This article aims to extend our understanding of the link between socioeconomic conditions and psychological variables. It focuses on the effects of five distinct socioeconomic indicators on a range of psychological variables in samples of 162 individuals living below the poverty line and 188 of their more well‐off counterparts in Russia. Participants completed a questionnaire containing measures of socioeconomic indicators (i.e., income, education, perceived deprivation, subjective socioeconomic status, and childhood socioeconomic status) and psychological variables representing self‐regulation, motivation, and well‐being. Our main findings include: (a) significant effects of socioeconomic status on all psychological variables, which are in line with other studies seeking to answer similar questions, (b) varying importance of different socioeconomic indicators for different psychological variables, and (c) centrality of all socioeconomic indicators except childhood socioeconomic status, and of values of openness to change and self‐transcendence, satisfaction with life and self‐esteem in the network of relationships between socioeconomic indicators and psychological variables.
Background
Overuse of antimicrobials is a challenging global issue that contributes to antimicrobial resistance. Despite widespread awareness of the problem among members of the medical community and various attempts to improve prescription practices, existing antimicrobial stewardship programmes are not always effective. In our view, this may reflect limited understanding of factors that influence prescription of antimicrobials as empirical therapy, implying a need to address the psychological mechanisms behind some of the specific behaviours involved.
Objectives
To identify factors that influence the antimicrobials prescription as empirical therapy, and to relate these factors to findings from behavioural science.
Methods
We conducted a scoping review of the literature on the factors underlying antimicrobial prescription decisions, following the protocol designed using PRISMA guidelines.
Results and conclusions
From a final sample of 90 sources, we identified ten factors important in antimicrobial prescription decisions. In the second stage of our analysis, we grouped them into five final categories: (1) nature of the decision, (2) social influences, (3) individual differences, (4) characteristics of the patient, (5) context. We analyse these categories using a behavioural science perspective.
With the majority of social-psychological research still being conducted in Western countries, researchers from non-Western countries often adopt existing theories, constructs, and instruments that are not necessarily applicable to the contexts they are interested in. This paper discusses problems that might arise when transferring psychological constructs and instruments from one cultural setting to another. We use the case of a study of group-based guilt and shame in Russia that was carried out by the research team. First, we briefly discuss the original study and the problems we encountered while conducting it. We then analyze the results of eight in-depth semi-structured interviews that followed up the original study. Finally, we conduct a thematic analysis of Facebook commentaries (N=98) that participants left after filling out the original questionnaire. Based on these analyses, we suggest a checklist for researchers who plan to study a psychological construct that wasn’t studied in a given cultural context before. With this paper, we hope to highlight the importance of thorough and comprehensive adaptation of psychological constructs and instruments to new cultural settings.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.