Predicting attitudes toward mitigation interventions and social distancing behaviors at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

Aim: The goal of this research was to assess the influence of adult attachment, personality, and cultural orientation on social distancing and attitudes toward COVID-19 mitigation interventions. Methods: Survey data was collected across two samples (NMTurk = 201, Nsnowball = 242) in the US from April 29 to May 11, 2020. Adult attachment was assessed via the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale-Short Form (ECR-S; Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187-204), personality was assessed via the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528), cultural orientation was assessed via the Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale (Triandis, H. C., & Galfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128), and social distancing and attitudes toward mitigation interventions were assessed via self-report measures developed for this assessment. Results: In the MTurk sample, agreeableness (ß = .19) and conscientiousness (ß = .26) predicted positive mitigation intervention attitudes. Agreeableness (ß = .24) and vertical collectivism (ß = .25) positively predicted social distancing, while attachment anxiety (ß = -.32) and vertical individualism (ß = -.32) negatively predicted social distancing. In our snowball sample, residing primarily in New York, openness (ß = .18) and horizontal collectivism (ß = .16) predicted positive intervention attitudes, while horizontal individualism (ß = -.20) predicted negative attitudes. Social contact in this sample was low and not associated with predictor variables. In both samples, mitigation attitudes and social distancing were only moderately correlated. Implications: Our findings highlight the inherent inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors as well as the potential impact of mandated interventions on both attitudes and behavior.

The association of cultural orientation with adherence to social distancing behaviors during the early COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: A cross-sectional survey.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions are one of the major tools to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Information about these behaviors is disseminated by messaging campaigns. However, people differ in their responses to persuasive messages. Here, we examine whether cultural orientation is associated with adherence to recommended COVID-19 prevention guidelines. Participants (n = 443, 201 from the United States via Amazon Mechanical Turk and 242 from Central New York via a convenience, snowball sample) completed an online survey during April and May 2020. Cultural orientation was measured via the Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale. Adherence to limiting social contact was self-reported. Multi-level Poisson regression assessed the association between cultural orientation and social contact behaviors. Those high in horizontal individualist characteristics had a positive association with increased social contact behaviors (RR: 2.20, 95%CI: 1.97-2.47, p<0.001). Those high in vertical collectivist characteristics had a negative association with those behaviors (RR: 0.59, 95%CI: 0.52-0.67, p<0.000). We found an association with cultural orientation and adherence to social contact behaviors during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. In the United States, effective public health messages to promote adherence to preventative behaviors should be tailored to horizontal individualists, those least likely to engage in recommended behaviors.

He loves her, he loves her not: attachment style as a personality antecedent to men's ambivalent sexism.

The authors present an integrative account of how attachment insecurities relate to sexism. Two studies showed that attachment avoidance predisposes men to endorse hostile but to reject benevolent sexism (BS), whereas attachment anxiety predisposes men toward ambivalent (both hostile and benevolent) sexism. The authors also tested predicted mediators, finding that men's social dominance orientation (a competitive intergroup ideology) mediated the avoidance to hostile sexism link. In addition, romanticism (an idealized interpersonal ideology) mediated attachment insecurity to BS links: (a) Avoidant men tended to reject romanticism (i.e., were cynical about romance) and, in turn, were likely to reject BS, whereas (b) anxious men tended to endorse romanticism (i.e., were idealistic about romance) and, in turn, likely to endorse BS. The authors conclude that men's sexism stems in part from dispositional attachment working models, both directly and through the interpersonal and intergroup ideologies they generate.

Influence of family of origin and adult romantic partners on romantic attachment security.

According to attachment theory, attachment style derives from social experiences throughout the life span. The authors tested this expectation by examining associations between the quality of observed interaction patterns in the family of origin during adolescence and self-reported romantic attachment style and observed romantic relationship behaviors in adulthood (ages 25 and 27). Family and romantic relationship interactions were rated by trained observers from video recordings of structured conversation tasks. Attachment style was assessed with items from D. W. Griffin and K. Bartholomew's (1994a) Relationship Scales Questionnaire. Observational ratings of warmth and sensitivity in family interactions were positively related to similar behaviors by romantic partners and to attachment security. In addition, romantic interactions characterized by high warmth and low hostility at age 25 predicted greater attachment security at 27, after controlling for attachment security at age 25. However, attachment security at age 25 did not predict later romantic relationship interactions after controlling for earlier interactions. These findings underscore the importance of close relationships in the development of romantic attachment security but do not indicate that attachment security predicts the quality of interactions in romantic relationships.