| Literature DB >> 36117609 |
Yuanyuan Lan1, Changlin Han1, Xiaotong Liu1, Qinqin Cao1, Siyuan Chen2, Yuhuan Xia3.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has caused millions of deaths, seriously hampering people's lives and their productivity. Drawing on social information processing theory, this research developed a moderated mediation model to investigate the influence of perceived COVID-19 crisis strength on individuals' well-being. The results from a sample of 441 suggest that individuals' perceived COVID-19 crisis strength indirectly affects their life satisfaction and sleep quality via their perceived risk of being infected. Moreover, both individuals' trust in local government and mindfulness trait can buffer the positive effect of perceived COVID-19 crisis strength on their perceived risk of being infected. At the same time, they also buffer the indirect impact of individuals' perceived COVID-19 crisis strength on life satisfaction and sleep quality through perceived risk of being infected. This research provides several practical implications for governments and individuals to mitigate the negative influences of the COVID-19 pandemic and help individuals boost life satisfaction and sleep quality.Entities:
Keywords: life satisfaction; mindfulness; perceived COVID-19 crisis strength; perceived risk of being infected; sleep quality; trust in local government
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36117609 PMCID: PMC9470827 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.944942
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Confirmatory factor analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Four-factor model: PCCS, PRBI, MIN, TILG | 1318.371 | 623 | 2.116 | 0.931 | 0.926 | 0.050 | 0.056 |
| Three-factor model: PCCS+PRBI, MIN, TILG | 1715.814 | 626 | 2.741 | 0.891 | 0.884 | 0.063 | 0.068 |
| Two-factor model: PCCS+PRBI+MIN, TILG | 4062.829 | 628 | 6.469 | 0.658 | 0.637 | 0.111 | 0.159 |
| One-factor model: PCCS+PRBI+MIN+TILG | 4855.361 | 629 | 7.719 | 0.579 | 0.554 | 0.123 | 0.166 |
N = 441. PCCS, Perceived COVID-19 Crisis Strength; PRBI, Perceived risk of being infected; MIN, Mindfulness; TILG, Trust in local government. Same for following tables.
Factor loadings, AVE, and reliabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived | PCCS1 | 0.825 | 0.814 | 0.931 | 0.555 |
| COVID-19 | PCCS2 | 0.739 | |||
| crisis | PCCS3 | 0.783 | |||
| strength | PCCS4 | 0.773 | |||
| PCCS5 | 0.734 | ||||
| PCCS6 | 0.735 | ||||
| PCCS7 | 0.675 | ||||
| PCCS8 | 0.538 | ||||
| PCCS9 | 0.810 | ||||
| PCCS10 | 0.790 | ||||
| PCCS11 | 0.748 | ||||
| Perceived | PRBI1 | 0.805 | 0.903 | 0.923 | 0.600 |
| risk of being | PRBI2 | 0.768 | |||
| infected | PRBI3 | 0.729 | |||
| PRBI4 | 0.704 | ||||
| PRBI5 | 0.791 | ||||
| PRBI6 | 0.788 | ||||
| PRBI7 | 0.804 | ||||
| PRBI8 | 0.803 | ||||
| Mindfulness | MF1 | 0.865 | 0.966 | 0.970 | 0.681 |
| MF2 | 0.829 | ||||
| MF3 | 0.819 | ||||
| MF4 | 0.815 | ||||
| MF5 | 0.821 | ||||
| MF6 | 0.816 | ||||
| MF7 | 0.833 | ||||
| MF8 | 0.821 | ||||
| MF9 | 0.810 | ||||
| MF10 | 0.833 | ||||
| MF11 | 0.845 | ||||
| MF12 | 0.827 | ||||
| MF13 | 0.826 | ||||
| MF14 | 0.809 | ||||
| MF15 | 0.807 | ||||
| Trust in local | TILG1 | 0.920 | 0.895 | 0.936 | 0.829 |
| government | TILG2 | 0.910 | |||
| TILG3 | 0.901 |
N = 441.
