Salta al menu principale di navigazione Salta al contenuto principale Salta al piè di pagina del sito
Ricerche di Psicologia/Psychological Research Journal - Open Access

Articoli

N. 3 (2023)

Time Perspective and Motivation to Protective behaviours against Covid-19 in Italian young people

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3280/rip2023oa18170
Inviata
16 luglio 2024
Pubblicato
19-07-2024

Abstract

Introduction. Health Psychology highlights the complexity of factors that influences the individual decision to adopt one, or more, protective behaviours for avoiding diseases and adverse health outcomes. One of the most relevant theory is the Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers, 1975), which has been adopted for identifying the psychological factors involved in many protection behaviours.
Another relevant construct for healthy behaviours is represented by the Time Perspective (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). This study analysed the relationships between the Protection Motivation Theory applied on Covid-19 and Time Perspective in Italian young people.
Method. A group of 130 young people (m. age 26.4; 40 males and 90 females) participated in the study, filling in the Swedish Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory and the Motivation to Protect against Covid-19 Questionnaire. Three single items furthermore explored the prevailingly sources of information for Covid-19 (social media such as Facebook; traditional media such as TV; specialistic magazines such as Le Scienze) used and a single item tested the level of mistrust in Political Institutions and mass-media and its association with protection motivation, beliefs and perceived vulnerability to Covid-19.
Results. Perceived vulnerability to Covid-19 and use of protections and perceived efficacy of protections, show positive correlations with Future Positive; beliefs on Covid-19 vaccine resulted as negatively correlated with Present Fatalistic; a positive correlation between mistrust in political institutions and Present Fatalistic has been found. Social media (such as Facebook, Instagram) and traditional mass media (such as TV) as preferred systems of information are both positively correlated with beliefs on Covid-19 vaccine, perceived vulnerability and use of protections, highlighting the role of new forms of circulation of information, but also the relevance of traditional ones for young people. Perceived vulnerability to Covid-19, perceived efficacy of protections give a positive contribution to the intention to get vaccinated; mistrust in political institutions and media on the contrary reduces the intention to take the vaccine.
Conclusions. Results are discussed in relations to preventive interventions on the young population for the improvement of self-awareness of persistence of this virus and consequently the necessity of adopting self-protection, with special attention to vaccination. The relevance of time perspective dimensions for protection suggests to include it in the programs devoted to reduce the risk of contagion.

