No abstract

The unprecedented outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused an economic downturn and increased the unemployment rate in China. In this context, employees face health and social economic stressors. To assess their mental health (i.e., anxiety, depression, insomnia and somatization) and work attitudes (i.e., work engagement, job satisfaction and turnover intention) as well as the associated factors, we conducted a cross-sectional study among people who resumed work after the Spring Festival holiday during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results show that the prevalence of anxiety, depression, insomnia and somatization among these people was 12.7%, 13.5%, 20.7% and 6.6%, respectively. The major risk factor for mental health was worrying about unemployment, and the main protective factors were psychological strengths (i.e., resilience and optimism). Regarding work attitudes, the percentage of people who felt more satisfied with their job (43.8%) was larger than that of those who felt less satisfied (26.9%), while the percentage of people who thought about quitting their job more frequently (15.7%) was smaller than that of those who considered it less frequently (63.2%). However, work engagement was lower than usual. Similar to the factors associated with mental health, the major risk factor for work attitudes was also worrying about unemployment, and the main protective factors were resilience and optimism. In addition, the nature of the organization, job status, age, position and income changes were also related to these work attitudes. Our findings shed light on the need for organization administrators to be aware of the status of and factors associated with employees’ mental health and work attitudes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Policies or interventions could be developed based on our findings.

The status-legitimacy hypothesis proposes that people with lower socioeconomic status (SES) are more likely to justify the social system than those with higher SES. However, empirical studies found inconsistent findings. In the present research, we argue that at least part of the confusion stems from the possibility that objective and subjective SES are differently related to system justification. On one hand, subjective SES is more related to status maintenance motivation and may increase system justification. On the other hand, objective SES is more related to access to information about the social reality, which may increase criticism about the system and lead to lower system justification. These hypotheses were supported by evidence from five studies (total N = 26,134) involving both adult and adolescent samples in China. We recommend that future research on status-related issues needs to distinguish the potential divergent roles of objective and subjective SES.

No abstract