OCCUPATIONAL AREA, STRESS AND COPING STRATEGIES IN THE OUTBREAK OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Q4 Psychology
Antoaneta Georgieva Rusinova-Hristova, Rositsa Racheva, B. Andreev
{"title":"OCCUPATIONAL AREA, STRESS AND COPING STRATEGIES IN THE OUTBREAK OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC","authors":"Antoaneta Georgieva Rusinova-Hristova, Rositsa Racheva, B. Andreev","doi":"10.37708/psyct.v15i2.661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study investigates the levels of perceived stress and coping strategies of the participants in relation to their occupation. We argue that the levels of perceived stress vary in relation to the area of occupation and that there are specific coping strategies for dealing with stress among the representatives of the different areas of occupation. The study was conducted online via the Kwiksurveys platform. The data were collected during the period of first lock down - last week of March 2020. A total number of 688 people took part in the survey. Four occupational areas were distinguished – Social work, law or politics; Education and science; Economics and business; Engineering and IT. The method used collects socio-demographic data, measures perceived stress and distinguish coping strategies. The results reveal the highest levels of perceived stress among representatives working in the area of Education and Science. They use Categorical thinking, Naïve optimism and Esoteric thinking as coping strategies significantly more often than other groups. An interesting outcome is that Emotional Coping, Behavioural coping and Superstitious thinking seem to be universal coping strategies. Possible factors underlying the stress among the representatives of the most stressed group and possible implications of the results are discussed.","PeriodicalId":37380,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Thought","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v15i2.661","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study investigates the levels of perceived stress and coping strategies of the participants in relation to their occupation. We argue that the levels of perceived stress vary in relation to the area of occupation and that there are specific coping strategies for dealing with stress among the representatives of the different areas of occupation. The study was conducted online via the Kwiksurveys platform. The data were collected during the period of first lock down - last week of March 2020. A total number of 688 people took part in the survey. Four occupational areas were distinguished – Social work, law or politics; Education and science; Economics and business; Engineering and IT. The method used collects socio-demographic data, measures perceived stress and distinguish coping strategies. The results reveal the highest levels of perceived stress among representatives working in the area of Education and Science. They use Categorical thinking, Naïve optimism and Esoteric thinking as coping strategies significantly more often than other groups. An interesting outcome is that Emotional Coping, Behavioural coping and Superstitious thinking seem to be universal coping strategies. Possible factors underlying the stress among the representatives of the most stressed group and possible implications of the results are discussed.
新冠肺炎疫情暴发中的职业领域、压力与应对策略
本研究调查了被试的感知压力水平及与职业相关的应对策略。我们认为,感知压力的水平因职业领域而异,不同职业领域的代表有特定的应对压力的策略。这项研究是通过Kwiksurveys平台在线进行的。这些数据是在第一次封锁期间收集的,即2020年3月的最后一周。共有688人参与了这项调查。划分了四个职业领域:社会工作、法律或政治;教育和科学;经济与商业;工程和IT。所使用的方法收集社会人口统计数据,测量感知压力和区分应对策略。结果显示,在教育和科学领域工作的代表感受到的压力最高。他们使用分类思维、Naïve乐观和深奥思维作为应对策略的频率明显高于其他群体。一个有趣的结果是,情绪应对、行为应对和迷信思维似乎是普遍的应对策略。在压力最大的群体的代表之间的压力可能的因素和结果可能的含义进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological Thought
Psychological Thought Psychology-Psychology (all)
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal "Psychological Thought" publishes its papers in English or in Bulgarian in all areas of psychology. It is focused on the psychological theory and practice. The papers could be some original research articles, meta-analysis data, clinical reports, case studies, students'' essays, and book reviews. This journal is designed for psychologists, researchers, and psychology students.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信