太温和,太苛刻,还是刚刚好?

IF 1.2 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Individual Differences Pub Date : 2023-07-20 DOI:10.1027/1614-0001/a000405
Dominik-Borna Ćepulić
{"title":"太温和,太苛刻,还是刚刚好?","authors":"Dominik-Borna Ćepulić","doi":"10.1027/1614-0001/a000405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: People around the world reacted differently to measures implemented by governments to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. Some research showed that people with higher neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and lower extraversion were more supportive of such measures. The present study investigated the differences in personality between individuals who perceived measures as appropriate (AP), too mild (TM), and too harsh (TH), and how these differences were moderated by perceived health risk and measure stringency. The responses of 62,229 participants from 15 countries were analyzed using linear mixed models. Compared to AP, TM was: generally less agreeable; higher in neuroticism and lower in extraversion (both when health risk was perceived); and higher in openness (when the stringency index was at its mean or higher). Relative to AP, TH was lower in neuroticism (when health risk was perceived), higher in extraversion (when health risk was perceived or uncertain), openness (when stringency index was higher than the mean), and conscientiousness (when health risk was perceived and when it was not perceived). Despite the modest effects, these findings help to understand reactions to public health interventions and may be psychologically meaningful in the long term.","PeriodicalId":47049,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Differences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Too Mild, too Harsh, or Just About Right?\",\"authors\":\"Dominik-Borna Ćepulić\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/1614-0001/a000405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract: People around the world reacted differently to measures implemented by governments to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. Some research showed that people with higher neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and lower extraversion were more supportive of such measures. The present study investigated the differences in personality between individuals who perceived measures as appropriate (AP), too mild (TM), and too harsh (TH), and how these differences were moderated by perceived health risk and measure stringency. The responses of 62,229 participants from 15 countries were analyzed using linear mixed models. Compared to AP, TM was: generally less agreeable; higher in neuroticism and lower in extraversion (both when health risk was perceived); and higher in openness (when the stringency index was at its mean or higher). Relative to AP, TH was lower in neuroticism (when health risk was perceived), higher in extraversion (when health risk was perceived or uncertain), openness (when stringency index was higher than the mean), and conscientiousness (when health risk was perceived and when it was not perceived). Despite the modest effects, these findings help to understand reactions to public health interventions and may be psychologically meaningful in the long term.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47049,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Individual Differences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000405\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000405","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:世界各地的人们对政府为减缓冠状病毒传播而采取的措施反应不同。一些研究表明,神经质、开放性、尽责性、宜人性和外向性较低的人更支持这些措施。本研究调查了认为措施适当(AP)、过于温和(TM)和过于严厉(TH)的个体之间的性格差异,以及这些差异是如何通过感知的健康风险和措施严格性来调节的。使用线性混合模型对来自15个国家的62229名参与者的回答进行了分析。与AP相比,TM总体上不那么令人愉快;神经质较高,外向性较低(都是在感知到健康风险的情况下);开放性更高(当严格性指数处于其平均值或更高时)。与AP相比,TH在神经质(当感知到健康风险时)、外向性(当感知或不确定健康风险时。尽管影响不大,但这些发现有助于了解对公共卫生干预的反应,从长远来看可能具有心理意义。
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
Too Mild, too Harsh, or Just About Right?
Abstract: People around the world reacted differently to measures implemented by governments to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus. Some research showed that people with higher neuroticism, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and lower extraversion were more supportive of such measures. The present study investigated the differences in personality between individuals who perceived measures as appropriate (AP), too mild (TM), and too harsh (TH), and how these differences were moderated by perceived health risk and measure stringency. The responses of 62,229 participants from 15 countries were analyzed using linear mixed models. Compared to AP, TM was: generally less agreeable; higher in neuroticism and lower in extraversion (both when health risk was perceived); and higher in openness (when the stringency index was at its mean or higher). Relative to AP, TH was lower in neuroticism (when health risk was perceived), higher in extraversion (when health risk was perceived or uncertain), openness (when stringency index was higher than the mean), and conscientiousness (when health risk was perceived and when it was not perceived). Despite the modest effects, these findings help to understand reactions to public health interventions and may be psychologically meaningful in the long term.
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
Journal of Individual Differences
Journal of Individual Differences PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Researchers, teachers, and students interested in all areas of individual differences (e.g., gender, temperament, personality, intelligence) and their assessment in human and animal research will find the Journal of Individual Differences useful. The Journal of Individual Differences publishes manuscripts dealing with individual differences in behavior, emotion, cognition, and their developmental aspects. This includes human as well as animal research. The Journal of Individual Differences is conceptualized to bring together researchers working in different areas ranging from, for example, molecular genetics to theories of complex behavior.
期刊最新文献
Validation of the Short Dark Tetrad (SD4) in Persian “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life” Being Flexible in Zuckerman’s Alternative Personality Space Stoicism Changing Ourselves
×
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