Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
<p style="text-align: justify;">In his article, the author describes the COVID-19 pandemic as a unique situation on a global scale, which has brought a number of eternal questions from the philosophical-speculative plane to the most practical. In fact, it made it a matter of “life and death” for every person. First of all, this is a question of moral choice in a situation with a high degree of uncertainty — between personal freedom and personal restrictions for the benefit of other people. The article also analyzes strategies to fight the COVID-19 pandemic in different countries and the consequences of their implementation in relation to moral dilemmas. Based on an analysis of international experience, the psychological features of the introduction of restrictions and external state and public control (as examples of the implementation of a universal rational approach) are discussed. The author takes into account socio-economic statistics accumulated over two years (excess mortality, gross domestic product, etc.), which show that in the context of a pandemic, a rational construct, which provides for the renunciation of some personal freedoms by citizens for the sake of the public good, is preferable to an empirical one, in which people they are given the right to make their own moral choice - to renounce freedoms or not. At the same time, the author comes to the conclusion that, along with the advantages, rationalization can have disadvantages. Namely: long-term risks associated with society’s gradual abandonment of personal freedoms and democracy and a return to an authoritarian system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In his article, the author describes the COVID-19 pandemic as a unique situation on a global scale, which has brought a number of eternal questions from the philosophical-speculative plane to the most practical. In fact, it made it a matter of “life and death” for every person. First of all, this is a question of moral choice in a situation with a high degree of uncertainty — between personal freedom and personal restrictions for the benefit of other people. The article also analyzes strategies to fight the COVID-19 pandemic in different countries and the consequences of their implementation in relation to moral dilemmas. Based on an analysis of international experience, the psychological features of the introduction of restrictions and external state and public control (as examples of the implementation of a universal rational approach) are discussed. The author takes into account socio-economic statistics accumulated over two years (excess mortality, gross domestic product, etc.), which show that in the context of a pandemic, a rational construct, which provides for the renunciation of some personal freedoms by citizens for the sake of the public good, is preferable to an empirical one, in which people they are given the right to make their own moral choice - to renounce freedoms or not. At the same time, the author comes to the conclusion that, along with the advantages, rationalization can have disadvantages. Namely: long-term risks associated with society’s gradual abandonment of personal freedoms and democracy and a return to an authoritarian system.</p>
<p>Global socio-economic crises, new pandemics, climate disasters, and other large-scale factors create an unfavorable background for humanity, often involving painful processes that lead to significant changes in personality and the social situation of development. Students, as they navigate personal and professional development during their university education, determine their life prospects and societal roles for many years to come. A normative age crisis, combined with everyday and global stresses, can lead to adverse consequences such as high anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorders, other emotional and behavioral problems, and social maladjustment. The issue of coping strategies that help students effectively manage stress becomes increasingly relevant. The review included 75 full-text Russian and English papers, mainly from 2019–2024, sourced from bibliographic databases such as Elibrary, Google Scholar, and PubMed. The analysis included articles where the participants were aged 17–25, primarily students. The analysis of theoretical and empirical studies allowed us to systematize the types of students' stressors and the specifics of coping strategies. It is important to distinguish whether coping is a response to a specific stressor (situational coping) or if its use is related to an individual's personality traits (dispositional coping). Additionally, it is informative to consider socio-demographic characteristics such as the gender of participants, year, and field of education, which help to identify additional factors associated with the use of different coping strategies. The choice of effective or ineffective coping strategies is characterized by different relationships between stress, existing emotional problems (such as anxiety and depression), and mental toughness (adaptive resource). Thus, a scientifically based approach to effective coping strategies for students, with detailed consideration of perceived stress, mental toughness, the level of emotional problems, and demographic factors, can be considered the most relevant theoretical model.</p>
The article presents the findings of a study on the learning format preferences in students of the Moscow State University of Psychology & Education (N=761) in February-March 2022. Face-to-face learning (FTF) was chosen by 10,8% of students, blended learning (lectures in distance format, seminars and practical classes in-person) (BL) — 39,7%, distance learning (DL) — 49,5%. There were no differences between the 3 groups by gender and age. In the BL group, compared to the DL group, logical thinking (p=0,001) and verbal intelligence (p=0,003) are better developed, natural science literacy rates are higher (p=0,018), there is a better understanding of the vaccination benefits against COVID-19 for the individual and society (p=0,016) and less confidence in serious negative consequences of the coronavirus vaccine (p=0,005). In the FTF group, compared to the DL group, there is a lower fear of COVID-19 disease (p=0,050) and a higher estimate of the vaccination benefits against COVID-19 for an individual and society (p=0,050). Cluster analysis using K-means method identified 2 clusters. Cluster 1 includes respondents with more developed logical thinking, verbal intelligence, better natural science literacy, better understanding of the vaccination benefits against COVID-19 for a person and society and less prone to various fears, doubts, underestimation of the danger of coronavirus and distrust of vaccination. In Cluster 1, as compared to Cluster 2, the share of respondents preferring BL prevails (44,4% vs 37,1%), and the share of those who prefer DF is lower (43,8% vs 52,6%); the differences are significant at the trend level. The shares of respondents preferring FTF are practically the same and make up only about 10%. Using the method of logistic regression analysis, 4 statistically significant predictors were identified and a model was built to predict the respondents’ choice of the BL vs DL. The older the respondent, the more pronounced his/her fear of COVID-19, the lower his/her logical thinking, and the less confident (s)he is in the vaccination benefits against coronavirus for the individual and society, the more likely (s)he is to prefer DL over BL. Conversely, BL is more likely to be preferred over DL by younger respondents with higher logical reasoning scores, less fear of COVID-19 disease, and greater confidence in the vaccination benefits against coronavirus for the individual and society. The overall prediction accuracy of the model is 60,4%.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.