![]() The first is a cluster of mental and physical health consequences. ![]() As we were doing this work, we found that there were two broad clusters of negative consequences that seem to emerge when people face these kinds of new restrictions. ![]() So clearly we need to be taking freedom seriously. And in fact, in a nationally representative sample of Italians, the most frequently reported new negative consequence of the lockdown was restricted freedom, even above things like financial burdens and social isolation. And then some early data coming out of Italy suggested that the psychology of freedom needed to be taken more seriously. And as these were unfolding, we were wondering what the psychological consequences would be of these dramatic changes. So in the first few months, we saw dramatic world changes, extreme public policies that for many of us were relatively unprecedented, whether it was in the form of restrictions, social distancing requirements, work from home mandates, and many other things. So my co-authors and I started having conversations about the many changes we were seeing in the wake of the Pandemic. Charles Blue (01:44)Ĭan you tell us what did you set out to study and why? Nathan Cheek (01:49)Ībsolutely. ![]() I have with me, Nathan Cheek with Princeton University and lead author on this paper. I’m Charles Blue and you’re listening to Under the Cortex today. This paper suggests that there is a balance that can be achieved and that psychology can help policymakers promote public health, safety, and well being when crises and disasters strike. Restricting freedoms may have negative consequences for behavior and health. A new article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, however, suggests there may be unintended consequences. The worthy objective of these restrictions is to protect people by imposing limits on what they are free to do. This is even in everyday life, from seatbelt laws to food safety regulations. During the Pandemic and other natural disasters, many actions are taken by governments to save lives at the cost of certain liberties. This quote is therefore more accurately a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending statement than a quote supporting the absolute preservation of freedoms. Though often used rhetorically to denounce impositions or laws restricting certain behaviors, Franklin was actually referring to a specific tax dispute. There is an often misstated and misunderstood quote by Benjamin Franklin, which reads, “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither Liberty nor safety. One of the authors, Nathan Cheek with Princeton University, explains how there may be a balance that can be achieved and how psychological science could help policymakers promote public health, safety, and well-being in times of crisis.Īuto-generated transcript Charles Blue (00:12) A paper published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, however, suggests that restricting freedoms may have other unintended negative consequences for behavior and health. These compromises also happen in everyday life, from seatbelt laws to food-safety regulations. During the pandemic and when other natural disasters strike, governments may curtail certain liberties in an effort to save lives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |