IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i20p13304-d944067.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Authenticity Mediates the Relationship between Risk Perception of COVID-19 and Subjective Well-Being: A Daily Diary Study

Author

Listed:
  • Xizheng Xu

    (Management Department, Hunan Police Academy, Changsha 410138, China)

  • Ying Fan

    (Management Department, Hunan Police Academy, Changsha 410138, China)

  • Yunpeng Wu

    (School of Teacher Education, Dezhou University, Dezhou 253023, China)

  • Senlin Zhou

    (Management Department, Hunan Police Academy, Changsha 410138, China)

Abstract

The present research investigated whether risk perception of COVID-19 relates to subjective well-being and the mediating role of authenticity in this association. We conducted a 12-day daily diary study with 133 undergraduates (M age = 19.9 years, SD = 1.27 years; 64 females). Participants self-reported risk perception of COVID-19, authenticity, and subjective well-being every day. Results revealed that (1) risk perception of COVID-19 was negatively related to subjective well-being at the interindividual level; (2) authenticity mediated the relationship between risk perception of COVID-19 and subjective well-being at the interindividual level but not at the intraindividual level. In general, findings suggested that risk perception of COVID-19 is negatively related to subjective well-being only at the interindividual level, and authenticity plays a mediating role in this relationship. The finding suggested that keeping authenticity is a good strategy for avoiding the disruption caused by COVID-19. Longitudinal studies on samples with a broader age range, larger sample size, and extended sociodemographic background, as well as experimental studies, should be conducted to explore the causal relationship among interested variables that the current research has not detected.

Suggested Citation

  • Xizheng Xu & Ying Fan & Yunpeng Wu & Senlin Zhou, 2022. "Authenticity Mediates the Relationship between Risk Perception of COVID-19 and Subjective Well-Being: A Daily Diary Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-11, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13304-:d:944067
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13304/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13304/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulrich Schimmack & Peter Krause & Gert Wagner & Jürgen Schupp, 2010. "Stability and Change of Well Being: An Experimentally Enhanced Latent State-Trait-Error Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 95(1), pages 19-31, January.
    2. Yubin Ding & Junling Xu & Sisi Huang & Peipei Li & Cuizhen Lu & Shenghua Xie, 2020. "Risk Perception and Depression in Public Health Crises: Evidence from the COVID-19 Crisis in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-17, August.
    3. Craig W. Trumbo & Lori Peek & Michelle A. Meyer & Holly L. Marlatt & Eve Gruntfest & Brian D. McNoldy & Wayne H. Schubert, 2016. "A Cognitive‐Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(12), pages 2233-2246, December.
    4. Michael Siegrist & Carmen Keller & Henk A. L. Kiers, 2005. "A New Look at the Psychometric Paradigm of Perception of Hazards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(1), pages 211-222, February.
    5. Yoshitake Takebayashi & Yuliya Lyamzina & Yuriko Suzuki & Michio Murakami, 2017. "Risk Perception and Anxiety Regarding Radiation after the 2011 Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Systematic Qualitative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-13, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stefano Bartolini & Francesco Sarracino, 2014. "It's not the economy, stupid! How social capital and GDP relate to happiness over time," Papers 1411.2138, arXiv.org.
    2. Hajdu, Tamás & Hajdu, Gábor, 2011. "A hasznosság és a relatív jövedelem kapcsolatának vizsgálata magyar adatok segítségével [Examining the relation of utility and relative income using Hungarian data]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 56-73.
    3. Francesco Sarracino, 2014. "Richer in Money, Poorer in Relationships and Unhappy? Time Series Comparisons of Social Capital and Well-Being in Luxembourg," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 115(2), pages 561-622, January.
    4. Michio Murakami & Yoshitake Takebayashi & Yoshihito Takeda & Akiko Sato & Yasumasa Igarashi & Kazumi Sano & Tetsuo Yasutaka & Wataru Naito & Sumire Hirota & Aya Goto & Tetsuya Ohira & Seiji Yasumura &, 2018. "Effect of Radiological Countermeasures on Subjective Well-Being and Radiation Anxiety after the 2011 Disaster: The Fukushima Health Management Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-17, January.
    5. Masatsugu Orui & Maiko Fukasawa & Naoko Horikoshi & Yuriko Suzuki & Norito Kawakami, 2020. "Development and Evaluation of a Gatekeeper Training Program Regarding Anxiety about Radiation Health Effects Following a Nuclear Power Plant Accident: A Single-Arm Intervention Pilot Trial," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-15, June.
    6. Xiaoqin Zhu & Xiaofei Xie, 2015. "Effects of Knowledge on Attitude Formation and Change Toward Genetically Modified Foods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(5), pages 790-810, May.
    7. Sarracino, Francesco, 2013. "Determinants of subjective well-being in high and low income countries: Do happiness equations differ across countries?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 51-66.
    8. Stefano Bartolini & Francesco Sarracino, 2017. "Twenty-Five Years of Materialism: Do the US and Europe Diverge?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 787-817, September.
    9. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    10. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    11. Ruikun Peng & Yinyin Zhao & Ehsan Elahi & Benhong Peng, 2021. "Does disaster shocks affect farmers’ willingness for insurance? Mediating effect of risk perception and survey data from risk-prone areas in East China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 106(3), pages 2883-2899, April.
    12. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay, 2007. "The Roles of Group Membership, Beliefs, and Norms in Ecological Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(5), pages 1365-1380, October.
    13. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    14. Lara Augustijn, 2023. "Joint Physical Custody and Mothers’ Well-Being. An Analysis of Life Satisfaction, Depressiveness, and Stress," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(5), pages 2371-2395, October.
    15. Fabio Sabatini & Francesco Sarracino, 2017. "Online Networks and Subjective Well-Being," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(3), pages 456-480, August.
    16. Indy Wijngaards & Owen C. King & Martijn J. Burger & Job Exel, 2022. "Worker Well-Being: What it Is, and how it Should Be Measured," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(2), pages 795-832, April.
    17. Eric E. Calloway & Alethea L. Chiappone & Harrison J. Schmitt & Daniel Sullivan & Ben Gerhardstein & Pamela G. Tucker & Jamie Rayman & Amy L. Yaroch, 2020. "Exploring Community Psychosocial Stress Related to Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination: Lessons Learned from a Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-19, November.
    18. Mohsen Joshanloo, 2023. "How Stable are Life Domain Evaluations over Time? A 20-Year Study," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 791-812, February.
    19. Bartolini, Stefano & Sarracino, Francesco, 2018. "Do People Care About Future Generations? Derived Preferences from Happiness Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C), pages 253-275.
    20. Katharina Klug & Claudia Bernhard-Oettel & Magnus Sverke, 2024. "The Paradox of Job Retention Schemes: A Latent Growth Curve Modeling Approach to Immediate and Prolonged Effects of Short-Time Work on Job Insecurity and Employee Well-Being," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1-32, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13304-:d:944067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.