Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32348015›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of health psychology2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) in the United Kingdom: A personality-based perspective on concerns and intention to self-isolate.

Alison M Bacon, Philip J Corr

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of health psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 132 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alison M BaconSchool of Psychology, University of Plymouth, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-3814
Philip J CorrDepartment of Psychology, City, University of London, UK.
City, University of London · GBUniversity of Plymouth · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives Public behaviour change is necessary to contain the spread of coronavirus (COVID-19). Based on the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) framework, this study presents an examination of individual differences in some relevant psychological factors. Design Cross-sectional psychometric. Methods UK respondents (N = 202) completed a personality questionnaire (RST-PQ), measures of illness attitudes, concerns about the impact of coronavirus on health services and socio-economic infrastructures, personal safety, and likelihood of voluntary self-isolation. Results Respondents most concerned were older, had negative illness attitudes, and scored higher on reward reactivity (RR), indicating the motivation to take positive approach action despite prevailing worry/anxiety. Personal safety concerns were highest in those with negative illness attitudes and higher fight-flight-freeze system (FFFS, reflecting fear/avoidance) scores. Results suggest people are experiencing psychological conflict: between the urge to stay safe (FFFF-related) and the desire to maintain a normal, pleasurable (RR-related) life. Ways of ameliorating conflict may include maladaptive behaviours (panic buying), reflecting reward-related displacement activity. Intended self-isolation related to FFFS, but also low behavioural inhibition system (related to anxiety) scores. Older people reported themselves less likely to self-isolate. Conclusions Interventions need to consider individual differences in psychological factors in behaviour change, and we discuss relevant literature to inform policy makers and communicators. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) personality systems can influence perception of persuasive health messages. However, there is limited evidence for their direct effects on health concerns and behaviours, and none relating to specific infectious diseases. What does this study add? Reward reactivity (RR) is associated with concern about impact of coronavirus on the NHS and other social infrastructures, indicating the motivation to take positive-approach action despite worry/anxiety. Personal safety concerns are related to fight-flight-freeze system traits (FFFS, reflecting fear/avoidance). Intended self-isolation related to FFFS, but also low behavioural inhibition system (related to anxiety) scores. Older people reported themselves less likely to self-isolate. Results suggest psychological conflict: between the urge to stay safe (FFFF-related) and the desire to maintain a normal, pleasurable life (RR-related). Ways of ameliorating conflict may include maladaptive behaviours (panic buying), reflecting reward-related displacement activity.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsIntentionPandemicsPneumonia, ViralCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesHumansPersonalitySARS-CoV-2United Kingdomanxietycoronavirusdepressionfearreinforcement sensitivity theoryself-isolation

Identifiers

PMID32348015
PMCPMC7267391
OpenAlexW3017750012

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.