集体主义对COVID-19公共政策虚伪的间接条件效应

S. Bok, J. Shum, Jason Harvie, Maria Lee
{"title":"我们对我:集体主义对COVID-19公共政策虚伪的间接条件效应","authors":"S. Bok, J. Shum, Jason Harvie, Maria Lee","doi":"10.1108/jepp-05-2021-0060","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeDuring the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated masks “may not protect the wearer, but it may keep the wearer from spreading the virus to others”. Health officials revised mask guidelines to include both the wearer and others, but contradiction became a focal point for online debate and credibility. While revised policies eventually became adopted by the public, there was loss time and lives during this critical stage. This study investigates collectivist messaging on public policy support.Design/methodology/approachCOVID-19 public policy hypocrisy was defined as the gap between supporting community policies while rejecting policies more likely to impact the individual. United States participants (N = 1,605) completed questionnaires. Moderated mediation analysis was conducted using SPSS PROCESS.FindingsThose high on collectivism and high on global personal impact associated with lower COVID-19 public policy hypocrisy. These individuals indicated consistent support for community and individual policies, likely requiring personal sacrifices. Indirect conditional effects of lower conscientiousness associated with higher hypocrisy among those collectivistic.Originality/valueParticipants evaluated preference to original public safety ads, representative of basic societal and individual benefits. Those higher on collectivism preferred societal “we” versus individual “me” public safety ads. Implications discuss benefits of personal and communal public health messaging in an individualistic society so businesses can reopen. Entrepreneurs experienced major economic setbacks that effective public health policies could have mitigated.","PeriodicalId":44503,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"We versus me: Indirect conditional effects of collectivism on COVID-19 public policy hypocrisy\",\"authors\":\"S. Bok, J. Shum, Jason Harvie, Maria Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/jepp-05-2021-0060\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeDuring the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated masks “may not protect the wearer, but it may keep the wearer from spreading the virus to others”. Health officials revised mask guidelines to include both the wearer and others, but contradiction became a focal point for online debate and credibility. While revised policies eventually became adopted by the public, there was loss time and lives during this critical stage. This study investigates collectivist messaging on public policy support.Design/methodology/approachCOVID-19 public policy hypocrisy was defined as the gap between supporting community policies while rejecting policies more likely to impact the individual. United States participants (N = 1,605) completed questionnaires. Moderated mediation analysis was conducted using SPSS PROCESS.FindingsThose high on collectivism and high on global personal impact associated with lower COVID-19 public policy hypocrisy. These individuals indicated consistent support for community and individual policies, likely requiring personal sacrifices. Indirect conditional effects of lower conscientiousness associated with higher hypocrisy among those collectivistic.Originality/valueParticipants evaluated preference to original public safety ads, representative of basic societal and individual benefits. Those higher on collectivism preferred societal “we” versus individual “me” public safety ads. Implications discuss benefits of personal and communal public health messaging in an individualistic society so businesses can reopen. Entrepreneurs experienced major economic setbacks that effective public health policies could have mitigated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44503,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-05-2021-0060\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jepp-05-2021-0060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

在SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19)大流行爆发初期,美国疾病控制与预防中心(CDC)表示,口罩“可能不能保护佩戴者,但可以防止佩戴者将病毒传播给他人”。卫生官员修订了口罩指南,将佩戴者和其他人都包括在内,但矛盾成为了网上辩论和可信度的焦点。虽然修订后的政策最终被公众采纳,但在这一关键阶段,人们损失了时间和生命。本研究调查了公共政策支持中的集体主义信息。covid -19公共政策虚伪被定义为支持社区政策与拒绝更有可能影响个人的政策之间的差距。美国参与者(N = 1,605)完成了问卷调查。采用SPSS PROCESS进行有调节的中介分析。集体主义程度高和全球个人影响力高的国家与COVID-19公共政策虚伪程度较低相关。这些人表示对社区和个人政策的一贯支持,可能需要做出个人牺牲。集体主义者较低的责任心与较高的伪善相关的间接条件效应。独创性/价值:参与者评估了对原始公共安全广告的偏好,这些广告代表了基本的社会和个人利益。集体主义倾向较高的人更喜欢社会“我们”,而不是个人“我”的公共安全广告。影响讨论了个人和社区公共卫生信息在个人主义社会中的好处,这样企业就可以重新开业。企业家们经历了重大的经济挫折,有效的公共卫生政策本可以减轻这些挫折。
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
We versus me: Indirect conditional effects of collectivism on COVID-19 public policy hypocrisy
PurposeDuring the early SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) stated masks “may not protect the wearer, but it may keep the wearer from spreading the virus to others”. Health officials revised mask guidelines to include both the wearer and others, but contradiction became a focal point for online debate and credibility. While revised policies eventually became adopted by the public, there was loss time and lives during this critical stage. This study investigates collectivist messaging on public policy support.Design/methodology/approachCOVID-19 public policy hypocrisy was defined as the gap between supporting community policies while rejecting policies more likely to impact the individual. United States participants (N = 1,605) completed questionnaires. Moderated mediation analysis was conducted using SPSS PROCESS.FindingsThose high on collectivism and high on global personal impact associated with lower COVID-19 public policy hypocrisy. These individuals indicated consistent support for community and individual policies, likely requiring personal sacrifices. Indirect conditional effects of lower conscientiousness associated with higher hypocrisy among those collectivistic.Originality/valueParticipants evaluated preference to original public safety ads, representative of basic societal and individual benefits. Those higher on collectivism preferred societal “we” versus individual “me” public safety ads. Implications discuss benefits of personal and communal public health messaging in an individualistic society so businesses can reopen. Entrepreneurs experienced major economic setbacks that effective public health policies could have mitigated.
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
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
15.80%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Institutions – especially public policies – are a significant determinant of economic outcomes; entrepreneurship and enterprise development are often the channel by which public policies affect economic outcomes, and by which outcomes feed back to the policy process. The Journal of Entrepreneurship & Public Policy (JEPP) was created to encourage and disseminate quality research about these vital relationships. The ultimate aim is to improve the quality of the political discourse about entrepreneurship and development policies. JEPP publishes two issues per year and welcomes: Empirically oriented academic papers and accepts a wide variety of empirical evidence. Generally, the journal considers any analysis based on real-world circumstances and conditions that can change behaviour, legislation, or outcomes, Conceptual or theoretical papers that indicate a direction for future research, or otherwise advance the field of study, A limited number of carefully and accurately executed replication studies, Book reviews. In general, JEPP seeks high-quality articles that say something interesting about the relationships among public policy and entrepreneurship, entrepreneurship and economic development, or all three areas. Scope/Coverage: Entrepreneurship, Public policy, Public policies and behaviour of economic agents, Interjurisdictional differentials and their effects, Law and entrepreneurship, New firms; startups, Microeconomic analyses of economic development, Development planning and policy, Innovation and invention: processes and incentives, Regional economic activity: growth, development, and changes, Regional development policy.
期刊最新文献
Experiences of women and minoritized US military veteran business owners: descriptive evidence on “vetrepreneur” survival and growth Barriers to scale: the effect of regulations on entrepreneurial strategies in a nascent industry Are shocks to entrepreneurship persistence? Case of a Resource-based economy Examining the antecedents of entrepreneurial propensity: a study among university students in India Context really matters: why do women artisans in the Peruvian context avoid the sole ownership of their enterprises?
×
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