Исследование посвящено адаптации и валидизации русскоязычной версии методики Big Five Aspects Scale (BFAS), разработанной Колином Де Янгом. Ее основная особенность заключается в выделении 10 аспектов личности, которые являются факторами более низкого порядка и лежат в основании Большой пятерки личностных черт, а также соотносятся с данными генетических исследований. В эмпирической проверке методики, проводившейся с помощью анкетирования, приняли участие 495 человек. Для проверки факторной структуры использовался конфирматорный факторный анализ, в результате которого русскоязычная версия инструмента была модифицирована. Для проверки валидности BFAS применялись методика индивидуальных ценностей Ш. Шварца и «Стратегия истории жизни», взаимосвязи с которыми имели содержательный характер. Результаты конфирматорного факторного анализа продемонстрировали адекватные индексы соответствия, а значимые корреляции c русскоязычной версией Big Five Inventory-2 (BFI-2-XS) дополнительно подтвердили конвергентную валидность BFAS.

An important question in cogntive and evolutionary psychology is how the human mind anticipates the future and copes with stress and risk of disease. The parasite-stress model suggests that many patterns of human behavior and thought are adaptations to varying levels of exposure to parasites and pathogens. A growing body of health psychology research shows a link between positive future thinking and resiliency to various forms of disease. In this study, we investigate the link between historical pathogen prevalence in countries and individuals' perception of the future of humanity. We surveyed 18,981 participants across 68 nations, examining their beliefs about how well humanity will be doing 1000 years from now compared to the present. We found that individuals residing in regions with higher historical disease risk tend to have more positive views about the future of humanity than individuals residing in areas with lower historical disease risk. The difference could not be attributed to several other stress-inducing factors, such as climate stress, population density or objective or subjective socioeconomic indicators. This research contributes to a growing body of evidence demonstrating how disease risk shapes human cognition and encourages future exploration of the evolution of temporal forecasting and consciousness.

This paper reviews various estimands used in modern scientific and applied research to operationalize causal inquiries within the Rubin Causal Model framework. I first introduce the most widely utilized average treatment effects, such as ATE, ATT, and ATC. I then describe their popular extensions, including those targeting local and conditional treatment effects; causal interactions and mediation; effects for non-continuous outcomes, as well as for multi-valued and continuous treatments; and longitudinal treatment effects. For each of these estimands, a substantive explanation is provided, along with examples of research questions they can address. The key assumptions necessary for the identification of the most widely used effects are also discussed.

Previous research indicates that the significance of love varies considerably across cultures. In the present study, we introduce an often-overlooked cultural factor – religiosity – to explore its influence on the relationship between being in love and five dimensions of subjective well-being. We conducted two cross-cultural studies with 31,608 participants from 117 samples across 83 societies. Our findings reveal that, in more religious cultures, being in love is a weaker predictor of well-being compared to more secular cultures in four out of six models. These findings indicate that national context influences the relative importance of various emotions and experiences for well-being, underscoring the need to account for cultural context in research on love.

Using an online survey from June 2020 (N = 1,527), we explored correlates of COVID-19 skepticism in Russia, where it was widespread: 38% of respondents supported the statement that the pandemic is a hoax and lockdown measures are an overreaction. Compared to non-skeptics, skeptics were more likely to be middle-aged males with low education. Covid experience reduced skepticism, while economic hardship increased it. Skeptics scored lower on Schwartz’s conservation values and higher on openness to change. They distrusted the traditional media, government, and healthcare, were more critical of the government’s handling of the coronavirus crisis, and held lower national pride.