Psychometric characteristics of the Slovene translation of the Gifted Rating Scales (GRS-S)

The importance of individualized work with gifted students has been acknowledged in both domestic and international environments, and the process of gifted student identification is a professionally demanding one. The Slovene Concept of Identifying and Working with Gifted Students, which has been internationally cited as an example of good practice, is currently being renewed. Psychologists should simultaneously secure methodologically sound instruments for the teachers to assess giftedness in students, as they are indispensable in identifying the gifted in educational settings. In the present article, we describe the process of translation and adaptation of the Gifted Rating Scales GRS-S (Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2003) into Slovene. The scales could be used by teachers and other mentors to assess their students’ potentials and abilities in areas of intellectual and academic ability, creativity, artistic talent, leadership, and motivation. We looked into the psychometric characteristics of the scales, gathered the raters’ comments about them, and conducted a convergent validity analysis with the currently used Scales for the Teacher’s Assessment of Giftedness (OLNAD07). Thirty-six teachers from around Slovenia participated in the study and rated the giftedness of 175 4th grade students. The translated scales exhibit good psychometric characteristics (high internal consistency, criterion validity, factorial structure) and satisfactory convergent validity with OLNAD07. While the participating teachers are in general wary of the present instrument, they feel the proposed GRS-S scales are more suitable for use in the identification process. We thus propose a standardization study to be conducted with a larger sample and we propose the possibility of implementing the scales into the process of working with the gifted in Slovenia

One Hundred and Sixty-One Days in the Life of the Homopandemicus in Serbia: The Contribution of Information Credibility and Alertness in Predicting Engagement in Protective Behaviors

COVID-19 pandemic is a long-lasting process associated with dynamic changes within society and in individual psychological responses. Effective communication of measures by credible sources throughout the epidemic is one of the crucial factors for the containment of the disease, and the official communication about pandemics is straightforwardly directed toward changes in behavior via engagement in (self-)protective measures. Calls for the adherence to these measures are aimed at the general population, but people's reactions to these calls vary depending on, for example, their individual differences in cognitive and emotional responses to the situation. The focus of our study was the general narrative about the epidemic as conveyed by both state officials and media outlets in times of decreased social contacts due to the quarantine, in which relying on these sources of information is even more pivotal. Our aim was to explore the stability of the proposed mediational model during the course of the epidemic in Serbia. In the model, we tested the relationship between perceived credibility of information (PCI) and two types of protective behavior—the actual self-protective behavior (ASPB) and the hypothetical protective behavior (HPB), as well as the potential mediating role of alertness in these relationships time-wise. A cross-sectional study (N = 10,782, female = 79.1%) was being administered daily during the first epidemic wave and in three more 2-week time frames during the second wave. Based on the variability of these measures during the first epidemic wave, three stages of psychological responses were mapped (acute, adaptation, and relaxation stage), which were observed, with some deviations, also in the second wave. The mediational model was relatively robust after the initial few weeks, but the strength of pairwise relationships was more changeable. With both types of protective behaviors, the predictive power of PCI was partially mediated through alertness. This suggests that, while individual differences in cognitive and affective responses are important, so is coherent, focused, and credible communication in all stages of the epidemic, which emphasizes the communality aspect of the social containment of the infection. Our findings can thus be valuable in informing the planning of effective future communication

Parental Decision-Making on Childhood Vaccination

A growing number of parents delay vaccinations or are deciding not to vaccinate their children altogether. This increases the risk of contracting vaccine-preventable diseases and disrupting herd immunity, and also impair the trust in the capacities of health care systems to protect people. Vaccine hesitancy is related to a range of both psychological and demographic determinants, such as attitudes towards vaccinations, social norms, and trust in science. We focus on parents and our aim is to understand those determinants, because they are a special group in this issue – proxy decision makers – as they are deciding for their children, who are unable to do so themselves. The fact that deciding to vaccinate is a socially forced choice that concerns a child’s health makes vaccine-related decisions highly important and involving for parents. This high involvement might lead to parents overemphasizing the potential side effects that they know to be vaccine-related, and by amplifying those, parents are more focused on the potential outcomes of vaccine-related decisions, which can yield specific pattern of the outcome bias. We propose two related studies to investigate factors which promote vaccine hesitancy, protective factors that determine parental vaccination decisions, and outcome bias in parental vaccination intentions. We will explore demographic and psychological factors, and test parental involvement related to vaccine hesitancy using an online battery in a correlation panel design study. The second study is an experimental study, in which we will investigate the moderating role of parents’ high involvement in the specific domain of vaccination decision making. We expect that higher involvement among parents, compared to non-parents, will shape the pattern of the proneness to outcome bias. The studies will be conducted across eight countries in Europe and Asia (Finland, Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, and the United Kingdom), rendering findings that will aid with understanding the underlying mechanisms of vaccine hesitancy and paving the way for developing interventions that are custom-made for parents.Peer reviewe

