Headlines
Study gauges how Kansans get information on COVID-19, how they assess risk
LAWRENCE — New information emerges about the novel coronavirus on a daily basis, sometimes confirming, other times contradicting what we thought we knew the day before. Our reaction to this constant information flow depends not only on our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic but also our sources, environment and how we estimate risk. A recent University of Kansas study found that while Kansas survey participants relied on multiple sources about reliable COVID-19 information, they tended to prefer local authorities and distrust social media.
Study asks who’s playing ‘hard-to-get’ and who’s attracted by the ploy
LAWRENCE — Playing “hard-to-get” is an age-old gambit for dating and mating, familiar to moviegoers, readers of literature and any admirer who’s ever been “left on read.” New research co-written by a University of Kansas professor psychology looks at the psychological underpinnings of making yourself seem more desirable by withholding obvious signs of romantic interest. The work was just published in the peer-reviewed journal Personality and Individual Differences.
Full stories below.
————————————————————————
Contact: Mike Krings, KU News Service, 785-864-8860, [email protected], @MikeKrings
Study gauges how Kansans get information on COVID-19, how they assess risk
LAWRENCE — New information emerges about the novel coronavirus on a daily basis, sometimes confirming, other times contradicting what we thought we knew the day before. Our reaction to this constant information flow depends not only on our understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic but also our sources, environment and how we estimate risk. A recent University of Kansas study found that while Kansas survey participants relied on multiple sources about reliable COVID-19 information, they tended to prefer local authorities and distrust social media.
Mugur Geana, associate professor of journalism & mass communications and director of KU’s Center for Excellence in Health Communications to Underserved Populations, wrote the study, which will be published in the June issue of the Kansas Journal of Medicine. The study showed responses consistent with the state’s status, at the time, as an area with relatively few cases.
“When we did this survey in April, information was changing very fast,” Geana said. “We wanted to make sure we captured a window in which data available to people did not vary widely.”
More than 130 Kansans submitted answers to the social media survey, open only for a 96-hour window.
No respondents reported having COVID-19. Only 8% said they had family members diagnosed, while 41% said they knew someone in their community or place of work with COVID-19. Respondents appraised their knowledge of the pandemic as above average, and their responses to questions about the virus confirmed that.
“We wanted to understand what their concept of risk was. We were pleasantly surprised, but we also need to take it with a grain of salt, because the sample skewed toward highly educated participants,” Geana said.
Those results are consistent with online surveys, which tend to be answered more by highly educated people and women, Geana said.
Among the significant findings was where people reported getting information about the pandemic. The top source was Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly’s daily media briefings, which were also rated as the most trustworthy. Information from search engines such as Google or Bing was second in terms of usage, with 60% of respondents saying they used them daily. National newspapers such as The New York Times or The Wall Street Journal were third in terms of use, while discussions with family, friends and co-workers followed.
As far as mediated sources of information, public television and national newspapers were the most trusted media sources, while local or regional papers, commercial television, cable news, liberal and conservative media sources followed. Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram were the least trusted source of information.
A high level of knowledge among respondents was not surprising, but the lack of trust in social media was, Geana said.
“We somewhat expected that (high level of knowledge) because it was a salient issue. People had to stay at home because of COVID-19, so they were watching a lot of TV because of it, reading a lot of news because of COVID-19, etc. That was very surprising,” Geana said of the observed lack of trust in social media. “In addition to media, in terms of trust, medical professionals are the most trusted people, but co-workers, family and friends are important, because you talk with them more, often through social media channels. Well, we found that they are not as trusted as we expected. Probably a lot of the recent scandals involving social media influenced the trust that people have in it nowadays.”
The findings also showed a relationship between people’s level of knowledge and their willingness to take precautions to protect themselves and others. Those who reported strong feelings about precautionary measures put in place by the state government to slow the spread were also less likely to take precautionary measures. That was also in line with previous findings that people’s risk perceptions were related to the severity of the outbreak in their community.
“If I believe a mask will not help me, I am more likely not to wear one, even though I have access to information that tells me that is dangerous and I could get COVID-19,” Geana said of the findings.
The study is the first of two, and the second part will include further information on the perception of risk about contracting COVID-19 as states started to reopen, with survey data taken in May.
————————————————————————
The official university Twitter account has changed to @UnivOfKansas.
Refollow @KUNews for KU News Service stories, discoveries and experts.
