The impact of the Big Five personality traits on help-seeking stigmas, attitudes, and intentions.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mental illness is common, consequential, and increasing in prevalence.Despite this, most individuals do not seek professional help for mental health concerns.Research has begun to investigate the impact of personality on help-seeking, but it has suffered from many limitations.As such, the purpose of this study was to establish the effects of the Big Five personality traits on public and selfstigma of seeking help, help-seeking attitudes, and intentions.We employed hierarchical regression models in a large cross-sectional sample (N = 5712) to evaluate personality traits in the context of other established predictors of help-seeking.Agreeableness had consistent protective effects across all models and extraversion was especially protective regarding help-seeking intentions.In contrast to these beneficial effects, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism had complex relationships with helpseeking constructs.Our findings have implications for understanding the influence of the Big Five on which individuals may be unlikely to seek mental health services in the face of a need.Through this understanding, we can begin to develop targeted strategies directed towards individuals at risk to not seek help for mental health concerns, and increase help-seeking behaviour.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it