Perception of COVID-19 on the Employment and well-being Among Young Adults

Faculty advisor: Abigail Gewirtz; Research PI: Joyce SeridoDuring emerging adulthood (EA, 18-30 years old), individuals are expected to become financially self-sufficient, and the most common pathway is through employment. Many EAs were struggling to secure stable employment. As a result, EAs are taking longer to become financially self-sufficient and many continue to rely on family financial support in the third decade of life. The economic impact of COVID-19 restrictions on employment made it even more difficult for EAs. Specifically, many young workers lost their job, meanwhile some others are still employed but had significant income loss. The current study examined the impact of job loss and income loss due to COVID-19 on EAs worldwide by collecting data from 2,282 participants across six countries. Guided by the stress appraisal theory and life course theory, we conceptualized COVID-19 as a turning point, which created stressors such as job loss and income loss that disrupted the lives of EAs. We found that stressors such as job loss and income loss are associated with psychological well-being as well as general and future financial well-being. Specifically, this association was mediated by EAs’ primary appraisal, which was indicated by whether they perceived the pandemic as an opportunity or misfortune

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions 1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process 2. In April 2020, an influential paper 3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization

How culturally unique are pandemic effects? Evaluating cultural similarities and differences in effects of age, biological sex, and political beliefs on COVID impacts

Despite being bio-epidemiological phenomena, the causes and effects of pandemics are culturally influenced in ways that go beyond national boundaries. However, they are often studied in isolated pockets, and this fact makes it difficult to parse the unique influence of specific cultural psychologies. To help fill in this gap, the present study applies existing cultural theories via linear mixed modeling to test the influence of unique cultural factors in a multi-national sample (that moves beyond Western nations) on the effects of age, biological sex, and political beliefs on pandemic outcomes that include adverse financial impacts, adverse resource impacts, adverse psychological impacts, and the health impacts of COVID. Our study spanned 19 nations (participant N = 14,133) and involved translations into 9 languages. Linear mixed models revealed similarities across cultures, with both young persons and women reporting worse outcomes from COVID across the multi-national sample. However, these effects were generally qualified by culture-specific variance, and overall more evidence emerged for effects unique to each culture than effects similar across cultures. Follow-up analyses suggested this cultural variability was consistent with models of pre-existing inequalities and socioecological stressors exacerbating the effects of the pandemic. Collectively, this evidence highlights the importance of developing culturally flexible models for understanding the cross-cultural nature of pandemic psychology beyond typical WEIRD approaches

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

DATA AVAILABILITY : All data and study material are provided either in the Supplementary information or through the two online repositories (OSF and Tableau Public, both accessible via https://psyarxiv.com/58udn). No code was used for analyses in this work.Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.The National Science Foundation; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); National Science Foundation grants; the European Research Council; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.http://www.nature.com/naturehj2024Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)Non

Emotional responses and self-protective behavior within days of the COVID-19 outbreak

Due to changes in the information environment since the last global epidemic, high WHO officials have spoken about the need to fight not only the current COVID-19 pandemic but also the related infodemic. We thus explored how people search for information, how they perceive its credibility, and how all this relates to their engagement in self-protective behaviors in the crucial period right after the onset of COVID-19 epidemic. The online questionnaire was circulated within 48 h after the first case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Slovenia. We gathered information on participants\u27 demographics, perception of the situation, their emotional and behavioral responses to the situation (i.e., self-protective behavior), perceived subjective knowledge, perceived credibility of different sources of information, and their level of trust. We looked into the relationships between perceived credibility and trust, and self-protective behavior of 1,718 participants and found that mass media, social media, and officials received relatively low levels of trust. Conversely, medical professionals and scientists were deemed the most credible. The perceived credibility of received information was linked not only with lower levels of negative emotional responses but also with higher adherence to much needed self-protective measures, which aim to contain the spread of the disease. While results might vary between societies with different levels of trust in relevant governmental and professional institutions, and while variances in self-protective behavior scores explained by our model are modest, even a small increase in self-protective behavior could go a long way in viral epidemics like the one we are facing today

Civic identity in emerging adulthood

Civic identity refers to beliefs, emotions, and experiences of individuals regarding their membership in a particular community and the perceived opportunities for their civic participation. It represents one of the most important predictors of civic engagement, yet there is little empirical evidence on its development in diverse samples. To address this gap in the literature, we constructed the Civic Identity Status Scale (CISS) to measure four identity statuses proposed by Marcia. In this study, we tested psychometric properties of the newly developed scale and provided evidence for its score, structure, and criterion validity in Slovenia through the lens of contemporary views on validity by testing a series of structural equation models. A sample of 493 emerging adults (aged 18–29 years) participated in an online survey. We determined criterion validity evidence by correlations of the CISS scores with measures of civic behavior, perceived political interest, trust, and self-efficacy and established generalizability evidence by testing the measurement invariance of the CISS across different subsamples. The results suggest that the CISS is a valid and reliable measure. Therefore, we suggest and discuss possible future research directions