圣诞快乐,新年健康

IF 1.3 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL European Journal of Health Psychology Pub Date : 2022-06-09 DOI:10.1027/2512-8442/a000114
J. Waterschoot, S. Morbée, O. Van den Bergh, M. Vansteenkiste
{"title":"圣诞快乐,新年健康","authors":"J. Waterschoot, S. Morbée, O. Van den Bergh, M. Vansteenkiste","doi":"10.1027/2512-8442/a000114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Background: In November 2020, many European governments imposed severe limitations on social contacts and festive gatherings to avoid a further outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aims: At the moment when it was still unclear whether Christmas gatherings would be allowed, the present vignette study was conducted to evaluate four hypothetical scenarios varying in restrictiveness (i.e., 1, 2, 4, or an unlimited number of visitors). Method: In total, 5,756 Belgian participants (65.7% female; Mage = 45.6, range: 18–89) evaluated each scenario in terms of the perceived strictness, probability of adherence, and expected psychological advantages (i.e., autonomy, relatedness, pleasure) and disadvantages (i.e., concerns). Results: Evidence for a curvilinear pattern was found, such that the expected psychological benefits increased with an increasing number of allowed visitors till 4, with this effect being reversed in case of an unlimited gathering. Yet, these main effects were qualified: Older adults, those living together, and those scoring high on risk perception and autonomous motivation to adhere to the corona measures expected the more restrictive scenarios to be equally beneficial compared to the more relaxed scenarios. Limitations: Limitations are self-selection of the sample, no counterbalancing of the scenario’s and the vignette-based methodology. Conclusion: The present findings suggest that people’s risk perception and autonomous motivation are key to secure and stimulate the acceptance of life-restricting measures.","PeriodicalId":51983,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Health Psychology","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Merry Christmas and a “Healthy” New Year\",\"authors\":\"J. Waterschoot, S. Morbée, O. Van den Bergh, M. Vansteenkiste\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/2512-8442/a000114\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. Background: In November 2020, many European governments imposed severe limitations on social contacts and festive gatherings to avoid a further outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aims: At the moment when it was still unclear whether Christmas gatherings would be allowed, the present vignette study was conducted to evaluate four hypothetical scenarios varying in restrictiveness (i.e., 1, 2, 4, or an unlimited number of visitors). Method: In total, 5,756 Belgian participants (65.7% female; Mage = 45.6, range: 18–89) evaluated each scenario in terms of the perceived strictness, probability of adherence, and expected psychological advantages (i.e., autonomy, relatedness, pleasure) and disadvantages (i.e., concerns). Results: Evidence for a curvilinear pattern was found, such that the expected psychological benefits increased with an increasing number of allowed visitors till 4, with this effect being reversed in case of an unlimited gathering. Yet, these main effects were qualified: Older adults, those living together, and those scoring high on risk perception and autonomous motivation to adhere to the corona measures expected the more restrictive scenarios to be equally beneficial compared to the more relaxed scenarios. Limitations: Limitations are self-selection of the sample, no counterbalancing of the scenario’s and the vignette-based methodology. Conclusion: The present findings suggest that people’s risk perception and autonomous motivation are key to secure and stimulate the acceptance of life-restricting measures.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Health Psychology\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Health Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000114\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Health Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/2512-8442/a000114","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要背景:2020年11月,许多欧洲国家政府对社交接触和节日聚会实施了严格限制,以避免COVID-19大流行进一步爆发。目的:在尚不清楚是否允许圣诞节聚会的时候,本研究进行了小插图研究,以评估四种限制不同的假设情景(即1、2、4或无限数量的访客)。方法:共有5756名比利时参与者(65.7%为女性;Mage = 45.6,范围:18-89)根据感知到的严格程度、遵守的可能性、预期的心理优势(即自主性、亲和性、愉悦性)和劣势(即担忧性)来评估每个场景。结果:发现了一个曲线模式的证据,即预期的心理效益随着允许的访客数量的增加而增加,直到4,在无限制聚集的情况下,这种效果会逆转。然而,这些主要影响是合格的:老年人、住在一起的人,以及那些在风险感知和坚持冠状病毒措施的自主动机方面得分较高的人,预计限制性更强的情景与更宽松的情景相比同样有益。限制:限制是样本的自我选择,不平衡场景和基于图像的方法。结论:人们的风险认知和自主动机是确保和激励人们接受限制生命措施的关键。
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
Merry Christmas and a “Healthy” New Year
Abstract. Background: In November 2020, many European governments imposed severe limitations on social contacts and festive gatherings to avoid a further outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Aims: At the moment when it was still unclear whether Christmas gatherings would be allowed, the present vignette study was conducted to evaluate four hypothetical scenarios varying in restrictiveness (i.e., 1, 2, 4, or an unlimited number of visitors). Method: In total, 5,756 Belgian participants (65.7% female; Mage = 45.6, range: 18–89) evaluated each scenario in terms of the perceived strictness, probability of adherence, and expected psychological advantages (i.e., autonomy, relatedness, pleasure) and disadvantages (i.e., concerns). Results: Evidence for a curvilinear pattern was found, such that the expected psychological benefits increased with an increasing number of allowed visitors till 4, with this effect being reversed in case of an unlimited gathering. Yet, these main effects were qualified: Older adults, those living together, and those scoring high on risk perception and autonomous motivation to adhere to the corona measures expected the more restrictive scenarios to be equally beneficial compared to the more relaxed scenarios. Limitations: Limitations are self-selection of the sample, no counterbalancing of the scenario’s and the vignette-based methodology. Conclusion: The present findings suggest that people’s risk perception and autonomous motivation are key to secure and stimulate the acceptance of life-restricting measures.
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
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: Die "Zeitschrift für Gesundheitspsychologie" wurde gegründet, um dem raschen Anwachsen gesundheitspsychologischer Forschung sowie deren Relevanz für verschiedene Anwendungsfelder gerecht zu werden. Gesundheitspsychologie versteht sich als wissenschaftlicher Beitrag der Psychologie zur Förderung und Erhaltung von Gesundheit, zur Verhütung und Behandlung von Krankheiten, zur Bestimmung von Risikoverhaltensweisen, zur Diagnose und Ursachenbestimmung von gesundheitlichen Störungen sowie zur Verbessung des Systems gesundheitlicher Vorsorge.
期刊最新文献
Ambivalence Toward the Implementation of Preventive Measures in (Un-)Vaccinated German Citizens Personality Factors and Health Beliefs Related to Attitudes Toward Wearing Face Masks During the COVID-19 Pandemic Meeting Calendar List of Reviewers 2023 How Communicating Vaccine Benefits and Harms in Fact Boxes Affects Risk Perceptions
×
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