Αναζήτηση αυτού του ιστολογίου

Δευτέρα 5 Δεκεμβρίου 2022

Perceived legitimacy can moderate the effect of proscriptive vs. prescriptive injunctions on intentions to comply with UK government COVID‐19 guidelines and reactance

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader

Abstract

Proscriptive injunctions (i.e., telling people what they should not do) have been found in research to elicit greater perceptions of a threat to freedom, and greater reactance (anger, irritation and annoyance), than prescriptive injunctions (i.e., telling people what they should do), across several health and social behaviours. The current research investigated the effects of Injunction Type (proscriptive vs. prescriptive) and perceived legitimacy of the injunction, on intentions to comply with UK government behavioural guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, and on reactance. In two online experimental studies (Study 1: N = 142; Study 2: N = 307), UK participants were presented with information about UK government COVID-19 guidelines that included either a proscriptive injunction or prescriptive injunction and reported their perceptions of the legitimacy of the injunction, their intentions to comply with government guidelines, a nd their reactance. In both Study 1 and Study 2, the effect of Injunction Type on intentions to comply and reactance was moderated by perceived legitimacy. In both studies, when perceived legitimacy was low, participants exposed to the proscriptive injunction indicated lower intentions to comply with UK government COVID 19 guidelines than did participants exposed to the prescriptive injunction, The findings imply that using a prescriptive injunction frame can elicit greater intentions to comply than using a proscriptive injunction frame when people perceive the injunction to be unreasonable. The results are discussed in relation to the role of legitimacy in determining the effectiveness of different types of injunctions on compliance with rules and guidelines.

This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

View on Web

International variations in carcinoma and melanoma incidence in children and adolescents

alexandrossfakianakis shared this article with you from Inoreader
In order to compare the subtype distribution of carcinoma and melanoma in children and adolescents between Japan and other countries, we extracted information on cancer incidence in children and adolescents from the third volume of the International Incidence of Childhood Cancer series (IICC-3) (1). The IICC-3 reports the number or incidence rates of cancers diagnosed in childhood and adolescence, from cancer registries (regional or national) worldwide. We analysed carcinoma and melanoma incidence in four countries in Asia (Japan, China, the Republic of Korea and Thailand), two countries in Africa (Egypt and Uganda), four countries in the Americas (North: The United States of America and Canada, Latin and Caribbean: Brazil and Colombia), three countries in Europe (the United Kingdom [UK], France and Germany) and two countries in Oceania (Australia and New Z ealand). Information from the Republic of Korea, USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand was obtained at the national level, and that from the other countries was extracted from one or multiple regional cancer registries. The years of incidence included in the analyses varied from country to country, ranging from 1990 to 2014, with the shortest being 12 years (Egypt: 1999–2010, UK: 2000–2011) and the longest being 24 years (Japan and China: both 1990–2013). In this study, we compared the incidence and proportional distribution of carcinoma and melanoma subtypes in children (0–14 years old) and adolescents (15–19 years old) between these countries.
View on Web