19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying with all humanity predicts cooperative health behaviors and helpful responding during COVID-19

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          In the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, public health experts have produced guidelines to limit the spread of the coronavirus, but individuals do not always comply with experts’ recommendations. Here, we tested whether a specific psychological belief—identification with all humanity—predicts cooperation with public health guidelines as well as helpful behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that peoples’ endorsement of this belief—their relative perception of a connection and moral commitment to other humans—would predict their tendencies to adopt World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and to help others. To assess this, we conducted a global online study ( N = 2537 participants) of four WHO-recommended health behaviors and four pandemic-related moral dilemmas that we constructed to be relevant to helping others at a potential cost to oneself. We used generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) that included 10 predictor variables (demographic, contextual, and psychological) for each of five outcome measures (a WHO cooperative health behavior score, plus responses to each of our four moral, helping dilemmas). Identification with all humanity was the most consistent and consequential predictor of individuals’ cooperative health behavior and helpful responding. Analyses showed that the identification with all humanity significantly predicted each of the five outcomes while controlling for the other variables ( Prange < 10 −22 to < 0.009). The mean effect size of the identification with all humanity predictor on these outcomes was more than twice as large as the effect sizes of other predictors. Identification with all humanity is a psychological construct that, through targeted interventions, may help scientists and policymakers to better understand and promote cooperative health behavior and help-oriented concern for others during the current pandemic as well as in future humanitarian crises.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response

          The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behaviour with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Mental Health and the Covid-19 Pandemic

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found

              Psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations associated with severe coronavirus infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis with comparison to the COVID-19 pandemic

