Terri D. Conley, Jennifer L. Piemonte, Ishita Shukla, Ananya Mangla, Nainika Mateti, Soha Tariq
{"title":"一夫一妻制可以预防COVID-19?非一夫一妻制的耻辱和风险(错误)的看法","authors":"Terri D. Conley, Jennifer L. Piemonte, Ishita Shukla, Ananya Mangla, Nainika Mateti, Soha Tariq","doi":"10.1111/asap.12325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>COVID-19 public health messages largely communicated that Americans were “safer at home.” Implicit in this advice are messages about protections ostensibly also offered by monogamy–that having more relationships is always more dangerous than having fewer relationships and that closer relationships are always safer–from a disease transmission perspective–than unfamiliar relationships. These heuristics may have led people to discount other COVID-19 dangers (such as spending more time with others of unknown infection status) and to ignore COVID-specific safety measures (such as mask-wearing, and ventilation). We conducted three studies in which we used experimental vignettes to assess people's perceptions of COVID-risky targets in monogamous relationships with a close, committed partner versus targets who were described as non-monogamous with casual partners but relatively COVID-safe. Participants perceived monogamous-but-COVID-riskier targets as more responsible and safer from COVID-19. Non-monogamy stigma seems to extend analogously to COVID-19 risk. Public health messages that fail to attend to the specifics and nuances of close relationships risk contributing to this stigma and ultimately undermining the goals of reducing the spread of infectious disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":46799,"journal":{"name":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","volume":"22 3","pages":"763-793"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538616/pdf/ASAP-9999-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Monogamy as protection against COVID-19?: Non-monogamy stigma and risk (Mis)perception\",\"authors\":\"Terri D. Conley, Jennifer L. Piemonte, Ishita Shukla, Ananya Mangla, Nainika Mateti, Soha Tariq\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/asap.12325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>COVID-19 public health messages largely communicated that Americans were “safer at home.” Implicit in this advice are messages about protections ostensibly also offered by monogamy–that having more relationships is always more dangerous than having fewer relationships and that closer relationships are always safer–from a disease transmission perspective–than unfamiliar relationships. These heuristics may have led people to discount other COVID-19 dangers (such as spending more time with others of unknown infection status) and to ignore COVID-specific safety measures (such as mask-wearing, and ventilation). We conducted three studies in which we used experimental vignettes to assess people's perceptions of COVID-risky targets in monogamous relationships with a close, committed partner versus targets who were described as non-monogamous with casual partners but relatively COVID-safe. Participants perceived monogamous-but-COVID-riskier targets as more responsible and safer from COVID-19. Non-monogamy stigma seems to extend analogously to COVID-19 risk. Public health messages that fail to attend to the specifics and nuances of close relationships risk contributing to this stigma and ultimately undermining the goals of reducing the spread of infectious disease.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46799,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy\",\"volume\":\"22 3\",\"pages\":\"763-793\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538616/pdf/ASAP-9999-0.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12325\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/asap.12325","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Monogamy as protection against COVID-19?: Non-monogamy stigma and risk (Mis)perception
COVID-19 public health messages largely communicated that Americans were “safer at home.” Implicit in this advice are messages about protections ostensibly also offered by monogamy–that having more relationships is always more dangerous than having fewer relationships and that closer relationships are always safer–from a disease transmission perspective–than unfamiliar relationships. These heuristics may have led people to discount other COVID-19 dangers (such as spending more time with others of unknown infection status) and to ignore COVID-specific safety measures (such as mask-wearing, and ventilation). We conducted three studies in which we used experimental vignettes to assess people's perceptions of COVID-risky targets in monogamous relationships with a close, committed partner versus targets who were described as non-monogamous with casual partners but relatively COVID-safe. Participants perceived monogamous-but-COVID-riskier targets as more responsible and safer from COVID-19. Non-monogamy stigma seems to extend analogously to COVID-19 risk. Public health messages that fail to attend to the specifics and nuances of close relationships risk contributing to this stigma and ultimately undermining the goals of reducing the spread of infectious disease.
期刊介绍:
Recent articles in ASAP have examined social psychological methods in the study of economic and social justice including ageism, heterosexism, racism, sexism, status quo bias and other forms of discrimination, social problems such as climate change, extremism, homelessness, inter-group conflict, natural disasters, poverty, and terrorism, and social ideals such as democracy, empowerment, equality, health, and trust.