Distress reactions and susceptibility to misinformation for an analogue trauma event
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sharma P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC11345351 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic created a complex psychological environment for persons in America. A total of 450 USA MTurk workers completed measures of: (a) basic demographic characteristics; (b) health risk factors for COVID-19; (c) perceived susceptibility variables related to COVID-19; (d) COVID-19 preventive health behaviors; and (e) distress, physical symptoms, and quality of life measures. The surveys were completed between April 9, 2020 and April 18, 2020. This recruitment period corresponded to the first 2-3 weeks of lockdown in most of the USA. Follow-up surveys were completed by 151 of the USA participants between June 19, 2020 and July 11, 2020 (approximately 2 months after the first measurement). These data permit evaluation of relationships among demographic variables, COVID-19 stress and coping, COVID-19 preventive health behavior, and the role of mindfulness as a possible moderator of distress as well as a predictor of preventive health behavior. The availability of follow-up data permit longitudinal analyses that provide a stronger basis for causal inference.
| S-EPMC7797503 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Misinformation about COVID-19 is a major threat to public health. Using five national samples from the UK (n = 1050 and n = 1150), Ireland (n = 700), the USA (n = 700), Spain (n = 700) and Mexico (n = 700), we examine predictors of belief in the most common statements about the virus that contain misinformation. We also investigate the prevalence of belief in COVID-19 misinformation across different countries and the role of belief in such misinformation in predicting relevant health behaviours. We find that while public belief in misinformation about COVID-19 is not particularly common, a substantial proportion views this type of misinformation as highly reliable in each country surveyed. In addition, a small group of participants find common factual information about the virus highly unreliable. We also find that increased susceptibility to misinformation negatively affects people's self-reported compliance with public health guidance about COVID-19, as well as people's willingness to get vaccinated against the virus and to recommend the vaccine to vulnerable friends and family. Across all countries surveyed, we find that higher trust in scientists and having higher numeracy skills were associated with lower susceptibility to coronavirus-related misinformation. Taken together, these results demonstrate a clear link between susceptibility to misinformation and both vaccine hesitancy and a reduced likelihood to comply with health guidance measures, and suggest that interventions which aim to improve critical thinking and trust in science may be a promising avenue for future research.
| S-EPMC7657933 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer treatment misinformation, or false claims about alternative cures, often spreads faster and farther than true information on social media. Cancer treatment misinformation can harm the psychosocial and physical health of individuals with cancer and their cancer care networks by causing distress and encouraging people to abandon support, potentially leading to deviations from evidence-based care. There is a pressing need to understand how cancer treatment misinformation is shared and uncover ways to reduce misinformation.ObjectiveWe aimed to better understand exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation, including the willingness of study participants to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share Instagram posts with cancer treatment misinformation.MethodsWe conducted a survey on cancer treatment misinformation among US adults in December 2021. Participants reported their exposure and reactions to cancer treatment misinformation generally (saw or heard, source, type of advice, and curiosity) and specifically on social media (platform, believability). Participants were then randomly assigned to view 1 of 3 cancer treatment misinformation posts or an information post and asked to report their willingness to prosocially intervene and their intentions to share.ResultsAmong US adult participants (N=603; mean age 46, SD 18.83 years), including those with cancer and cancer caregivers, almost 1 in 4 (142/603, 23.5%) received advice about alternative ways to treat or cure cancer. Advice was primarily shared through family (39.4%) and friends (37.3%) for digestive (30.3%) and natural (14.1%) alternative cancer treatments, which generated curiosity among most recipients (106/142, 74.6%). More than half of participants (337/603, 55.9%) saw any cancer treatment misinformation on social media, with significantly higher exposure for those with cancer (53/109, 70.6%) than for those without cancer (89/494, 52.6%; P<.001). Participants saw cancer misinformation on Facebook (39.8%), YouTube (27%), Instagram (22.1%), and TikTok (14.1%), among other platforms. Participants (429/603, 71.1%) thought cancer treatment misinformation was true, at least sometimes, on social media. More than half (357/603, 59.2%) were likely to share any cancer misinformation posts shown. Many participants (412/603, 68.3%) were willing to prosocially intervene for any cancer misinformation posts, including flagging the cancer treatment misinformation posts as false (49.7%-51.4%) or reporting them to the platform (48.1%-51.4%). Among the participants, individuals with cancer and those who identified as Black or Hispanic reported greater willingness to intervene to reduce cancer misinformation but also higher intentions to share misinformation.ConclusionsCancer treatment misinformation reaches US adults through social media, including on widely used platforms for support. Many believe that social media posts about alternative cancer treatment are true at least some of the time. The willingness of US adults, including those with cancer and members of susceptible populations, to prosocially intervene could initiate the necessary community action to reduce cancer treatment misinformation if coupled with strategies to help individuals discern false claims.
