Strong-Ties and Weak-Ties Rationalities: Predicting Public Stigma, Support Networks, and Health Behaviours During the COVID-19 Pandemic Across Four Societies

IF 2.4 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Rachel Sing-Kiat Ting, Jane Terpstra-Tong, May Kyi Zay Hta, Zhong-Yao Xie, Yi-Fan Chen, Michael Harris Bond, Kuang-Hui Yeh, Louise Sundararajan
{"title":"Strong-Ties and Weak-Ties Rationalities: Predicting Public Stigma, Support Networks, and Health Behaviours During the COVID-19 Pandemic Across Four Societies","authors":"Rachel Sing-Kiat Ting,&nbsp;Jane Terpstra-Tong,&nbsp;May Kyi Zay Hta,&nbsp;Zhong-Yao Xie,&nbsp;Yi-Fan Chen,&nbsp;Michael Harris Bond,&nbsp;Kuang-Hui Yeh,&nbsp;Louise Sundararajan","doi":"10.1002/ijop.70235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this study, we test the theory of strong-ties and weak-ties rationalities (STWTR) (Sundararajan 2020) and the criterion validity of its measures using strong-ties rationality and weak-ties rationality scales to predict COVID-19 related perceptions and behaviours. These include public stigma, help-seeking networks, and health behaviours across four societies (Han-Chinese, Chinese-Malaysians, Malay-Malaysians, and White-Australians, <i>n</i> = 918). The standardized coefficient results indicate that strong-ties rationality, compared with weak-ties rationality, has a stronger positive association with public stigma, help-seeking from strong ties, and personal care behaviours. In contrast, weak-ties rationality, compared with strong-ties rationality, has a stronger positive association with public health behaviours. Between the Han-Chinese and White-Australians samples, the impact of strong-ties rationality on public stigma is weaker among the Han Chinese, while the impact of weak-ties rationality on public health behaviour is stronger among the White Australians. We attribute our nuanced analysis of these results to the explanatory power of STWTR theory, which decomposes culture into three units of analysis—rationality, ecological niche, and behaviour, enabling an examination of the match or mismatch among these cultural components characterizing any society. Indigenous features of a cultural system can then be more fully represented in cross-cultural psychological research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48146,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Psychology","volume":"61 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ijop.70235","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijop.70235","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this study, we test the theory of strong-ties and weak-ties rationalities (STWTR) (Sundararajan 2020) and the criterion validity of its measures using strong-ties rationality and weak-ties rationality scales to predict COVID-19 related perceptions and behaviours. These include public stigma, help-seeking networks, and health behaviours across four societies (Han-Chinese, Chinese-Malaysians, Malay-Malaysians, and White-Australians, n = 918). The standardized coefficient results indicate that strong-ties rationality, compared with weak-ties rationality, has a stronger positive association with public stigma, help-seeking from strong ties, and personal care behaviours. In contrast, weak-ties rationality, compared with strong-ties rationality, has a stronger positive association with public health behaviours. Between the Han-Chinese and White-Australians samples, the impact of strong-ties rationality on public stigma is weaker among the Han Chinese, while the impact of weak-ties rationality on public health behaviour is stronger among the White Australians. We attribute our nuanced analysis of these results to the explanatory power of STWTR theory, which decomposes culture into three units of analysis—rationality, ecological niche, and behaviour, enabling an examination of the match or mismatch among these cultural components characterizing any society. Indigenous features of a cultural system can then be more fully represented in cross-cultural psychological research.

Abstract Image

强联系和弱联系的合理性:预测四个社会在COVID-19大流行期间的公众耻辱、支持网络和健康行为。
在本研究中,我们使用强联系理性和弱联系理性量表来测试强联系和弱联系理性理论(STWTR) (Sundararajan 2020)及其测量的标准效度,以预测与COVID-19相关的感知和行为。这些因素包括四个社会(汉人、华裔马来西亚人、马来-马来西亚人和白澳人,n = 918)的公众耻辱感、求助网络和健康行为。标准化系数结果表明,与弱关系理性相比,强关系理性与公共污名、强关系求助和个人护理行为有更强的正相关。相反,弱关系理性与强关系理性相比,对公共卫生行为有更强的正向关联。在汉族和澳大利亚白人样本中,强联系理性对公共污名的影响在汉族中较弱,而弱联系理性对公共卫生行为的影响在澳大利亚白人中较强。我们将对这些结果的细致分析归功于STWTR理论的解释力,该理论将文化分解为三个分析单元-理性,生态位和行为,从而能够检查表征任何社会的这些文化成分之间的匹配或不匹配。文化系统的本土特征可以在跨文化心理学研究中得到更充分的体现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Psychology
International Journal of Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Psychology (IJP) is the journal of the International Union of Psychological Science (IUPsyS) and is published under the auspices of the Union. IJP seeks to support the IUPsyS in fostering the development of international psychological science. It aims to strengthen the dialog within psychology around the world and to facilitate communication among different areas of psychology and among psychologists from different cultural backgrounds. IJP is the outlet for empirical basic and applied studies and for reviews that either (a) incorporate perspectives from different areas or domains within psychology or across different disciplines, (b) test the culture-dependent validity of psychological theories, or (c) integrate literature from different regions in 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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书