Riferimenti bibliografici

  1. Agnelli, S., & Capua, I. (2022). Pandemic or Panzootic - A Reflection on Terminology for SARS-CoV-2 Infection. Emerging Infectious Disease, 28(12), 2552-2556. DOI: 10.3201/eid2812.220819.
  2. AL-Rasheed, M. (2020). Protective Behavior against COVID-19 among the Public in Kuwait: An Examination of the Protection Motivation Theory, Trust in Government, and Sociodemographic Factors. Social Work in Public Health, 35 (7), 546-556. DOI: 10.1080/19371918.2020.1806171.
  3. Bandura, A.(1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
  4. Bhopal, SS., Bagaria, J., Olabi, B., & Bhopal, R. (2021). Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19 mortality. Lancet Child Adolescent Health, 5(5),12-13. DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(21)00066-3.
  5. Bieber, F., Prelec, T., Jovic, D., & Nechev, Z. (2021). The Suspicious Virus: Conspiracies and COVID-19 in the Balkans. The Balkans in Europe Policy Advisory Group (BiEPAG). Available at: https://biepag.eu.
  6. Bogg, T., & Roberts, B.W. (2004). Conscientiousness and Health-Related Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis of the Leading Behavioral Contributors to Mortality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(6), 887-919. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.887.
  7. Bucciarelli, M. (2021). Meccanismi psicologici alla base del disprezzo del sapere scientifico, Giornale Italiano di Psicologia 2, 335-350, DOI: 10.1421/102686.
  8. Carelli, G., Wiberg, B., & Wiberg, M. (2011). Development and construct validation of the Swedish Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 4, 220-227. DOI: 710.1027/1015-5759/a000076.
  9. CENSIS (23 aprile 2021). Rapporto Ital Communications – Disinformazione e Fake News durante la Pandemia: il Ruolo delle Agenzie di Comunicazione.
  10. De Rosa, A.S., & Mannarini, T. (2020). The “Invisible Other”: Social representations of COVID-19 pandemic in media and institutional discourse. Papers on Social Representations, 29(2), 5.1-5.35.
  11. Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., et al. (2019). Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology. 40, 3-35. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12568.
  12. Eberdart, J., & Ling, J. (2021). Predicting COVID-19 vaccination intention using protection motivation theory and conspiracy beliefs. Vaccine, 39, 6269-6275. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.
  13. Ezati RAD., Mohseni, S., Takhti, H.K., Azad, M.H., Shahabi, N., Aghamolaei, T., & Norozian, F. (2021). Application of the protection motivation theory for predicting COVID-19 preventive behaviors in Hormozgan, Iran: a crosssectional study. BMC Public Health, 21-466. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10500w.
  14. Frank, K. (1939). Time Perspective. Journal of Social Phylosophy, 4, 293-312.
  15. Galasso, V., Pons, V., Profeta, P., Becher, M., Brouard, S., & Foucault, M. (2020).Gender differences in COVID-19 attitudes and behavior: Panel evidence from eight countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 3, 117(44), 27285-27291. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2012520117.
  16. Galli, I. (2012). Le Rappresentazioni Sociali. Bologna: il Mulino.
  17. Gallmaister, D. (2021). What are the Determinants of the Protection Motivation Theory Predicting the Willingness to get Vaccinated Against Covid-19? available at: http://essay.utwente.nl/86729/1/Gallmeister_BA_Psychology.pdf.
  18. Goldberg, J.F. (2021). How should psychiatry respond to COVID-19 anti-vax attitudes? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 82(5), 21ed14213. DOI: 10.4088/JCP.21ed14231.
  19. Grano, C., Solorzano, C., & Di Pucchio, A. (2022) Predictors of protective behaviours during the Italian Covid-19 pandemic: an application of protection motivation theory. Psychology & Health, published online. DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2022.2062355.
  20. Gremigni, P. (2013). Comportamenti di salute: teorie e modelli di riferimento. In P. Gremigni & P.E. Ricci Bitti (eds): Psicologia della Salute. Modelli Teorici e Contesti Applicativi. Carocci ed. Rome.
  21. Harbek, EL., Ian, G., & Hine, T.J. (2018). Young driver perceived risk and risky driving: A theoretical approach to the “fatal five”. Transportation Research Part F Traffic Psychology and Behaviour. 58, 392-404. DOI: 10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.018.
  22. Henson, JM., Carey, MP. Carey, KB., & Maisto, SA.( 2006). Associations among health behaviors and time perspective in young adults: model testing with boot-strapping replication. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 2, 27-137.
  23. HishimaruIshimaru, T., Okawara, M., Ando, H., Hino, A., Nagata, T., Tateishi, S., Tsuji, M., Matsuda, S., & Fujino, Y. (2021). An CORoNaWork Project. Gender differences in the determinants of willingness to get the COVID-19 vaccine among the working-age population in Japan. Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics, 2(11), 3975-3981. DOI: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1947098.
  24. Hughes, S., & Machan, L. (2021). It’s a conspirancy: Covid-19 conspiracies link to psychopathy, Machiavellianism and collective narcissism. Personality and Individual Differences, disponibile online. DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110559.
  25. Jiang, X., Elam,G., Yuen, C., Voeten, H., de Zwart, O., Veldhuijzen, I., & Brugg, G. (2009). The perceived threat of SARS and its impact on precautionary actions and adverse consequences: A qualitative study among Chinese communities in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. International Journal of Behavioural Medicine, 16:58-67. DOI: 10.1007/s12529-008-9005-5.
  26. Laghi, F., Liga, F., Baumgartner, E., & Baiocco, R. (2012). Identity and conformism among Italian adolescents who binge eat and drink. Health, Risk and Society, 14(4), 361-376.
  27. Lewis, A., & Duch, R. (2020). Gender differences in perceived risk of COVID-19. Social Science Quarterly, 101, 5, 2124-2133. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13079.
  28. Liang, M., & Liang, G. (2020). Efficacy of face mask in preventing respiratory virus transmission: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Medicine and Infections Disease, 36. DOI: 10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101751.
  29. Kholberg, L. (1981). The Phylosophy of Moral Development. Moral Stages and Justice. San Francisco: Harper & Row.
