The Influence of Prolonged Stressful Situation on World Assumptions, Peculiarities of Thinking and Moral Decisions

IF 0.5 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED Social Psychology and Society Pub Date : 2023-12-30 DOI:10.17759/sps.2023140411
T.I. Medvedeva, S. Enikolopov, O.M. Boiko, O. Vorontsova, N.V. Chudova, E.I. Rasskazova
{"title":"The Influence of Prolonged Stressful Situation on World Assumptions, Peculiarities of Thinking and Moral Decisions","authors":"T.I. Medvedeva, S. Enikolopov, O.M. Boiko, O. Vorontsova, N.V. Chudova, E.I. Rasskazova","doi":"10.17759/sps.2023140411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><strong>Objective. </strong>The study of the influence of prolonged stressful situation on world assumptions, peculiarities of thinking and moral decisions. <br><strong>Background. </strong>The pandemic situation can be considered as a model stressful situation. The assessment of its impact makes it possible to predict the consequences of society experiencing a high level of stress in a situation of danger and/or uncertainty. <br><strong>Study design. </strong>The level of distress, moral decisions, world assumptions, and peculiarities of thinking before the pandemic and in the conditions of the pandemic were compared. Methods of variance analysis, the Kraskal-Wallace criterion, and correlation analysis were used. <br><strong>Participants. </strong>\"Moral dilemmas\" <em>N</em> = 621 (23,4% of men), age – 33,7 ± 11,32; Constructive thinking questionnaire <em>N</em> = 700 (20,7% of men), age – 31,55 ± 9,7; Scale of basic beliefs <em>N </em>= 412 (18,2% of men), age – 35,6 ± 11,2. <br><strong>Measurements. </strong>\"Moral dilemmas\", \"World Assumptions Scale” (WAS), “Constructive Thinking Inventory” (CTI), Symptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90R). <br><strong>Results. </strong>During the pandemic, the level of distress experienced is higher, the ability to distinguish between personal and \"distant\" violence is lower, and indicators of constructive thinking and emotional coping are lower. The belief in benevolence, justice of the world, the value of one's own self is reduced. All these changes are associated with a high level of distress. <br><strong>Conclusions. </strong>The stressful situation led to a change in moral decisions. The change was not directly related to basic beliefs and thinking patterns and is a consequence of \"emotional detachment\" in stressful situation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54079,"journal":{"name":"Social Psychology and Society","volume":" 25","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Psychology and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2023140411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective. The study of the influence of prolonged stressful situation on world assumptions, peculiarities of thinking and moral decisions.
Background. The pandemic situation can be considered as a model stressful situation. The assessment of its impact makes it possible to predict the consequences of society experiencing a high level of stress in a situation of danger and/or uncertainty.
Study design. The level of distress, moral decisions, world assumptions, and peculiarities of thinking before the pandemic and in the conditions of the pandemic were compared. Methods of variance analysis, the Kraskal-Wallace criterion, and correlation analysis were used.
Participants. "Moral dilemmas" N = 621 (23,4% of men), age – 33,7 ± 11,32; Constructive thinking questionnaire N = 700 (20,7% of men), age – 31,55 ± 9,7; Scale of basic beliefs N = 412 (18,2% of men), age – 35,6 ± 11,2.
Measurements. "Moral dilemmas", "World Assumptions Scale” (WAS), “Constructive Thinking Inventory” (CTI), Symptom Check List-90-Revised (SCL-90R).
Results. During the pandemic, the level of distress experienced is higher, the ability to distinguish between personal and "distant" violence is lower, and indicators of constructive thinking and emotional coping are lower. The belief in benevolence, justice of the world, the value of one's own self is reduced. All these changes are associated with a high level of distress.
Conclusions. The stressful situation led to a change in moral decisions. The change was not directly related to basic beliefs and thinking patterns and is a consequence of "emotional detachment" in stressful situation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
长期压力环境对世界观、思维特点和道德决定的影响
研究目的研究长期压力环境对世界假设、思维特点和道德决定的影响。背景。大流行病可以被视为一种典型的紧张状态。通过对其影响的评估,可以预测在危险和/或不确定的情况下经历高度压力的社会的后果。研究设计。比较了大流行前和大流行条件下的痛苦程度、道德决定、世界假设和思维特点。采用了方差分析、Kraskal-Wallace 标准和相关分析等方法。参与者。"道德困境 "N = 621(23.4% 的男性),年龄 - 33.7 ± 11.32;建设性思维问卷 N = 700(20.7% 的男性),年龄 - 31.55 ± 9.7;基本信念量表 N = 412(18.2% 的男性),年龄 - 35.6 ± 11.2。测量。"道德困境"、"世界假设量表"(WAS)、"建设性思维量表"(CTI)、症状检查表-90-修订版(SCL-90R)。研究结果在大流行病期间,所经历的痛苦程度更高,区分个人暴力和 "远距离 "暴力的能力更低,建设性思维和情绪应对指标更低。对仁慈、世界正义和自我价值的信念降低。所有这些变化都与高度痛苦有关。结论压力状况导致了道德决定的变化。这种变化与基本信念和思维模式没有直接关系,而是压力情境下 "情感疏离 "的结果。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Social Psychology and Society
Social Psychology and Society PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
15
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effect of Social Trust on Worry about the Future in Comparative Cross-Cultural Perspective Attitudes towards Patriotism and Patriotic Self-identity of Russian Students Youth in the Polarization of Russian Society The Contribution of the System Justification to Social Cohesion Procedural Justice as a Factor of Attitudes Toward the Political System: the Role of the Country's Economic Situation The Influence of Prolonged Stressful Situation on World Assumptions, Peculiarities of Thinking and Moral Decisions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1