No abstract

No abstract

To represent the state-of-the-art in an effort to understand the relation between personality and risk taking, we selected a popular decision task with characteristics that parallel risk taking in the real world and two personality traits commonly believed to influence risk taking. A meta-analysis is presented based on 22 studies of the Balloon Analogue Risk Task from which correlations with sensation seeking and impulsivity assessments could be obtained. Results calculated on a total of 2120 participants showed that effect size for the relation of sensation seeking with risk taking was in the small–moderate range (r = .14), whereas the effect size for impulsivity was just around the small effect size threshold (r = .10). Although we considered participants’ demographics as moderators, we found only significantly larger effect sizes for the older adolescents and young adults compared with other ages. The findings of the present review supported the view that inconsistencies in personality–risk research were mostly due to random fluctuations of specific effect sizes, rather than to lack of theoretical ties or to measurement unreliability. It is also concluded that studies aimed at relating individual differences in personality to performance in experimental decision tasks need an appropriate sample size to achieve the power to produce significant results

Italy was the first western hotspot of the COVID-19 pandemic. In order to contain the spread of the virus, the Italian Government imposed home confinement to the entire population for almost two months. The present study is the first large-scale longitudinal report of the sleep and mental health changes during the prolonged lockdown due to the COVID-19 outbreak. We focused on the gendered vulnerability in a sample of the Italian population since cross-sectional research identified women to be more at-risk than men during this unprecedented situation. 2701 individuals (mean age ± standard deviation, 32.37 ± 11.62; range, 18–82) participated in a web-based longitudinal survey consisting of two measurements. Participants were first-time recruited on social networks and via telephone messages through a snowball sampling and tested during the third week of the lockdown period. Subsequently, a follow-up evaluation was carried out during the seventh week of lockdown. The survey assessed perceived stress, sleep quality, insomnia and depression symptoms, and anxiety, using the following questionnaires: the 10-item Perceived Stress Scale, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, the Insomnia Severity Index, the Beck Depression Inventory-second edition, and the State-Anxiety Inventory. Women showed the worst condition for all the examined dimensions in both the assessments. Nevertheless, at the follow-up women reported a reduction in perceived stress, insomnia and depression severity symptoms, and anxiety. On the other hand, male participants showed a worsening of perceived stress, sleep quality, and insomnia symptoms. Consequently, the gender prevalence gap of clinical conditions such as insomnia and depression was largely reduced under lockdown. Our investigation pointed to a different time course of sleep and mental health between genders during the home confinement period. Women seemed to show greater long-term resilience during the lockdown. Meanwhile, the male gender emerges as the most vulnerable category to the extension of the restraining measures. Our results suggest that there is no “weaker gender” after a prolonged lockdown. Indeed, the Italian population transversely presented signs of psychological suffering and significant sleep disturbances after the protracted and stressful lockdown period due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The System Usability Scale (SUS), developed by Brooke (Usability evaluation in industry, Taylor & Francis, London, pp 189-194, 1996), had a great success among usability practitioners since it is a quick and easy to use measure for collecting users' usability evaluation of a system. Recently, Lewis and Sauro (Proceedings of the human computer interaction international conference (HCII 2009), San Diego CA, USA, 2009) have proposed a two-factor structure-Usability (8 items) and Learnability (2 items)-suggesting that practitioners might take advantage of these new factors to extract additional information from SUS data. In order to verify the dimensionality in the SUS' two-component structure, we estimated the parameters and tested with a structural equation model the SUS structure on a sample of 196 university users. Our data indicated that both the unidimensional model and the two-factor model with uncorrelated factors proposed by Lewis and Sauro (Proceedings of the human computer interaction international conference (HCII 2009), San Diego CA, USA, 2009) had a not satisfactory fit to the data. We thus released the hypothesis that Usability and Learnability are independent components of SUS ratings and tested a less restrictive model with correlated factors. This model not only yielded a good fit to the data, but it was also significantly more appropriate to represent the structure of SUS ratings.

Risk perception is important in determining health-protective behavior. During the rise of the COVID-19 epidemic, we tested a comprehensive structural equation model of risk perception to explain adherence to protective behaviors in a crisis context using a survey of 572 Italian citizens. We identified two categories of protective behaviors, labeled promoting hygiene and cleaning, and avoiding social closeness. Social norms and risk perceptions were the more proximal antecedents of both categories. Cultural worldviews, affect, and experience of COVID-19 were the more distal predictors. Promoting hygiene and cleaning was triggered by the negative affective attitude toward coronavirus and mediated by an affective appraisal of risk. The deliberate dimension of risk perception (perceived likelihood) predicted only avoiding social closeness. Social norms predicted both types of behaviors and mediated the relations of cultural worldviews. Individualism (vs. communitarianism), more than hierarchy (vs. egalitarianism), shaped the affective evaluation of coronavirus. The model was an acceptable fit to the data and accounted for 20% and 29% of the variance in promoting hygiene and cleaning, and avoiding social closeness, respectively. The findings were robust to the effect of sociodemographic factors (age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, and zone of the country). Taken together, our findings confirmed the empirical distinction between affective and deliberate processes in risk perception, supported the validity of the affect heuristic, and highlighted the role of social norms as an account for why individualistic people were less likely to follow the prescribed health-protective behaviors. Implications for risk communication are discussed.

BackgroundThe Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a widely used self-report measure to assess emotional distress in clinical populations. As highlighted in recent review studies, the latent structure of the HADS is still an issue. The aim of this study was to analyze the factorial structure of the HADS in a large community sample in Italy, and to test the invariance of the best fitting model across age and gender groups.MethodsData analyses were carried out on a sample of 1.599 participants proportionally stratified according to the Italian census population pyramid. Participants aged 18 to 85 years (females = 51.8%), living in eight different regions of Italy, voluntarily participated in the study. The survey questionnaire contained the HADS, Health Status questions, and sociodemographic variables.ResultsConfirmatory factor analysis indicated that a bifactor model, with a general psychological distress factor and two orthogonal group factors with anxiety and depression, was the best fitting one compared to six alternative factor structures reported in the literature, with overall good fit indices [Non-normed Fit Index (NNFI) = .97; Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = .98; Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = .04]. Multi-group analyses supported total invariance of the HADS measurement model for males and females, and for younger (i.e., 18–44 years old) and older (i.e., 45–85 years old) participants. Our descriptive analyses showed that females reported significant higher anxiety and general distress mean scores than males. Moreover, older participants reported significant higher HADS, anxiety and depression scores than younger participants.ConclusionsThe results of the present study confirmed that the HADS has good psychometric properties in an Italian community sample, and that the HADS scores, especially the general psychological distress one, can be reliably used for assessing age and gender differences. In keeping with the most recent factorial studies, our analysis supported the superior fit of a bifactor model. However, the high factor loadings on the general factor also recommend caution in the use of the two subscales as independent measures.

The WHODAS II is a useful instrument for measuring disability and functioning in normal and disabled people. It shows high reliability and a stable factor structure; although an additional psychometric evaluation of a representative sample of Italian disabled should be carried out in order to reach standard scores for each macro-category of disability.