Browsing by Author "Blackburn, Angelique M."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cross-language validation of COVID-19 Compliance Scale in 28 languages
    (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Blackburn, Angelique M.; Han, Hyemin; Gallegos, Aranza; Texas A&M International University; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    Although compliance scales have been used to assess compliance with health guidelines to reduce the spread of COVID-19, no scale known to us has shown content validity regarding global guidelines and reliability across an international sample. We assessed the validity and reliability of a Compliance Scale developed by a group of over 150 international researchers. Exploratory factor analysis determined reliable items on the English version. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the reliability of the six-item scale and convergent validity was found. After invariance testing and alignment, we employed a novel R code to run a Monte Carlo simulation for alignment validation. This scale can be employed to measure compliance across multiple languages, and our alignment validation method can be conducted with future cross-language surveys.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The effects of secondary stressors, social identity, and social support on perceived stress and resilience: Findings from the COVID-19 pandemic
    (Elsevier, 2023) Ntontis, Evangelos; Blackburn, Angelique M.; Han, Hyemin; Stoeckli, Sabrina; Milfont, Taciano L.; Tuominen, Jarno; Griffin, Siobhan M.; Ikizer, Gozde; Jeftic, Alma; Chrona, Stavroula; Nasheedha, Aishath; Liutsko, Liudmila; Vestergren, Sara; Open University - UK; Texas A&M International University; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; University of Bern; University of Zurich; University of Waikato; University of Turku; University of Limerick; TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji University; International Christian University; University of Sussex; ISGlobal; Lomonosov Moscow State University; Keele University
    Primary stressors are direct outcomes of extreme events (e.g., viruses, floodwater) whereas secondary stressors stem from pre-disaster life circumstances and societal arrangements (e.g., illness, problematic pre-disaster pol-icies) or from inefficient responses to the extreme event. Secondary stressors can cause significant long-term damage to people affected but are also tractable and amenable to change. In this study we explored the asso-ciation between secondary stressors, social identity processes, social support, and perceived stress and resilience. Pre-registered analyses of data from the COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey Round II (N = 14,600; 43 countries) show that secondary stressors are positively associated with perceived stress and negatively associated with resilience, even when controlling for the effects of primary stressors. Being a woman or having lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with higher exposure to secondary stressors, higher perceived stress, and lower resilience. Importantly, social identification is positively associated with expected support and with increased resilience and lower perceived stress. However, neither gender, SES, or social identification moderated the relationship be-tween secondary stressors and perceived stress and resilience. In conclusion, systemic reforms and the avail-ability of social support are paramount to reducing the effects of secondary stressors.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey
    (Royal Society of London, 2021) Lieberoth, Andreas; Lin, Shiang-Yi; Stockli, Sabrina; Han, Hyemin; Kowal, Marta; Gelpi, Rebekah; Chrona, Stavroula; Tran, Thao Phuong; Jeftic, Alma; Rasmussen, Jesper; Cakal, Huseyin; Milfont, Taciano L.; Yamada, Yuki; Amin, Rizwana; Debove, Stephane; Flis, Ivan; Sahin, Hafize; Turk, Fidan; Yeh, Yao-Yuan; Ho, Yuen Wan; Sikka, Pilleriin; Delgado-Garcia, Guillermo; Lacko, David; Mamede, Salome; Zerhouni, Oulmann; Tuominen, Jarno; Bircan, Tuba; Wang, Austin Horng-En; Ikizer, Gozde; Lins, Samuel; Studzinska, Anna; Uddin, Muhammad Kamal; Juarez, Fernanda Perez-Gay; Chen, Fang-Yu; Sanli, Aybegum Memisoglu; Lys, Agnieszka E.; Reynoso-Alcantara, Vicenta; Flores Gonzalez, Ruben; Griffin, Amanda M.; Lopez, Claudio Rafael Castro; Nezkusilova, Jana; Cepulic, Dominik-Borna; Aquino, Sibele; Marot, Tiago A.; Blackburn, Angelique M.; Boullu, Lois; Bavolar, Jozef; Kacmar, Pavol; Wu, Charles K. S.; Areias, Joao Carlos; Natividade, Jean C.; Mari, Silvia; Ahmed, Oli; Dranseika, Vilius; Cristofori, Irene; Coll-Martin, Tao; Eichel, Kristina; Kumaga, Raisa; Ermagan-Caglar, Eda; Bamwesigye, Dastan; Tag, Benjamin; Contreras-Ibanez, Carlos C.; Aruta, John Jamir Benzon R.; Naidu, Priyanka A.; Tran, Thao P.; Dilekler, Ilknur; Cenek, Jiri; Islam, Md. Nurul; Ch'ng, Brendan; Sechi, Cristina; Nebel, Steve; Sayilan, Gulden; Jha, Shruti; Vestergren, Sara; Ihaya, Keiko; Guillaume, Gautreau; Travaglino, Giovanni A.; Rachev, Nikolay R.; Hanusz, Krzysztof; Pirko, Martin; West, J. Noel; Cyrus-Lai, Wilson; Najmussaqib, Arooj; Romano, Eugenia; Noreika, Valdas; Musliu, Arian; Sungailaite, Emilija; Kosa, Mehmet; Lentoor, Antonio