Dong Dan, Feng Yi, Qiao Zhihong
Faculty of Psychology, Beijing Normal University, No.19 Xinjiekouwai Street, Haidian District, Beijing, 100875 China.
Mental Health Center, Central University of Finance and Economics, No.39 South College Road, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081 China.
Curr Psychol. 2022 Sep 30:1-11. doi: 10.1007/s12144-022-03780-x.
The long-standing pathogen prevalence hypothesis suggests that collectivism can protect from epidemics and pandemics in terms of psychological well-being. However, studies exploring the protective mechanism induced when collectivism meets cultural tightness (the strength of social norms and tolerance for deviant behavior) are few. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the protective effect of collectivism in detail considering loose and tight cultural contexts. The sample comprised 2001 Chinese participants ( = 18.41 ± 2.388 years; 50.2% female). Moderated regression analyses indicated that more perceived risk of COVID-19 predicted severe mental health responses (i.e., depression and anxiety), collectivism moderated this positive relationship but individualism did not. Notably, the protective effect of collectivism is especially evident in tight cultures but ineffective in loose cultures. This study emphasized that the protective effects of collectivism on mental health during a pandemic should be considered within the framework of cultural tightness. This study's findings may advance knowledge about the relationship between cultural type and mental health during epidemics.
长期存在的病原体流行假说表明，集体主义在心理健康方面可以预防流行病和大流行病。然而，探索集体主义与文化紧密性（社会规范的强度和对越轨行为的容忍度）相遇时所引发的保护机制的研究很少。因此，本研究旨在详细考察在宽松和紧密文化背景下集体主义的保护作用。样本包括2001名中国参与者（年龄 = 18.41 ± 2.388岁；50.2%为女性）。调节回归分析表明，更多地感知到的新冠疫情风险预示着严重的心理健康反应（即抑郁和焦虑），集体主义调节了这种正向关系，而个人主义则没有。值得注意的是，集体主义的保护作用在紧密文化中尤为明显，但在宽松文化中则无效。本研究强调，在大流行期间集体主义对心理健康的保护作用应在文化紧密性的框架内加以考虑。本研究的结果可能会推进关于疫情期间文化类型与心理健康之间关系的知识。
