Stress and Coping in a Self-Isolated Family during COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Objective. To find out the level of stressfulness of inside family isolation in Russia; coping with the negative effects of a pandemic, fear and isolation. Background. The situation of a health threat causes unexpected stress enhancing the fear of getting infected, uncertainty, anxiety. The coronavirus disease outbreak has introduced special demands: to lockdown not to get infected. But it also “triggers” adaptive coping behavior. It`s suggested that situation-adequate coping, as well as close relationships based on support, reduce the effects of coronavirus threat. Domestic violence and its effects (physical abuse, mental illness, PTSD) negatively affect family relationships, maybe as deadly as the coronavirus, require immediate prevention. Study design. A mini-longitudinal empirical study was conducted online at the beginning (27.03.2020—12.04.2020) (N1=248) and in the second half of lockdown (28.04.2020—03.05.2020) (N2=310). The role of stressors in changing family relationships has been correlated with the impact of catching COVID-19 threat and self-isolation on the psychological state of family members. Participants. 558 volunteers aged 18—87, including 425 women and 117 men; the majority of them (66%) have their own family — 369 are married/in a relationship; work. Measurements. A questionnaire created by the authors on the basis of international projects assessing impact of stress and self-isolation on family relationships, standardized anxiety and depression scales; coping scales. Results. Negative outcomes of the threat of infection and isolation are reduced if coping is adequate, emotional support from family members, and their views on the necessary daily changes are consistent. Stress levels are higher in single people. Having a partner is important for ways of coping choice. Conclusions. Stress generating from the threat of catching virus/COVID-19 experienced by people during lockdown in close/family relationships is normative as long as they use coping strategies, adequate to the situation (acceptance, positive reappraisal) with a low frequency of choosing less adequate strategies.

Untitled

“…It is also worth noting that the combination of such a strategy with high levels of reflection on the threats from coronavirus is consistent with the idea that people with problem solving strategies are more likely to have a differentiated perception of difficult situations (Alperovich, 2020). As a result, using adequate coping strategies generally helped in lowering the levels of stress caused by the pandemic (Kryukova et al, 2020;Li et al, 2022).…”

Affective States, Coping and Mutual Understanding in Russian Families During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Lockdown

“…Also, we have used the Brief COPE ( Carver, 1997 ; Kryukova et al, 2019 ), which is a 28-item multidimensional measure of strategies used for coping or regulating cognitions in response to stressors. This abbreviated inventory (based on the complete 60-item COPE Inventory) is comprised of items that assess the frequency with which a person uses different coping styles.…”

“…To measure subjective well-being, the model of Diener uses combination indicators of positive and negative emotions, such as the Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al, 1988 ) or the Positive and Negative Experiences Scale (SPANE; Diener et al, 2009 ), and life satisfaction, such as the Life Satisfaction Scale (SWLS; LSS; Diener et al, 1985 ). Productive coping styles (as opposed to destructive coping styles) also promote subjective emotional well-being, one of the factors of mutual understanding in the family ( Kryukova et al, 2019 ).…”

Self-Determination as a Mechanism for Personality Sustainability in Conditions of Daily Stress

“…In the publications of the first group (N = 18), we can separately identify the articles using the Brief COPE methodology [71], including those with national versions and modifications [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. This instrument, in its full original version, measures "conceptually distinct aspects of problem-focused coping (active coping, planning, suppression of competing activities, restraint coping, seeking of instrumental social support), emotion-focused coping (seeking of emotional social support, positive reinterpretation, acceptance, denial, turning to religion), and coping responses that arguably are less useful (focus on and venting of emotions, behavioral disengagement, mental disengagement)" [71].…”

“…For example, the most frequently reported strategies were distraction, active coping, and seeking emotional social support (N = 1015, M age = 38.9, USA) [38]. Another study (N = 558, M age = 38.2, Russia) actualized acceptance, active coping, positive reassessment, self-distraction, and seeking emotional support [35]. Measurements in a later period (April-May 2020) demonstrate some dynamics, such as more frequent use of positive reappraisal, planning, humor and acceptance strategies and less use of emotionally oriented and dysfunctional strategies (denial, avoidance, distraction, substance use, the search for emotional-instrumental support, a flash of emotional activity, etc.)…”