Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and narcissistic traits ☆

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

People's perceived susceptibility to illnesses plays a key role in determining whether or not to take protective measures. However, self-enhancing biases hinder accurate susceptibility perceptions, leaving some individuals to feel invulnerable in the face of acute health risks. Since such biases are prominent characteristics of individuals with narcissistic personality traits, this article empirically examined whether low perceived susceptibility of infection with COVID-19 is related to subclinical narcissism, as measured with the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16) and the Narcissism Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (NARQ). We report the findings from a worldwide sample ( N = 244), a UK sample before governmental pandemic restrictions ( N = 261), a UK sample after restrictions ( N = 261) and a pooled data analysis ( N = 766). Overall, grandiose narcissism as measured with the NPI-16 predicted lower perceived susceptibility of infection, also after controlling for age and gender, whereas the NARQ Admiration subscale predicted higher perceived susceptibility. The findings are discussed in the light of theoretical and policy implications.

Highlights

•

Prevention policies benefit from knowing who feels invulnerable to infection.
•

Self-enhancing biases prevent accurate susceptibility perceptions.
•

Grandiose narcissistic traits are associated with self-enhancement biases.
•

High scores on the NPI-16 predict low perceived susceptibility.
•

High scores on the NARQ Admiration subscale predict high perceived susceptibility.

Related collections

Most cited references 93

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Derek K. Chu, Elie A. Akl, Stephanie Duda … (2020)

Summary Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) causes COVID-19 and is spread person-to-person through close contact. We aimed to investigate the effects of physical distance, face masks, and eye protection on virus transmission in health-care and non-health-care (eg, community) settings. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the optimum distance for avoiding person-to-person virus transmission and to assess the use of face masks and eye protection to prevent transmission of viruses. We obtained data for SARS-CoV-2 and the betacoronaviruses that cause severe acute respiratory syndrome, and Middle East respiratory syndrome from 21 standard WHO-specific and COVID-19-specific sources. We searched these data sources from database inception to May 3, 2020, with no restriction by language, for comparative studies and for contextual factors of acceptability, feasibility, resource use, and equity. We screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We did frequentist and Bayesian meta-analyses and random-effects meta-regressions. We rated the certainty of evidence according to Cochrane methods and the GRADE approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020177047. Findings Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies in health-care and non-health-care settings (n=25 697 patients). Transmission of viruses was lower with physical distancing of 1 m or more, compared with a distance of less than 1 m (n=10 736, pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·18, 95% CI 0·09 to 0·38; risk difference [RD] −10·2%, 95% CI −11·5 to −7·5; moderate certainty); protection was increased as distance was lengthened (change in relative risk [RR] 2·02 per m; p interaction=0·041; moderate certainty). Face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection (n=2647; aOR 0·15, 95% CI 0·07 to 0·34, RD −14·3%, −15·9 to −10·7; low certainty), with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar (eg, reusable 12–16-layer cotton masks; p interaction=0·090; posterior probability >95%, low certainty). Eye protection also was associated with less infection (n=3713; aOR 0·22, 95% CI 0·12 to 0·39, RD −10·6%, 95% CI −12·5 to −7·7; low certainty). Unadjusted studies and subgroup and sensitivity analyses showed similar findings. Interpretation The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis support physical distancing of 1 m or more and provide quantitative estimates for models and contact tracing to inform policy. Optimum use of face masks, respirators, and eye protection in public and health-care settings should be informed by these findings and contextual factors. Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance. Funding World Health Organization.

0 comments Cited 1770 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

A Theory of Social Comparison Processes

Leon Festinger (2016)

0 comments Cited 1225 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Gender Differences in Patients With COVID-19: Focus on Severity and Mortality

Jian-Min Jin, Peng Bai, Wei He … (2020)

Objective: The recent outbreak of Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) is reminiscent of the SARS outbreak in 2003. We aim to compare the severity and mortality between male and female patients with COVID-19 or SARS. Study Design and Setting: We extracted the data from: (1) a case series of 43 hospitalized patients we treated, (2) a public data set of the first 37 cases of patients who died of COVID-19 and 1,019 patients who survived in China, and (3) data of 524 patients with SARS, including 139 deaths, from Beijing in early 2003. Results: Older age and a high number of comorbidities were associated with higher severity and mortality in patients with both COVID-19 and SARS. Age was comparable between men and women in all data sets. In the case series, however, men's cases tended to be more serious than women's (P = 0.035). In the public data set, the number of men who died from COVID-19 is 2.4 times that of women (70.3 vs. 29.7%, P = 0.016). In SARS patients, the gender role in mortality was also observed. The percentage of males were higher in the deceased group than in the survived group (P = 0.015). Conclusion: While men and women have the same prevalence, men with COVID-19 are more at risk for worse outcomes and death, independent of age.

0 comments Cited 982 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Pers Individ Dif

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Pers Individ Dif

Title: Personality and Individual Differences

Publisher: Elsevier Ltd.

ISSN (Print): 0191-8869

ISSN (Electronic): 0191-8869

Publication date PMC-release: 3 February 2021

Publication date (Print): June 2021

Publication date (Electronic): 3 February 2021

Volume: 175

Page: 110696

Affiliations

Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Aarhus BSS, Aarhus University, Bartolins Allé 11, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark

Author notes

[* ]Corresponding author.

Article

Publisher Item ID: S0191-8869(21)00071-4 Publisher ID: 110696

DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2021.110696

PMC ID: 7857009

PubMed ID: 33558779

SO-VID: c042f07f-b530-450c-a305-56b91423e291

License:

Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

History

Date received : 6 October 2020

Date revision received : 14 December 2020

Date accepted : 22 January 2021

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 15

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 987

See all reference authors

Perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection and narcissistic traits ^☆

Read this article at

Abstract

Highlights

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 93

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

A Theory of Social Comparison Processes

Gender Differences in Patients With COVID-19: Focus on Severity and Mortality

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 404

Cited by 15

Most referenced authors 987