ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021
The Cassandra Experience: A Mixed Methods Study on the Intragroup Cognitive Dissonance of Italian Expatriates During the First Wave of COVID-19.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In March 2020, Italy was the first European country to be hit severely by the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to put in place moderate-high containment measures. 594 Italian expatriates participated in a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey focusing on the period that goes from the beginning of March 2020 to the beginning of April 2020. The survey aimed to describe the experiences of participants when it comes to conflicting beliefs and behavior with the Italian or host country communities in relation to COVID-19, using the Intragroup Cognitive Dissonance (ICD) framework. We explored: (1) COVID-19 risk perception (assessed for themselves, the Italian community, and the host country community); (2) COVID-19 risk meta-perception (participants' perception of the Italian and host country communities' risk perception); (3) intensity of emotions (assessed for themselves); (4) national group identification (assessed for themselves in relation to the Italian and host country communities) before and after the first wave of COVID-19 in Italy. An inductive thematic analysis of three open-ended questions allowed an in-depth understanding of the experiences of Italian expatriates. Results describe the ICD of participants with the Italian or host country communities, expressed as a difference between COVID-19 risk-perception and risk meta-perception. ICD predicts that when a dissonance of beliefs and behavior is experienced within an individual's group, a shift in identification with another more consonant group will happen, if identity enhancing strategies with the dissonant group are unsuccessful. Our findings showed that when the ICD was experienced with the host country community, this was solved through a disidentification strategy and mediated by negative emotions. Identity enhancing strategies with the host country community were unsuccessfully enacted as described by the qualitative answers of participants referring to episodes of racism, ridicule, and to a Cassandra experience: predicting a catastrophic future without being believed. Unexpectedly, participants experiencing the ICD with the Italian community did not enact a disidentification strategy. An increase in virtual contacts, enhanced sense of belonging, a stronger identification baseline, and different features of the two ICDs can be responsible for these results. This study sheds light on the relevance of ICD in natural settings and on international communities, during global crises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.