Background The time of widespread outbreaks of infectious diseases can lead to elevated stress and mental health problems among all persons affected, and in particular those sub-groups of the population that are at an increased risk of mental health problems. One such vulnerable group constitutes university students. The aim of this study is to assess stress, depression, anxiety, and suicidality among different groups of university students (medical, psychology, and other). Methods Using a repeated cross-sectional study design, we collected survey data among a large sample of 7228 university students from Poland (mean age = 22.78, s.d. = 4.40; 81% female). Data were collected in five waves, during the first 2 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe (March and April 2020). Results The results demonstrate a significant increase in depression levels as the pandemic was progressing. We also found that female students scored significantly higher than male students on depression, anxiety, and stress. Psychology students recorded the lowest scores on depression and anxiety. Young adult students (aged 18–24 years) had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and suicidality than adult students (⩾25 years). Conclusions These results provide insights into stress and mental health among university students during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings can be used for a more effective identification of students who may struggle during next stages of the pandemic and future crises.
Objective: The results of numerous empirical studies have showed the occurrence of so-called unrealistic optimism. Thus, we aimed to investigate whether in the situation of an imminent coronavirus pandemic, people would still perceive themselves as being less exposed to the disease than others. Methods: Survey studies were conducted to examine the level of unrealistic optimism. Participants (n = 171, 67.3% of women) in a subjective way judged the risk of their coronavirus infection and the likelihood that this would happen to an average student of the same sex from their class. The survey was conducted in three waves: prior to the announcement of the first case of coronavirus (2-3 March), immediately after that announcement (5-6 March), and a few days later (9-10 March). Results: We showed that women estimated the chances of being infected as significantly higher (M = 4.52, SD = 2.079; t = 2.387; p = 0.018; Cohen's d = 0.393) than men (M = 3.71, SD = 2.042). The phenomenon of unrealistic optimism was observed especially in men (as compared to other male participants) as it appeared in all three measures (M (you) = 3.95 vs. M (other male student) = 4.63; M = 3.71 vs. M = 4.68, and M = 4.46 vs. M = 5.38 in phase one, two, and three, respectively; p ≤ 0.006 for all comparison), but also in women in the last two measures (M (you) = 4.55 vs. M (other female student) = 4.95, and M = 4.99 vs. M = 5.38 in phase 2 and 3, respectively; p ≤ 0.012 for both comparisons). Conclusions: The study revealed a fairly general occurrence of unrealistic optimism, which was mainly observed in men as it appeared in all three measures, but also in women in the last two measures. This result is important for health experts who are responsible for making people comply with regulations concerning social distancing, putting masks on to stop infection, and staying at home. It is possible that unrealistically optimistic people will behave much less in line with the aforementioned recommendations, causing coronavirus to spread widely.
intrinsic altruistic motives, extrinsic instrumental motives, the Love of Money, helping behavior, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), the Good Samaritan Effect, the USA, Taiwan, Poland, Egypt,
Since the 1970s, social psychology has examined real human behaviour to an increasingly smaller degree. This article is an analysis of the reasons why this is so. The author points out that the otherwise valuable phenomenon of cognitive shift, which occurred in social psychology precisely in the 1970s, naturally boosted the interest of psychologists in such phenomena like stereotypes, attitudes, and values; at the same time, it unfortunately decreased interest in others, like aggression, altruism, and social influence. In recent decades, we have also witnessed a growing conviction among psychologists that explaining why people display certain reactions holds greater importance than demonstrating the conditions under which people display these reactions. This assumption has been accompanied by the spread of statistical analysis applied to empirical data, which has led to researchers today generally preferring to employ survey studies (even if they are a component of experiments being conducted) to the analysis of behavioural variables. The author analyses the contents of the most recent volume of “Journal of Personality and Social Psychology”, and argues that it is essentially devoid of presentations of empirical studies in which human behaviours are examined. This gives rise to the question of whether social psychology remains a science of behaviour, and whether such a condition of the discipline is desirable.
When a request is preceded by a casual dialogue, the approached person is more likely to comply than when the same request follows a monologue. This effect appeared to be strong and replicable in a series of field studies. Across experiments, the issues discussed in conversations between the confederates and the participants and the nature of the critical request varied, suggesting that the effect is generalized. In social situations, the two basic modes of communication (dialogue and monologue) are characteristic of different types of interactions. Dialogue is characteristic of encounters with one’s friends and acquaintances, whereas monologue is more prevalent in contacts with strangers. As a result of social learning, a dialogue makes us prone to treat a stranger as someone we know and thus become more eager to comply with her or his requests. Although the results obtained in the studies are consisted with this model, alternative explanations and limitations of the research also are discussed.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.