| S-EPMC10422174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The COVID-19 outbreak in early 2020 was associated with an immediate increase in mental health problems in a significant percentage of the general population. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic - as a psychosocial stressor - affected the aetiological processes of mental disorders. Previous research has shown that stress potentiates associative (fear) learning and analogue symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that analogue PTSD symptoms can emerge in response to associative learning. Objective: We investigated whether distress in response to the COVID-19 outbreak support the development of intrusions and rumination after exposure to a non-COVID-19-related analogue trauma. Moreover, we examined if these effects are mediated by the strength of associative learning during analogue trauma. Method: 122 undergraduate university students participated in an online experiment between March and July 2020. They completed questionnaires measuring distress and rumination related to the COVID-19 outbreak. On a subsequent day, they went through an associative learning task, in which neutral stimuli were paired with the appearance of a highly aversive film clip. Subjective ratings were assessed as indicators of associative learning. On the next day, participants documented film-related intrusions and rumination. Results: COVID-19-related distress but not rumination was associated with post-film intrusion and rumination load. These effects were mediated by associative learning. Conclusions: The current findings are in line with the assumptions that stress enhanced both associative learning and PTSD symptoms. Specifically, they indicate that prolonged psychosocial stress - like during the COVID-19 outbreak - is linked to individual differences in memory processing of aversive events. Further confirmatory research is needed to replicate these results.
| S-EPMC9640168 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10131805 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Distress tolerance (DT; the perceived or actual ability to withstand negative internal states) has emerged as a promising transdiagnostic risk factor in clinically severe populations. However, little is known about etiological factors associated with the development of DT. We hypothesized that greater levels of childhood trauma would be associated with lower perceived and behavioral DT, beyond theoretically relevant covariates. METHOD:The current investigation evaluated several childhood trauma types (i.e., physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect) in relation to perceived (i.e., self-report) and behavioral DT in a sample of 87 trauma-exposed adults in acute-care psychiatric inpatient treatment. RESULTS:Results of hierarchical linear regression models indicated that greater childhood physical abuse and emotional neglect were significantly associated with higher perceived DT. Greater levels of emotional abuse were associated with lower perceived DT, and greater physical neglect was associated with lower behavioral DT. CONCLUSIONS:DT may be differentially influenced by different forms of childhood trauma. (PsycINFO Database Record
| S-EPMC5792367 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Misinformation has become prevalent since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. To understand why people believe and share misinformation, we conducted a nationwide survey during the COVID-19 outbreak in China. We found the indirect effects of COVID-19 risk on people's information accuracy judgment and associated information sharing intention through people's emotional states. People faced with a higher level of COVID-19 risk (measured by a 7-day moving average of daily new deaths or new cases) experienced weaker positive and stronger negative emotions, and heightened emotionality (both the positive and negative emotions) was associated with increased belief in and greater likelihood to share the COVID-19 information regardless of veracity. We also found that only the negative emotion mediated the relation between the COVID-19 risk and the truth discernment regarding accuracy judgment. However, the mediating effect of negative emotion disappeared among people with high analytic thinking ability. These findings suggest that the analytic thinking ability could moderate the destructive relationship between negative emotion and accuracy discernment. Based on a large sample, our findings provide actionable insights for the policymakers to respond to the spread of misinformation appropriately and promptly during the pandemic.
