分析性思维可以预测骗局信念和帮助行为,以应对COVID-19大流行

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Thinking & Reasoning Pub Date : 2020-03-25 DOI:10.1080/13546783.2020.1813806
Matthew L. Stanley, Nathaniel Barr, Kelly Peters, P. Seli
{"title":"分析性思维可以预测骗局信念和帮助行为,以应对COVID-19大流行","authors":"Matthew L. Stanley, Nathaniel Barr, Kelly Peters, P. Seli","doi":"10.1080/13546783.2020.1813806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The COVID-19 outbreak was labeled a global pandemic by the WHO in March of 2020. During that same month, the number of confirmed cases and the death rate grew exponentially in the United States, creating a serious public-health emergency. Unfortunately, many Americans dismissed the pandemic as a hoax and failed to properly engage in helpful behaviors like social-distancing and increased hand-washing. Here, we examine a disposition—engagement in analytic-thinking—that might predict beliefs that the pandemic is a hoax and failures to change behavior in positive ways during that critical early period in March. Our results indicate that individuals less likely to engage effortful, deliberative, and reflective cognitive processes were more likely to believe the pandemic was a hoax and less likely to have recently engaged in social-distancing and hand-washing in March. We discuss possible implications of these results for understanding and addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.","PeriodicalId":47270,"journal":{"name":"Thinking & Reasoning","volume":"32 1","pages":"464 - 477"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"75","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Analytic-thinking predicts hoax beliefs and helping behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Matthew L. Stanley, Nathaniel Barr, Kelly Peters, P. Seli\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13546783.2020.1813806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The COVID-19 outbreak was labeled a global pandemic by the WHO in March of 2020. During that same month, the number of confirmed cases and the death rate grew exponentially in the United States, creating a serious public-health emergency. Unfortunately, many Americans dismissed the pandemic as a hoax and failed to properly engage in helpful behaviors like social-distancing and increased hand-washing. Here, we examine a disposition—engagement in analytic-thinking—that might predict beliefs that the pandemic is a hoax and failures to change behavior in positive ways during that critical early period in March. Our results indicate that individuals less likely to engage effortful, deliberative, and reflective cognitive processes were more likely to believe the pandemic was a hoax and less likely to have recently engaged in social-distancing and hand-washing in March. We discuss possible implications of these results for understanding and addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"464 - 477\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"75\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Thinking & Reasoning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1813806\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thinking & Reasoning","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2020.1813806","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 75

摘要

2020年3月,世界卫生组织将新冠肺炎疫情列为全球大流行。同月,美国确诊病例和死亡率呈指数级增长,造成了严重的公共卫生紧急情况。不幸的是,许多美国人将这场大流行视为一场骗局,未能正确地采取有益的行为,如保持社交距离和增加洗手。在这里,我们研究了一种倾向——参与分析思维——这种倾向可能会预测人们的信念,即大流行是一场骗局,在3月初的关键时期,人们无法以积极的方式改变行为。我们的研究结果表明,那些不太可能参与努力、深思熟虑和反思认知过程的人更有可能相信这场大流行是一场骗局,而且最近在3月份不太可能参与社交距离和洗手。我们讨论了这些结果对理解和应对COVID-19大流行可能产生的影响。
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
Analytic-thinking predicts hoax beliefs and helping behaviors in response to the COVID-19 pandemic
Abstract The COVID-19 outbreak was labeled a global pandemic by the WHO in March of 2020. During that same month, the number of confirmed cases and the death rate grew exponentially in the United States, creating a serious public-health emergency. Unfortunately, many Americans dismissed the pandemic as a hoax and failed to properly engage in helpful behaviors like social-distancing and increased hand-washing. Here, we examine a disposition—engagement in analytic-thinking—that might predict beliefs that the pandemic is a hoax and failures to change behavior in positive ways during that critical early period in March. Our results indicate that individuals less likely to engage effortful, deliberative, and reflective cognitive processes were more likely to believe the pandemic was a hoax and less likely to have recently engaged in social-distancing and hand-washing in March. We discuss possible implications of these results for understanding and addressing the COVID-19 pandemic.
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
Thinking & Reasoning
Thinking & Reasoning PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
11.50%
发文量
25
期刊最新文献
The skeptical import of motivated reasoning: a closer look at the evidence When word frequency meets word order: factors determining multiply-constrained creative association Mindset effects on the regulation of thinking time in problem-solving Elementary probabilistic operations: a framework for probabilistic reasoning Testing the underlying structure of unfounded beliefs about COVID-19 around the world
×
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