文化印记焦虑及其临床试验项目管理的路径

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
T. Malik
{"title":"文化印记焦虑及其临床试验项目管理的路径","authors":"T. Malik","doi":"10.1177/1069397120967309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Anxiety has become ubiquitous in modern life, across countries. Cultural theories suggest that high uncertainty avoidance (UA) increases anxiety, while long-term orientation (LTO) decreases it. We question whether a high UA culture in a region attracts research and development (R&D) projects regarding anxiety management, compared to LTO. Furthermore, do these opposite dimensions moderate each other in attracting a pharmaceutical firm’s response? This article explores this link between the UA culture and the moderation effect of LTO. Using data on clinical trials related to anxiety management projects in 67 countries, we record 10,585 observations, capturing 4% of the global population of clinical trials on the subject. We find that the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) shows a negative correlation with the intensity of the anxiety management project, while LTO has no significant correlation. The interaction between the two shows positive correlation. The results are found to be significant after controlling for confounding variables and robustness checks. This study makes three contributions. First, it highlights the link between culture and anxiety management projects through the clinical trial movement. Second, it contributes to cultural theory, suggesting that the UAI defines problems and LTO defines innovative solutions. It also highlights the differences and links between the UAI and LTO at the conceptual level. Thirdly, it offers general policy and practical implications.","PeriodicalId":47154,"journal":{"name":"Cross-Cultural Research","volume":"55 1","pages":"148 - 178"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1069397120967309","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Culturally Imprinted Anxiety and the Itinerary of Clinical Trial Projects for Its Management\",\"authors\":\"T. Malik\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1069397120967309\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Anxiety has become ubiquitous in modern life, across countries. Cultural theories suggest that high uncertainty avoidance (UA) increases anxiety, while long-term orientation (LTO) decreases it. We question whether a high UA culture in a region attracts research and development (R&D) projects regarding anxiety management, compared to LTO. Furthermore, do these opposite dimensions moderate each other in attracting a pharmaceutical firm’s response? This article explores this link between the UA culture and the moderation effect of LTO. Using data on clinical trials related to anxiety management projects in 67 countries, we record 10,585 observations, capturing 4% of the global population of clinical trials on the subject. We find that the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) shows a negative correlation with the intensity of the anxiety management project, while LTO has no significant correlation. The interaction between the two shows positive correlation. The results are found to be significant after controlling for confounding variables and robustness checks. This study makes three contributions. First, it highlights the link between culture and anxiety management projects through the clinical trial movement. Second, it contributes to cultural theory, suggesting that the UAI defines problems and LTO defines innovative solutions. It also highlights the differences and links between the UAI and LTO at the conceptual level. Thirdly, it offers general policy and practical implications.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47154,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cross-Cultural Research\",\"volume\":\"55 1\",\"pages\":\"148 - 178\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1069397120967309\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cross-Cultural Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120967309\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cross-Cultural Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1069397120967309","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

焦虑在现代生活中无处不在,遍及各个国家。文化理论认为,高度不确定性规避(UA)会增加焦虑,而长期定向(LTO)会减少焦虑。我们质疑,与LTO相比,一个地区的高UA文化是否会吸引焦虑管理方面的研发项目。此外,这些相反的维度在吸引制药公司的反应方面是否相互调节?本文探讨了UA文化与LTO调节作用之间的联系。使用67个国家与焦虑管理项目相关的临床试验数据,我们记录了10,585次观察,占全球该主题临床试验人口的4%。研究发现,不确定性规避指数(UAI)与焦虑管理项目强度呈负相关,而LTO不显著相关。两者的相互作用呈正相关。在控制了混杂变量和鲁棒性检查后,发现结果是显著的。这项研究有三个贡献。首先,它通过临床试验运动强调了文化与焦虑管理项目之间的联系。其次,它有助于文化理论,表明UAI定义问题,LTO定义创新的解决方案。它还强调了UAI和LTO在概念层面上的差异和联系。第三,它提供了一般政策和现实意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Culturally Imprinted Anxiety and the Itinerary of Clinical Trial Projects for Its Management
Anxiety has become ubiquitous in modern life, across countries. Cultural theories suggest that high uncertainty avoidance (UA) increases anxiety, while long-term orientation (LTO) decreases it. We question whether a high UA culture in a region attracts research and development (R&D) projects regarding anxiety management, compared to LTO. Furthermore, do these opposite dimensions moderate each other in attracting a pharmaceutical firm’s response? This article explores this link between the UA culture and the moderation effect of LTO. Using data on clinical trials related to anxiety management projects in 67 countries, we record 10,585 observations, capturing 4% of the global population of clinical trials on the subject. We find that the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) shows a negative correlation with the intensity of the anxiety management project, while LTO has no significant correlation. The interaction between the two shows positive correlation. The results are found to be significant after controlling for confounding variables and robustness checks. This study makes three contributions. First, it highlights the link between culture and anxiety management projects through the clinical trial movement. Second, it contributes to cultural theory, suggesting that the UAI defines problems and LTO defines innovative solutions. It also highlights the differences and links between the UAI and LTO at the conceptual level. Thirdly, it offers general policy and practical implications.
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
Cross-Cultural Research
Cross-Cultural Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Cross-Cultural Research, formerly Behavior Science Research, is sponsored by the Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (HRAF) and is the official journal of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research. The mission of the journal is to publish peer-reviewed articles describing cross-cultural or comparative studies in all the social/behavioral sciences and other sciences dealing with humans, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, political science, economics, human ecology, and evolutionary biology. Worldwide cross-cultural studies are particularly welcomed, but all kinds of systematic comparisons are acceptable so long as they deal explicity with cross-cultural issues pertaining to the constraints and variables of human behavior.
×
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