ABSTRACT
Aim: The goal of this research was to assess the influence of adult attachment, personality, and cultural orientation on social distancing and attitudes toward COVID-19 mitigation interventions. Methods: Survey data was collected across two samples (NMTurk = 201, Nsnowball = 242) in the US from April 29 to May 11, 2020. Adult attachment was assessed via the Experiences in Close Relationships Scale-Short Form (ECR-S; Wei, M., Russell, D. W., Mallinckrodt, B., & Vogel, D. L. (2007). The experiences in close relationship scale (ECR)-short form: Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88(2), 187-204), personality was assessed via the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528), cultural orientation was assessed via the Horizontal and Vertical Individualism and Collectivism Scale (Triandis, H. C., & Galfand, M. J. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1), 118-128), and social distancing and attitudes toward mitigation interventions were assessed via self-report measures developed for this assessment. Results: In the MTurk sample, agreeableness (ß = .19) and conscientiousness (ß = .26) predicted positive mitigation intervention attitudes. Agreeableness (ß = .24) and vertical collectivism (ß = .25) positively predicted social distancing, while attachment anxiety (ß = -.32) and vertical individualism (ß = -.32) negatively predicted social distancing. In our snowball sample, residing primarily in New York, openness (ß = .18) and horizontal collectivism (ß = .16) predicted positive intervention attitudes, while horizontal individualism (ß = -.20) predicted negative attitudes. Social contact in this sample was low and not associated with predictor variables. In both samples, mitigation attitudes and social distancing were only moderately correlated. Implications: Our findings highlight the inherent inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors as well as the potential impact of mandated interventions on both attitudes and behavior.
ABSTRACT
Ten groups presented their perspectives on facilitating clinical research in ALS including four federal agencies, four disease organizations, one foundation and one advocacy group. The federal agencies (National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Office of Rare Diseases Research, Department of Defense) encourage fostering a team approach between pre-clinical and clinical research investigators, coordinating with patient groups in the early phases of clinical studies, enhancing private and public partnerships, and investigating the interplay between genetic susceptibility and environmental exposure. The disease organizations (Muscular Dystrophy Association, ALS Association, ALS Society of Canada, and the Motor Neurone Disease Association UK) support fellowship training programs to develop ALS clinician scientists, and encourage work on the epidemiology of ALS, on genetic and epigenetic mechanisms that are relevant to ALS pathogenesis, on developing ALS registries and biobanks, and building bridges of collaboration among study groups. The Foundation supports innovative projects, including stem-cell research, and Patient Advocacy is committed to supporting excellence in ALS research and patient care, and believes strongly in enhancing communication between patients and members of the research community.