ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to examine workers' psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic as a function of their individual coping, dyadic coping, and work-family conflict. We also tested the moderating role of gender and culture in these associations. To achieve this aim, we run HLM analyses on data from 1521 workers cohabiting with a partner, coming from six countries (Italy, Spain, Malta, Cyprus, Greece, and Russia) characterized by various degrees of country-level individualism/collectivism. Across all six countries, findings highlighted that work-family conflict as well as the individual coping strategy social support seeking were associated with higher psychological distress for workers, while the individual coping strategy positive attitude and common dyadic coping were found to be protective against workers' psychological distress. This latter association, moreover, was stronger in more individualistic countries.
ABSTRACT
Research has associated optimism with better health-protective behaviours, but few studies have measured optimism or pessimism directly, by asking participants to estimate probabilities of events. We used these probability estimates to examine how optimism and/or pessimism relate to protecting oneself from COVID-19. When COVID-19 first reached Turkey, we asked a snowball sample of 494 Istanbul adults how much they engaged in various COVID-protective behaviours. They also estimated the probabilities of their catching COVID-19, and of other positive and negative events happening to them. Estimated probability of general positive events (optimism) correlated positively with officially-recommended helpful behaviours (e.g. wearing masks), but not with less-helpful behaviours (e.g. sharing 'alternative' COVID-related information online). Estimated probabilities of general negative events (pessimism), or of catching COVID, did not correlate significantly with helpful COVID-related behaviours; but they did correlate with psychopathological symptoms, as did less-helpful COVID-related behaviours. This shows important nuances can be revealed by measuring optimism and pessimism, as separate variables, using probability estimates.
ABSTRACT
Conformist social influence is a double-edged sword when it comes to vaccine promotion. On the one hand, social influence may increase vaccine uptake by reassuring the hesitant about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine; on the other hand, people may forgo the cost of vaccination when the majority is already vaccinated - giving rise to a public goods dilemma. Here, we examine whether available information on the percentage of double-vaccinated people affects COVID-19 vaccination intention among unvaccinated people in Turkey. In an online experiment, we divided participants (n = 1013) into low, intermediate and high social influence conditions, reflecting the government's vaccine promotion messages. We found that social influence did not predict COVID-19 vaccination intention, but psychological reactance and collectivism did. People with higher reactance (intolerance of others telling one what to do and being sceptical of consensus views) had lower vaccination intention, whilst people with higher collectivism (how much a person considers group benefits over individual success) had higher vaccination intention. Our findings suggest that advertising the percentage of double-vaccinated people is not sufficient to trigger a cascade of others getting themselves vaccinated. Diverse promotion strategies reflecting the heterogeneity of individual attitudes could be more effective.
