Individual Differences in Decisions on Physical Distancing during the COVID-19 Pandemic

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
M. Zirenko, T. Kornilova
{"title":"Individual Differences in Decisions on Physical Distancing during the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"M. Zirenko, T. Kornilova","doi":"10.17323/1813-8918-2021-2-276-286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"During the COVID-19 pandemic decisions on physical distancing including decisions on wearing face masks in public may depend on a number of individual characteristics, representations of threats and the degree of personal responsibility for complying with the imposed requirements.. This study on a Russian sample (N = 308) took placeduring April-May 2020. We used verbal tasks on social distancing to test the hypotheses that individual differences in empathy, implicit theories of emotions, the Dark Triad traits, rationality, and risk readiness predict decisions on whether or not to wear a mask. We developed five verbal tasks – situations where decisions on whether to wear a mask or not were made by choosing from several given reasons. Among the reasons for wearing a mask, Care for Self was chosen by 46% of participants who received this as a reason, the Law-abidingness reason was chosen by 44%, and 31% selected Care for Others. Regarding the reasons for not wearing a mask, 16% of participants chose Autonomy for Oneself, 11% – Risk Underestimation and 5% – Autonomy for Others. Logistic regressions identified that empathy, rationality, and narcissism were significant predictors of a decision to wear a face mask, while risk readiness and psychopathy were predictors of a decision not to wear a mask. Implicit theories of emotions and problem-solving self-efficacy were significant predictors only for choices between the reasons for wearing a mask. Personality variables of empathy, rationality, risk readiness, and the Dark Triad traits influence decisions on adhering to physical distancing.","PeriodicalId":44468,"journal":{"name":"Psychology-Journal of the Higher School of Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology-Journal of the Higher School of Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2021-2-276-286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic decisions on physical distancing including decisions on wearing face masks in public may depend on a number of individual characteristics, representations of threats and the degree of personal responsibility for complying with the imposed requirements.. This study on a Russian sample (N = 308) took placeduring April-May 2020. We used verbal tasks on social distancing to test the hypotheses that individual differences in empathy, implicit theories of emotions, the Dark Triad traits, rationality, and risk readiness predict decisions on whether or not to wear a mask. We developed five verbal tasks – situations where decisions on whether to wear a mask or not were made by choosing from several given reasons. Among the reasons for wearing a mask, Care for Self was chosen by 46% of participants who received this as a reason, the Law-abidingness reason was chosen by 44%, and 31% selected Care for Others. Regarding the reasons for not wearing a mask, 16% of participants chose Autonomy for Oneself, 11% – Risk Underestimation and 5% – Autonomy for Others. Logistic regressions identified that empathy, rationality, and narcissism were significant predictors of a decision to wear a face mask, while risk readiness and psychopathy were predictors of a decision not to wear a mask. Implicit theories of emotions and problem-solving self-efficacy were significant predictors only for choices between the reasons for wearing a mask. Personality variables of empathy, rationality, risk readiness, and the Dark Triad traits influence decisions on adhering to physical distancing.
COVID-19大流行期间保持身体距离决策的个体差异
在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,关于保持身体距离的决定,包括在公共场合戴口罩的决定,可能取决于许多个人特征、对威胁的表述以及个人遵守规定要求的责任程度。这项对俄罗斯样本(N = 308)的研究于2020年4月至5月进行。我们使用了关于社会距离的口头任务来测试以下假设:同理心、内隐情绪理论、黑暗三合一特质、理性和风险准备方面的个体差异预测了是否戴口罩的决定。我们设计了五种口头任务,即从几个给定的理由中选择是否戴口罩。在戴口罩的原因中,46%的参与者选择了“照顾自己”,44%的人选择了“守法”,31%的人选择了“照顾他人”。关于不戴口罩的原因,16%的参与者选择了“自我自治”,11%选择了“风险低估”,5%选择了“他人自治”。逻辑回归发现,共情、理性和自恋是决定戴口罩的重要预测因素,而风险准备和精神病是决定不戴口罩的预测因素。内隐情绪理论和解决问题的自我效能感仅在选择戴口罩的原因时是显著的预测因子。人格变量共情、理性、风险准备和黑暗三合一特质影响着人们坚持保持身体距离的决定。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
20.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics was established by the National Research University — Higher School of Economics (HSE) in 2004 and is administered by the School of Psychology of HSE. The Journal publishes articles written by Russian and foreign researchers presenting original positions in academic and applied psychology, analytical reviews, short reports focused on empirical studies, and information about current scientific events in Russia and the rest of the world. Principal themes of the journal include: -Methodology, history, and theory of psychology -Research approaches and methods in psychology -New tools for psychological assessment -Interdisciplinary studies connecting psychology with economics, sociology, cultural anthropology, and other sciences -New achievements and trends in cognitive psychology, social psychology, organizational psychology, neuroscience -Models and methods of practice in organizations and individual work -Studies in personological approach, combining theoretical, empirical, hermeneutic, and counselling work on personality -Bridging the gap between science and practice, psychological problems associated with innovations -Discussions on pressing issues in fundamental and applied research within psychology and related sciences The primary audience of the journal includes researchers and practitioners specializing in psychology, sociology, cultural studies, education, neuroscience, and management, as well as teachers and students of higher education institutions.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信