| S-EPMC8991995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although misinformation exposure takes place within a social context, significant conclusions have been drawn about misinformation susceptibility through studies that largely examine judgements in a social vacuum. Bridging the gap between social influence research and the cognitive science of misinformation, we examine the mechanisms through which social context impacts misinformation susceptibility across 5 experiments (N = 20,477). We find that social cues only impact individual judgements when they influence perceptions of wider social consensus, and that source similarity only biases news consumers when the source is high in credibility. Specifically, high and low engagement cues ('likes') reduced misinformation susceptibility relative to a control, and endorsement cues increased susceptibility, but discrediting cues had no impact. Furthermore, political ingroup sources increased susceptibility if the source was high in credibility, but political outgroup sources had no effect relative to a control. This work highlights the importance of studying cognitive processes within a social context, as judgements of (mis)information change when embedded in the social world. These findings further underscore the need for multifaceted interventions that take account of the social context in which false information is processed to effectively mitigate the impact of misinformation on the public.
| S-EPMC10879158 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA myriad of trauma indices has been validated to predict probability of trauma survival. We aimed to compare the performance of commonly used indices for the development of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).Materials and methodsHistoric, observational cohort study of 27,385 consecutive patients admitted to a statewide referral trauma center between July 11, 2003 and October 31, 2011. A validated algorithm was adapted to identify patients with ARDS. Each trauma index was evaluated in logistic regression using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.ResultsThe case rate for ARDS development was 5.8% (1594). The receiver operating characteristics for injury severity score (ISS) had the best discrimination and had an area under the curve of 0.88 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.87-0.89). Glasgow coma score (0.71, 95% CI = 0.70-0.73), A Severity Characterization of Trauma (0.86, 95% CI = 0.85-0.87), Revised Trauma Score (0.71, 95% CI = 0.70-0.72) and thorax Abbreviated Injury Score (0.73, 95% CI = 0.72-0.74) performed worse (P < 0.001) and Trauma and Injury Severity Score (0.88, 95% CI = 0.87-0.88) performed equivocally (P = 0.51) in comparison to ISS. Using a cutoff point ISS ≥16, sensitivity and specificity were 84.9% (95% CI = 83.0%-86.6%) and 75.6% (95% CI = 75.1%-76.2%), respectively.ConclusionsAmong commonly used trauma indices, ISS has superior or equivocal discriminative ability for development of ARDS. A cutoff point of ISS ≥16 provided good sensitivity and specificity. The use of ISS ≥16 is a simple method to evaluate ARDS in trauma epidemiology and outcomes research.
| S-EPMC4852140 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Interest in the psychology of misinformation has exploded in recent years. Despite ample research, to date there is no validated framework to measure misinformation susceptibility. Therefore, we introduce Verification done, a nuanced interpretation schema and assessment tool that simultaneously considers Veracity discernment, and its distinct, measurable abilities (real/fake news detection), and biases (distrust/naïvité-negative/positive judgment bias). We then conduct three studies with seven independent samples (Ntotal = 8504) to show how to develop, validate, and apply the Misinformation Susceptibility Test (MIST). In Study 1 (N = 409) we use a neural network language model to generate items, and use three psychometric methods-factor analysis, item response theory, and exploratory graph analysis-to create the MIST-20 (20 items; completion time < 2 minutes), the MIST-16 (16 items; < 2 minutes), and the MIST-8 (8 items; < 1 minute). In Study 2 (N = 7674) we confirm the internal and predictive validity of the MIST in five national quota samples (US, UK), across 2 years, from three different sampling platforms-Respondi, CloudResearch, and Prolific. We also explore the MIST's nomological net and generate age-, region-, and country-specific norm tables. In Study 3 (N = 421) we demonstrate how the MIST-in conjunction with Verification done-can provide novel insights on existing psychological interventions, thereby advancing theory development. Finally, we outline the versatile implementations of the MIST as a screening tool, covariate, and intervention evaluation framework. As all methods are transparently reported and detailed, this work will allow other researchers to create similar scales or adapt them for any population of interest.
| S-EPMC10991074 | biostudies-literature