              Summary Background Before the COVID-19 pandemic, coronaviruses caused two noteworthy outbreaks: severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), starting in 2002, and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), starting in 2012. We aimed to assess the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of SARS, MERS, and COVID-19. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases (from their inception until March 18, 2020), and medRxiv, bioRxiv, and PsyArXiv (between Jan 1, 2020, and April 10, 2020) were searched by two independent researchers for all English-language studies or preprints reporting data on the psychiatric and neuropsychiatric presentations of individuals with suspected or laboratory-confirmed coronavirus infection (SARS coronavirus, MERS coronavirus, or SARS coronavirus 2). We excluded studies limited to neurological complications without specified neuropsychiatric presentations and those investigating the indirect effects of coronavirus infections on the mental health of people who are not infected, such as those mediated through physical distancing measures such as self-isolation or quarantine. Outcomes were psychiatric signs or symptoms; symptom severity; diagnoses based on ICD-10, DSM-IV, or the Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders (third edition) or psychometric scales; quality of life; and employment. Both the systematic review and the meta-analysis stratified outcomes across illness stages (acute vs post-illness) for SARS and MERS. We used a random-effects model for the meta-analysis, and the meta-analytical effect size was prevalence for relevant outcomes, I 2 statistics, and assessment of study quality. Findings 1963 studies and 87 preprints were identified by the systematic search, of which 65 peer-reviewed studies and seven preprints met inclusion criteria. The number of coronavirus cases of the included studies was 3559, ranging from 1 to 997, and the mean age of participants in studies ranged from 12·2 years (SD 4·1) to 68·0 years (single case report). Studies were from China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Canada, Saudi Arabia, France, Japan, Singapore, the UK, and the USA. Follow-up time for the post-illness studies varied between 60 days and 12 years. The systematic review revealed that during the acute illness, common symptoms among patients admitted to hospital for SARS or MERS included confusion (36 [27·9%; 95% CI 20·5–36·0] of 129 patients), depressed mood (42 [32·6%; 24·7–40·9] of 129), anxiety (46 [35·7%; 27·6–44·2] of 129), impaired memory (44 [34·1%; 26·2–42·5] of 129), and insomnia (54 [41·9%; 22·5–50·5] of 129). Steroid-induced mania and psychosis were reported in 13 (0·7%) of 1744 patients with SARS in the acute stage in one study. In the post-illness stage, depressed mood (35 [10·5%; 95% CI 7·5–14·1] of 332 patients), insomnia (34 [12·1%; 8·6–16·3] of 280), anxiety (21 [12·3%; 7·7–17·7] of 171), irritability (28 [12·8%; 8·7–17·6] of 218), memory impairment (44 [18·9%; 14·1–24·2] of 233), fatigue (61 [19·3%; 15·1–23·9] of 316), and in one study traumatic memories (55 [30·4%; 23·9–37·3] of 181) and sleep disorder (14 [100·0%; 88·0–100·0] of 14) were frequently reported. The meta-analysis indicated that in the post-illness stage the point prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder was 32·2% (95% CI 23·7–42·0; 121 of 402 cases from four studies), that of depression was 14·9% (12·1–18·2; 77 of 517 cases from five studies), and that of anxiety disorders was 14·8% (11·1–19·4; 42 of 284 cases from three studies). 446 (76·9%; 95% CI 68·1–84·6) of 580 patients from six studies had returned to work at a mean follow-up time of 35·3 months (SD 40·1). When data for patients with COVID-19 were examined (including preprint data), there was evidence for delirium (confusion in 26 [65%] of 40 intensive care unit patients and agitation in 40 [69%] of 58 intensive care unit patients in one study, and altered consciousness in 17 [21%] of 82 patients who subsequently died in another study). At discharge, 15 (33%) of 45 patients with COVID-19 who were assessed had a dysexecutive syndrome in one study. At the time of writing, there were two reports of hypoxic encephalopathy and one report of encephalitis. 68 (94%) of the 72 studies were of either low or medium quality. Interpretation If infection with SARS-CoV-2 follows a similar course to that with SARS-CoV or MERS-CoV, most patients should recover without experiencing mental illness. SARS-CoV-2 might cause delirium in a significant proportion of patients in the acute stage. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of depression, anxiety, fatigue, post-traumatic stress disorder, and rarer neuropsychiatric syndromes in the longer term. Funding Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK Medical Research Council, NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and University College London.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                10 March 2021
                2021
                10 March 2021
                : 16
                : 3
                : e0248234
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
                [2 ] Institute for Learning & Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
                [3 ] Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
                [4 ] Center for Neurotechnology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America
                University of Wolverhampton, UNITED KINGDOM
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                ‡ RCB and NO are joint first authors on this work. ANM, RPNR and KR are joint senior authors on this work.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7419-3971
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3798-3448
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8683-0547
                Article
                PONE-D-20-36725
                10.1371/journal.pone.0248234
                7946174
                33690679
                f6acb35e-f389-42c9-bc64-15fd69b67f63
                © 2021 Barragan et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 22 November 2020
                : 23 February 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 13
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100011730, Templeton World Charity Foundation;
                Award ID: TWCF0432
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000025, National Institute of Mental Health;
                Award ID: 5R01MH112166
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005717, SBE Office of Multidisciplinary Activities;
                Award ID: 1807789
                Award Recipient :
                The research was supported by the Templeton World Charity Foundation ( https://www.templetonworldcharity.org/, Grant #TWCF0432 to R.P.N.R. and A.N.M.), National Institute of Mental Health ( https://www.nimh.nih.gov/index.shtml, Grant #5R01MH112166 to R.P.N.R.), a National Science Foundation Broadening Participation Postdoctoral Research Award ( https://www.nsf.gov/, Grant #1807789 to R.C.B. and A.N.M.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Behavioral and Social Aspects of Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Humanities
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Prosocial Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Behavior
                Prosocial Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Neuroscience
                Cognitive Science
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Cognitive Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Social Cognition
                Prosocial Behavior
                Engineering and Technology
                Transportation
                Ambulances
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Education
                Schools
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Social Sciences
                Psychology
                Social Psychology
                Custom metadata
                The data are available at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3cvgd/.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article