Means, standard deviations, and correlations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 0.61 | 0.49 | - | ||||||||
| 2. Age | 32.10 | 7.72 | −0.208 | - | |||||||
| 3. Education level | 2.83 | 0.98 | 0.225 | −0.032 | - | ||||||
| 4. PCCS | 4.06 | 0.89 | −0.022 | 0.099 | −0.041 |
| |||||
| 5. PRBI | 3.68 | 1.24 | 0.071 | 0.004 | 0.083 | 0.565 |
| ||||
| 6. LS | 4.59 | 1.53 | −0.044 | 0.122 | −0.023 | −0.405 | −0.428 | - | |||
| 7. SQ | 4.74 | 1.49 | −0.072 | 0.033 | −0.072 | −0.374 | −0.387 | 0.542 | - | ||
| 8. MIN | 4.15 | 1.22 | 0.115 | −0.051 | −0.086 | −0.198 | −0.164 | 0.304 | 0.233 |
| |
| 9. TILG | 5.06 | 1.41 | 0.061 | −0.165 | −0.095 | −0.165 | −0.057 | 0.007 | 0.056 | −0.121 |
|
N = 441. LS, Life satisfaction; SQ, Sleep quality. Same for following tables. Internal consistent reliability (alpha) coefficients are shown along the diagonal in bold italics. Gender, 0 = male, 1 = female. Education, 1 = high school, 2 = associate degree, 3 = bachelor degree, 4 = master degree, 5 =Ph.D.
p < 0.01,
p < 0.05.
Summary of direct, indirect, and moderate effects.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct effects | ||||
| PCCS → PRBI | 0.664 | 0.065 | [0.536, 0.793] | Supported (H1) |
| PRBI → LS | −0.347 | 0.061 | [−0.467, −0.227] | Supported (H2a) |
| PRBI → SQ | −0.291 | 0.06 | [−0.409, −0.173] | Supported (H2b) |
| Indirect effects | ||||
| PCCS → PRBI → LS | −0.231 | 0.047 | [−0.322, −0.139] | Supported (H3a) |
| PCCS → PRBI → SQ | −0.193 | 0.044 | [−0.280, −0.106] | Supported (H3b) |
| Moderate effects | ||||
| TILG * PCCS → PRBI | −0.137 | 0.039 | [−0.214, −0.060] | Supported (H4) |
| MIN * PCCS → PRBI | −0.155 | 0.046 | [−0.246, −0.065] | Supported (H5) |
| Conditional indirect effects at values of TILG (PCCS → PRBI → LS) | ||||
| −1 SD (TILG) | −0.278 | 0.055 | [−0.387, −0.170] | Supported (H6a) |
| +1 SD (TILG) | −0.183 | 0.043 | [−0.268, −0.098] | |
| Difference | 0.095 | 0.034 | [0.029, 0.161] | |
| Conditional indirect effects at values of TILG (PCCS → PRBI → SQ) | ||||
| −1 SD (TILG) | −0.233 | 0.052 | [−0.336, −0.130] | Supported (H6b) |
| +1 SD (TILG) | −0.153 | 0.040 | [−0.232, −0.075] | |
| Difference | 0.080 | 0.029 | [0.023, 0.136] | |
| Conditional indirect effects at values of MIN (PCCS → PRBI → LS) | ||||
| −1 SD (MIN) | −0.285 | 0.057 | [−0.396, −0.173] | Supported (H7a) |
| +1 SD (MIN) | −0.177 | 0.044 | [−0.262, −0.091] | |
| Difference | 0.108 | 0.04 | [0.030, 0.185] | |
| Conditional indirect effects at values of MIN (PCCS → PRBI → SQ) | ||||
| −1 SD (MIN) | −0.238 | 0.053 | [−0.343, −0.134] | Supported (H7b) |
| +1 SD (MIN) | −0.148 | 0.041 | [−0.228, −0.068] | |
| Difference | 0.090 | 0.033 | [0.025, 0.155] | |
N = 441. SE, standard error; CI, confidence interval. Values for quantitative moderators are the mean and plus/minus one SD from mean.
Figure 2The moderating effect of trust in local government on the relationship between perceived COVID-19 crisis strength and perceived risk of being infected.
Figure 3The moderating effect of mindfulness on the relationship between perceived COVID-19 crisis strength and perceived risk of being infected.