Information on Covid-19 and Effortful Control Level: Increasing or Decreasing Anxiety?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anxiety has increased with more information about the COVID-19 outbreak. The COVID-19 information can make people more aware and care about this pandemic. However, it also can make people feel panic and anxious. Emotional induction in the information is referring to how the emotion carried by the information can affect early adult’s anxiety, but the differences in effortful control level that each person has also define the level of anxiety someone experiences. The anxiety level related to effortful control is one dimension of temperament. This study is conducted in concern of the effect of emotional induction in COVID-19 information towards anxiety in high and low effortful control groups. This study used a quantitative method with quasi-experimental research. This study involves 218 early adults in an age range of 20-40 years old. This study used pictures from content information about COVID-19, Self-Assessment Manikin (SAM), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), and Effortful Control Questionnaire (ECQ) as the measuring tools. The results of the significance test show p <0.005. This means that there is an effect of emotional induction on anxiety at both high and low effortful control levels. This study shows that emotional induction in the form of COVID-19 information reduces anxiety in the respondent group with a high level of effortful control, but increases anxiety in the respondent group with a low level of effortful control. The effect of COVID-19 information on anxiety based on effortful control in the late adult (over 65 years old) group, in this study cannot be explained.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".