  30. Mello, Z., & Worrell, F. (2006).The Relationship of Time Perspective to Age, Gender, and Academic Achievement Among Academically Talented Adolescents. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 29, 3.
  31. Milne, S., Sheeran, P. & Orbell, S. (2006). Prediction and Intervention in Health Related Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review on Protection Motivation Theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 106-144. DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02308.
  32. Moore, R., Purvis, R.S., Hallgren, E. et al. (2022) . Motivations to Vaccinate Among Hesitant Adopters of the COVID-19 Vaccine. Journal of
  33. Community Health, 47, 237-245. DOI: 10.1007/s10900-021-01037-5.
  34. Moscovici, M. (2000). Social Representations: Exploration in Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
  35. Murphy, J., Vallieres, F., Bentall, RP., Shevlin, M., McBride, O., Hartman, TK., McKay, R., Bennett, K., Mason, L., Gibson-Miller, J., Levita, L., Martinez, AP., Stocks, TVA., Karatzias, T., & Hyland, P. (2021). Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Nature Communications, 12(1) 1-15. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-020-20226-9.
  36. Plotnikoff, RC., Lippke, S., Trinh, L., Courneya, KS., Birkett, N., & Sigal, RJ. (2010). Protection motivation theory and the prediction of physical activity among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes in a large population sample. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15(3), 643-61.DOI: 10.1348/135910709X478826.
  37. Przepiorka, A., & Blachnio, A. (2016). Time perspective in Internet and Facebook addiction. Computers in Human Behavior, 60, 13-18.
  38. Rippetoe, P. A., & Rogers, R. W. (1987). Effects of components of Protection Motivation Theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 596-604. DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.52.3.596.
  39. Riva, G. (2019). Nativi digitali. Crescere e apprendere nel mondo dei nuovi media. Bologna: il Mulino.
  40. Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and at ti tude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114. DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803.
  41. Rogers, R. W., & Prentice-Dunn, S. (1997). Protection motivation theory. In D. S. Gochman (Ed.), Handbook of health behavior research I: Personal and social determinants (pp. 113-132). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
  42. Rotter, J.B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs General and Applied, 80(1), 1-28. DOI: 10.1037/h0092976.
  43. Sharifirad, G., Yarmohammadi, P., Sharifabad, MA., & Rahaei Z. (2014). Determination of preventive behaviors for pandemic influenza A/H1N1 based on protection motivation theory among female high school students in Isfahan, Iran. Journal of Education Health Promotion, 2014, 21, 3-7. DOI: 10.4103/2277-9531.127556.
  44. Smith, N., O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H.(2015). Social Representations of Threatening Phenomena: The Self-Other Thema and Identity Protection. Papers on Social Representations, 24 (2), 1.1-1.23.
  45. Ssentongo, P., Ssentongo, A.E., Voleti, N., Grof, D., Sun, A., Djibril M.B., Nunez, J., Parent, L.J., Chinchilli, VM., & Paules, C.I. (2022). SARS-CoV-2 vaccine effectiveness against infection, symptomatic and severe COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Infectious Diseases, 22, 439. DOI: 10.1186/s12879-022-07418-y.
  46. Tan, J., Yoshida, Y., Ma, KK., Jarvis, M.F., & Lee, C-C. (2022). Gender differences in health protective behaviours and its implications for COVID-19 pandemic in Taiwan: a population-based study. BMC Public Health, 22, 1900. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14288-1.
  47. Tognotti, E. (2020). Vaccinare i bambini tra obbligo e persuasione. Tre secoli di controversie. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
  48. Toshkov, D. (2023). Explaining the gender gap in COVID-19 vaccination attitudes. European Journal of Public Health, 1, 33(3), 490-495. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckad052.
  49. Yan, Y., Jacques-Tiura, AJ., Chen, X., Xie, N., Chen, J., Yang, N., Gong. .J, & Macdonell, KK. (2014). Application of the protection motivation theory in predicting cigarette smoking among adolescents in China. Addiction Behavior, 39(1). 181-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.09.027.
  50. Volpe, L., & Zambianchi, M. (2022). Design Dentro e Oltre la Pandemia. Il valore della Comunicazione Sociale. Homless Book ed. Faenza.
  51. Zambianchi, M. (2019). Time Perspective and Eudaimonic Well-being in Italian Emerging Adults, Counseling, 12(3). DOI: 10.14605/CS1231902.
  52. Zambianchi, M. (2020). Così il Coronavirus ha rubato il tempo alle persone. Il Sole 24 Ore. Available at https://www.previdir.it/cosi-il-coronavirus-harubato-il-tempo-delle-persone/.
  53. Zambianchi, M. (2022). The Young and the Pandemic. A pilot study testing a Questionnaire on Psychological Motivation to Protect against Covid-19. Counseling, Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 15(1), 86-106. DOI: 10.14605/CS1512206.
  54. Zambianchi, M., Ricci Bitti, P. E., & Gremigni, P. (2010). Prospettiva temporale, pianificazione dell’agenda personale e adozione di comportamenti a rischio in adolescenza. Psicologia Clinica dello Sviluppo, 2, 395-412. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.1690.1767.
  55. Zambianchi, M., & Volpe, L. (2023). La Comunicazione Sociale sulla Pandemia di Covid-19. Counseling, 16(2), 1-27. DOI: 10.14605/CS1622304.
  56. Zancu, S.A., Mairean, C., & Diaconu-Gherasim, L. (2022).The longitudinal relation between time perspective and preventive behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic: The mediating role of risk perception. Current Psychology, DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-03069-z.
  57. Zanin, L., & Zambianchi, M.(2022).Anziani, prospettiva temporale e pandemia Covid-19. Counseling, Giornale Italiano di Ricerca e Applicazioni, 15(2), 37-62 - DOI: 10.14605/CS1522203.
  58. Zimbardo, P.G., & Boyd, JN. (1999). Putting Time in Perspective: a valid, reliable individual- differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 1271-1288.
  59. Zimbardo, PG. & Boyd, J.(2009). The Time Paradox. Simon & Schuster ed.
  60. Zimbardo, PG., Keough, K. & & Boyd, J. (1997).Present time perspective as a predictor of risky driving. Personality and Individual Differences, 23(6), 1007-1023. DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00113-X.28.

Metriche

Caricamento metriche ...