————————————————————————
Contact: Brendan Lynch, KU News Service, 785-864-8855, [email protected], @BrendanMLynch
Study asks who’s playing ‘hard-to-get’ and who’s attracted by the ploy
LAWRENCE — Playing “hard-to-get” is an age-old gambit for dating and mating, familiar to moviegoers, readers of literature and any admirer who’s ever been “left on read.”
New research just published in the peer-reviewed journal Personality and Individual Differences looks at the psychological underpinnings of making yourself seem more desirable by withholding obvious signs of romantic interest.
“If you think about things like ‘breadcrumbing’ or ‘benching’ — you’re letting people think you’re interested in them, then pulling away or keeping things as they are without moving the relationship forward,” said Omri Gillath, professor of psychology at the University of Kansas, who co-wrote the paper. “You’re not escalating or de-escalating the effort. For instance, you’re sitting there and playing with your phone — phubbing — not paying full attention to the other person and making them struggle to get your attention. It’s sending a double message. On the one hand, you’re saying you’re interested. But on the other hand you’re saying, ‘You’ll have to work hard to actually get my full attention.’”
Gillath and Jeffery Bowen of Johns Hopkins University looked to discover the associations among romantic aloofness, gender and “attachment style,” the psychological term for people’s way of thinking, feeling and behaving in close relationships.
Attachment style, usually formed in childhood, falls into the primary categories of secure or insecure (people with an insecure attachment style are usually classified as anxious or avoidant). Overall, the researchers found that women and people with insecure attachment styles tended to play hard-to-get more.
“Hard-to-get behaviors seem to serve as strategies to self-protect and manage potential partners’ behaviors,” Gillath said. “Women, as we expected, are playing hard-to-get more, and men are pursuing them. Avoidant people tend to be playing hard-to-get, and anxious people are pursuing them. The nice thing is it’s compatible. If you’re secure about yourself and about others loving you, you’re less likely to get involved in such game-playing — and you’re not playing hard-to-get or pursuing people that are playing hard-to-get. But if you’re insecure you’re more likely to use these strategies, playing and pursuing, and it’s serving a role for both sides.”
Across four studies involving over 900 participants, the authors examined links between attachment style and hard-to-get strategies. Among their findings:
- Attachment style predicts and shapes hard-to-get behavior, particularly among insecurely attached individuals.
- People higher on attachment avoidance and women (vs. men) reported playing hard-to-get more.
- People higher on attachment anxiety and men (vs. women) reported more pursuing of hard-to-get others.
- When researchers nudged (or primed) thoughts of attachment insecurity, they found primed avoidance led to a greater likelihood of playing hard-to-get among avoidant heterosexual men. Primed anxiety led to greater reported likelihood of pursuing hard-to-get targets overall.
- While many people might be using these strategies (playing and pursuing), their reasons for doing so might be different (control, self-protection, partner selection, etc.)
According to the authors, their study sheds light on how people with avoidant and anxious attachment styles manage their psychological vulnerabilities. Put another way, our behavior in trying to find mates and partners is rooted in early life experiences.
For people with insecure attachment styles, Gillath said playing hard-to-get, or chasing an aloof potential mate, are efficient approaches for securing intimacy, romantic relationships and sex.
“We’re not saying it’s good or it’s bad, but for some people these strategies are working,” he said. “It helps people create relationships and get partners they want. But who’s doing it and what are the outcomes? These people are usually insecure people — and their relationships are often ones that won’t last long or will be dissatisfying.”
For other people, playing hard-to-get is less a romantic strategy and more of a survival instinct.
“Sometimes, it’s not so much about the relationship but about helping people to stay in control,” Gillath said. “Some people are behaving in such a way because they’re terrified. They can’t trust anyone — and they’re doing whatever they can to protect themselves from getting hurt again. So, for them, it’s not ‘playing.’ This is not a game for them but a way to protect themselves and to verify people out there are serious and are going to be reliable mates.”
The KU researcher said “playing hard-to-get” is one aspect of the psychological power dynamics that define many human relationships, whether they’re romantic or not.
“Any relationship where we have two sides involved is going to have some push and pull,” Gillath said. “There are relationships where one side wants it more and the other side wants it less. The side that is less invested has more power. If you really need my friendship and I have other friends, I’m going to have more power and control in the friendship and could potentially play hard-to-get. The person who’s more desperate is likely to have less control and less power and likely to pursue more.”
————————————————————————
KU News Service
1450 Jayhawk Blvd.
Lawrence KS 66045
Phone: 785-864-3256
Fax: 785-864-3339
Erinn Barcomb-Peterson, director of news and media relations, [email protected]
Today’s News is a free service From the Office of Public Affairs | http://www.news.ku.edu
06302020
