T. Fetzer, M. Witte, Lukas Hensel, J. Jachimowicz, J. Haushofer, Andriy Ivchenko, Stefano Caria, Elena Reutskaja, Christopher Roth, Stefano Fiorin, M. Gómez, Gordon T. Kraft-Todd, F. Götz, Erez Yoeli
{"title":"在2019冠状病毒病大流行开始时,人们认为政府应对不力,这与心理健康水平较低有关","authors":"T. Fetzer, M. Witte, Lukas Hensel, J. Jachimowicz, J. Haushofer, Andriy Ivchenko, Stefano Caria, Elena Reutskaja, Christopher Roth, Stefano Fiorin, M. Gómez, Gordon T. Kraft-Todd, F. Götz, Erez Yoeli","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/3kfmh","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We conducted a large-scale survey covering 58 countries (N = 108,075) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—between March 20th and April 7th 2020—to explore how beliefs about citizens’ and government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the actions taken by governments, affected mental well-being. Our analyses reveal three findings. First, many respondents indicate that their country’s citizens and government’s response was insufficient. Second, respondents’ perception of an insufficient public and government response was associated with lower mental well-being. Third, we exploit time variation in country-level lockdown announcements, both around the world and through an event-study in the UK, and find that strong government actions—i.e., announcing a nationwide lockdown—were related to an improvement in respondents’ views of their fellow citizens and government, and to better mental well-being. These findings suggest that policy-makers may not only need to consider how their decisions affect the spread of COVID-19, but also how such choices influence the mental well-being of their population.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":" ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perceptions of an Insufficient Government Response at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic are Associated with Lower Mental Well-Being\",\"authors\":\"T. Fetzer, M. Witte, Lukas Hensel, J. Jachimowicz, J. Haushofer, Andriy Ivchenko, Stefano Caria, Elena Reutskaja, Christopher Roth, Stefano Fiorin, M. Gómez, Gordon T. Kraft-Todd, F. Götz, Erez Yoeli\",\"doi\":\"10.31234/osf.io/3kfmh\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"We conducted a large-scale survey covering 58 countries (N = 108,075) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—between March 20th and April 7th 2020—to explore how beliefs about citizens’ and government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the actions taken by governments, affected mental well-being. Our analyses reveal three findings. First, many respondents indicate that their country’s citizens and government’s response was insufficient. Second, respondents’ perception of an insufficient public and government response was associated with lower mental well-being. Third, we exploit time variation in country-level lockdown announcements, both around the world and through an event-study in the UK, and find that strong government actions—i.e., announcing a nationwide lockdown—were related to an improvement in respondents’ views of their fellow citizens and government, and to better mental well-being. These findings suggest that policy-makers may not only need to consider how their decisions affect the spread of COVID-19, but also how such choices influence the mental well-being of their population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"47\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3kfmh\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3kfmh","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Perceptions of an Insufficient Government Response at the Onset of the COVID-19 Pandemic are Associated with Lower Mental Well-Being
We conducted a large-scale survey covering 58 countries (N = 108,075) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic—between March 20th and April 7th 2020—to explore how beliefs about citizens’ and government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the actions taken by governments, affected mental well-being. Our analyses reveal three findings. First, many respondents indicate that their country’s citizens and government’s response was insufficient. Second, respondents’ perception of an insufficient public and government response was associated with lower mental well-being. Third, we exploit time variation in country-level lockdown announcements, both around the world and through an event-study in the UK, and find that strong government actions—i.e., announcing a nationwide lockdown—were related to an improvement in respondents’ views of their fellow citizens and government, and to better mental well-being. These findings suggest that policy-makers may not only need to consider how their decisions affect the spread of COVID-19, but also how such choices influence the mental well-being of their population.