ABSTRACT
Psychological dread is a phenomenon with which virtually everyone is familiar, whether dreading a medical appointment, a job interview, or the impending death of a loved one. Despite the prevalence of dread in most people's everyday lives, surprisingly little empirical research has explored the construct. The purpose of the current research was to examine psychological dread (Study 1 and Study 2) and to compare dread to extreme persistent fear (Study 2). Respondents across both studies completed surveys on which they described a dreaded experience (Studies 1 and 2) or an extremely feared event (Study 2) and answered questions about the event. Participants reported uncertainty and lack of control surrounding events associated with both dread and extreme persistent fear. They also anticipated that they would feel relief when these events were over, but this relief was greater with dread than fear. Implications for coping with dread and extreme persistent fears are discussed along with comparisons of the types of events most commonly associated with dread and extreme fear.
ABSTRACT
Variants of COVID-19 have sparked controversy regarding mask and/or vaccine mandates in some sectors of the country. Many people hold polarized opinions about such mandates, and it is uncertain what predicts attitudes towards these protective behavior mandates. Through a snow-ball sampling procedure of respondents on social media platforms, this study examined skepticism of 774 respondents toward these mandates as a function of the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) of health. Hierarchical linear regressions examined Protection Motivation (PM) as a predictor of mask and vaccine mandate skepticism independently and with political party affiliation as a control. PM alone accounted for 76% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001 and 65% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001. When political affiliation was entered (accounting for 28% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001, and 26% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001), PM still accounted for significant percentages of variance in both mask (50%) and vaccine (43%) mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001. Across regressions, perceived severity, outcome efficaciousness, and self-efficacy each directly accounted for unique variance in mask and vaccine mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001; only perceived vulnerability failed to account for unique variance in the regressions, ps > 0.05. Specifically, the more severe participants perceived COVID-19 to be and the greater the perceived efficacy of masks and vaccines preventing the spread of COVID-19, the lower participants' skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates. Similarly, the higher participants' self-efficacy in wearing masks or receiving the vaccine, the lower their skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates.
