Personal need for structure as a protective factor on beliefs and coping with COVID‐19: A crowd‐sourced multicultural exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A pre‐registered, crowd‐sourced, multicultural study assessed how the personal need for structure (PNFS) predicted perceptions, behaviors, and coping mechanisms in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Collaborators, invited to collect online survey data through Psi Chi's Network for International Collaborative Exchange crowd‐sourcing initiative (Edlund et al., 2019), recruited approximately 100 participants across 22 data‐collection locations (final N = 4620). Participants completed randomized online surveys, which inquired about an individual's PNFS, and current perceptions, behaviors and knowledge surrounding the pandemic. Results indicated that individuals with higher PNFS fared better at navigating the rules and restrictions that came with the pandemic. Specifically, and contrary to hypotheses, higher PNFS positively predicted knowledge of COVID‐19 and support for government restrictions and negatively predicted belief in pandemic misinformation. Additionally, PNFS significantly positively predicted the use of problem and emotion‐focused coping strategies and did not predict dysfunctional coping mechanisms. Our findings emphasize the role individual differences play in navigating the pandemic, and future research should evaluate PNFS in light of COVID‐19 and in relation to other behavioral and psychological outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".