A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N=10,535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β=0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β=0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

A Many-analysts Approach to the Relation Between Religiosity and Well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N = 10, 535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β = 0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β = 0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

Taking care with self-care during COVID-19: Affect-behavior associations during early stages of the pandemic

Objective: Self-care behaviors aimed at maintaining or improving physical and mental health are often recommended during stressful contexts. We tested emotional experiences as potential drivers of self-care behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic and explored their emotional impacts. We hypothesized a reciprocal within-person process whereby both positive and negative affect increase self-care behaviors (Aim 1) and self-care behaviors increase positive affect while decreasing negative affect (Aim 2). Methods: A 10-day daily diary was completed by 324 adult participants in the United States during spring 2020 when national stay-at-home orders were in effect. Results: Lagged analyses for Aim 1 suggested that positive affect did not significantly predict changes in self-care behaviors; however, greater negative affect predicted increased self-care behaviors from one day to the next. Lagged analyses for Aim 2 indicated that self-care behaviors did not predict changes in positive or negative affect from one day to the next. Concurrent analyses indicated self-care behaviors were associated with more positive affect and less negative affect on the same day. At the between-person level, people who experienced more positive affect on average engaged in more self-care behaviors across the sampling period, whereas no association was found for negative affect. Conclusions: We discuss the ways negative affect might foster self-care behaviors that promote health and well-being within stressful environments such as the COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders. We conclude self-care behaviors potentially have a short-term (i.e., within a day only) impact on positive and negative affect but not from one day to the next

Self-care behaviors and affect during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic

Objective: Self-care behaviors aimed at maintaining physical and mental health are often recommended during stressful contexts. We tested emotional predictors of self-care behaviors (healthy eating, exercise, engaging in a hobby, relaxation/meditation, time spent with a supportive person, talking online with friends/family) during the COVID-19 pandemic and their emotional consequences. We hypothesized a reciprocal within-person process whereby positive affect increases self-care behaviors (Hypothesis 1) and self-care behaviors increase positive affect while decreasing negative affect (Hypothesis 2). Method: A 10-day daily diary was completed by 289 adult participants in the United States during spring 2020 when counties in 40 out of 50 states had some form of stay-at-home orders. Results: Lagged analyses for Hypothesis 1 suggested that positive affect did not significantly predict residualized change in self-care behaviors; however, more intense negative affect predicted increased self-care behaviors from one day to the next. Concurrent analyses for Hypothesis 2 indicated most self-care behaviors were associated with more positive affect and some with less negative affect on the same day. Lagged analyses for Hypothesis 2 indicated that self-care behaviors largely did not predict residualized change in positive or negative affect from one day to the next. At the between-person level, people who experienced more positive affect engaged in more self-care behaviors across the sampling period. Conclusion: Self-care behaviors continue to have mental health benefits during stressful environments such as the COVID-19 pandemic and stay-at-home orders. Negative affect can play an adaptive role during times of stress by facilitating self-care.</p

What drives preventative health behaviors several months into a pandemic: A replication and extension

This OSF project is for secondary data analysis of a study testing the impact of an online educational intervention. This project's analysis focuses on testing emotional and cognitive predictors of COVID-19 prevention behaviors (e.g., wearing a face mask)

What drives preventative health behaviors several months into a pandemic: A replication and extension

There is continued interest in understanding what leads people to do CDC-recommended COVID-19 prevention behaviors. We tested whether fear and COVID-19 worry would replicate as the primary drivers of six CDC recommend prevention behaviors. We recruited 741 adult participants during the second major peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States (early 2021). Participants completed a 10-day daily diary. Mixed effects models identified the strongest predictors of each individual prevention behavior. At the between-person level, COVID-19 worry, COVID-19 perceived susceptibility, fear, and positive emotions all had positive zero-order associations with the prevention behaviors. However, with all predictors in the same model together, only COVID-19 worry remained significant. At the within-person level, only fear related to assessing oneself for COVID-19 on the same day, but not the next day. Findings replicated worry about yourself or a loved one getting COVID-19 as the strongest predictor of prevention behaviors

What Drives Preventive Health Behavior During a Global Pandemic? Emotion and Worry

Background &amp; Purpose: Primary prevention of COVID-19 has focused on encouraging compliance with specific behaviors that restrict contagion. This investigation sought to characterize engagement in these behaviors in U.S. adults early during the pandemic and to build explanatory models of the psychological processes that drive them. Methods: US adults were recruited through Qualtrics Research Panels (N = 324; 55% female; Mage = 50.91, SD = 15.98) and completed 10 days of online reports of emotion, COVID-19 perceived susceptibility and worry, and recommended behaviors (social distancing, hand washing, etc.). Factor analysis revealed behaviors loaded on two factors suggesting distinct motivational orientations: approach and avoidance. Results: Changes in approach and avoidance behaviors over the 10 days indicated large individual differences consistent with three types of participants. Discrete emotions, including fear, guilt/shame, and happiness were associated with more recommended behaviors. Fear and COVID-19 worry indirectly influenced each other to facilitate more behavioral engagement. While emotions and worry strongly predicted individual differences in behavior across the 10 days, they did not predict as well why behaviors occurred on one day versus another. Conclusions: These findings suggest how daily affective processes motivate behavior, improving the understanding of compliance and efforts to target behaviors as primary prevention of disease.</p

Math matters during a pandemic: A novel, brief educational intervention combats whole number bias to improve health decision-making and predicts COVID-19 risk perceptions and worry across 10 days

At the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic, our interdisciplinary team hypothesized that a mathematical misconception--whole number bias (WNB)--contributed to incorrect beliefs that COVID-19 was less fatal than the flu. We created a novel, five-minute online educational intervention, leveraging evidence-based cognitive science research, to encourage accurate COVID-19 and flu fatality rate calculations and comparisons. As predicted, adults (N = 1,297) randomly assigned to the intervention were more likely to correctly answer health decision-making problems and were less likely to report WNB errors in their problem-solving strategies relative to control participants. There were no immediate effects of condition on COVID-19 risk perceptions and worry; however, those in the intervention group did exhibit increased perceived risk and worry across 10 days of daily diaries. The intervention did not cause distress; instead, it increased positive affect. Ameliorating WNB errors could impact people’s risk perceptions about future health crises

Math matters: A novel, brief educational intervention decreases whole number bias when reasoning about COVID-19

At the onset of the&nbsp;coronavirus&nbsp;disease (COVID-19) global&nbsp;pandemic, our interdisciplinary team hypothesized that a mathematical misconception-whole number bias (WNB)-contributed to beliefs that&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;was less fatal than the flu. We created a brief online educational intervention for adults, leveraging evidence-based cognitive science research, to promote accurate understanding of rational numbers related to&nbsp;COVID-19. Participants from a Qualtrics panel (N = 1,297; 75% White) were randomly assigned to an intervention or control condition, solved health-related math problems, and subsequently completed 10 days of daily diaries in which health cognitions and affect were assessed. Participants who engaged with the intervention, relative to those in the control condition, were more accurate and less likely to explicitly mention WNB errors in their strategy reports as they solved&nbsp;COVID-19-related math problems. Math anxiety was positively associated with risk perceptions, worry, and negative affect immediately after the intervention and across the daily diaries. These results extend the benefits of worked examples in a practically relevant domain. Ameliorating WNB errors could not only help people think more accurately about&nbsp;COVID-19&nbsp;statistics expressed as rational numbers, but also about novel future health crises, or any other context that involves information expressed as rational numbers.</p