G.; Sinha, Nidhi; Bender, Andrew R.; Meshi, Dar; Bhandari, Pratik; Byrne, Grace; Kalinova, Kalina; Hubena, Barbora; Ninaus, Manuel; Diaz, Carlos; Scarpaci, Alessia; Koszalkowska, Karolina; Pankowski, Daniel; Yaneva, Teodora; Morales-Izquierdo, Sara; Uzelac, Ena; Lee, Yookyung; Hristova, Dayana; Hakim, Moh Abdul; Deschrijver, Eliane; Kavanagh, Phillip S.; Shata, Aya; Reyna, Cecilia; De Leon, Gabriel A.; Tisocco, Franco; Mola, Debora Jeanette; Shani, Maor; Mahlungulu, Samkelisiwe; Ozery, Daphna Hausman; Caniels, Marjolein C. J.; Correa, Pablo Sebastian; Ortiz, Maria Victoria; Vilar, Roosevelt; Makaveeva, Tsvetelina; Pummerer, Lotte; Nikolova, Irina; Bujic, Mila; Szebeni, Zea; Pennato, Tiziana; Taranu, Mihaela; Martinez, Liz; Capelos, Tereza; Belaus, Anabel; Dubrov, Dmitrii; Aarhus University; Education University of Hong Kong (EdUHK); University of Bern; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; University of Wroclaw; University of Toronto; University of London; King's College London; Colorado State University; International Christian University; Keele University; University of Waikato; Kyushu University; University of Sheffield; University of Saint Thomas; Northeastern University; University of Turku; University of Skovde; Masaryk University Brno; Universidade do Porto; Vrije Universiteit Brussel; University of Nevada Las Vegas; TOBB Ekonomi ve Teknoloji University; University of Dhaka; McGill University; Michigan State University; Middle East Technical University; University of Warsaw; Universidad Veracruzana; Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico; University of Oregon; University of Pavol Jozef Safarik Kosice; Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio de Janeiro; Texas A&M International University; Texas A&M University College Station; Purdue University West Lafayette Campus; Purdue University; University of Milano-Bicocca; University of Chittagong; Kaunas University of Technology; UDICE-French Research Universities; Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1; Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS); CNRS - National Institute for Biology (INSB); University of Granada; Brown University; University of Essex; University of Northampton; Mendel University in Brno; University of Melbourne; Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana - Mexico; De La Salle University; Griffith University; Universiti Malaya; University of Salford; Universite Paris Saclay; University of Kent; University of Sofia; Polish Academy of Sciences; Institute of Psychology of the Polish Academy of Sciences; INSEAD Business School; University of Cambridge; Saarland University; Tilburg University; Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University; Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) - Hyderabad; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Leibniz Institut fur Wissensmedien; University of Lodz; University of Warwick; University of Zagreb; University of Canberra; University of Vienna; Sebelas Maret University; Ghent University; University of New South Wales Sydney; University of Miami; Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET); University of Buenos Aires; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; California State University Northridge; Open University Netherlands; Tampere University; University of Helsinki; University of California Merced; University of Birmingham; HSE University (National Research University Higher School of Economics)
    The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Validity testing of the conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiment scales during the COVID-19 pandemic across 24 languages from a large-scale global dataset
    (Cambridge University Press, 2022) Han, Hyemin; Blackburn, Angelique M.; Jeftic, Alma; Tran, Thao Phuong; Stoeckli, Sabrina; Reifler, Jason; Vestergren, Sara; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa; Texas A&M International University; International Christian University; Colorado State University; University of Bern; University of Exeter; Keele University
    In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviours related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12 261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and 3-item Anti-Expert Sentiment Scale across 24 languages and dialects that were used by at least 100 participants per language. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance test and measurement alignment for internal consistency testing. To test convergent validity of the two scales, we assessed correlations with trust in seven agents related to government, science and public health. Although scalar invariance was not achieved when measurement invariance test was conducted initially, we found that both scales can be employed in further international studies with measurement alignment. Moreover, both conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments were significantly and negatively correlated with trust in all agents. Findings from this study provide supporting evidence for the validity of both scales across 24 languages for future large-scale international research.