The role of cognitive flexibility in moderating the effect of school-related stress exposure

Abstract

Educators are exposed to various stressful events as part of their ongoing work, including violence, sexual assaults, suicidal behavior, and loss or illness of students or their family members. Previous studies revealed an increased risk of developing PTSD symptoms in healthcare and supportive professionals exposed to repeated stress as part of their work. Cognitive flexibility might be a protective factor against the negative effect of such stress. The current study aimed to examine the interactive effects of school-related stress exposure and cognitive flexibility on the tendency to develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms and the coping abilities of educators. One hundred and fifty educators (86.5% female; Mage = 43.08, Mteaching_experience= 12.90) volunteered to participate in this study. They completed questionnaires measuring levels of stress exposure, cognitive flexibility, coping ability, and PTSD symptoms. Analyses revealed that cognitive flexibility moderated the relationship between school-related stress exposure and both PTSD symptoms severity and maladaptive coping. Specifically, whereas educators with low cognitive flexibility exhibited positive associations between continuous stress exposure and both levels of PTSD symptoms and maladaptive coping, no such association was found among educators with high cognitive flexibility. The results highlight the importance of cognitive flexibility as a protective factor against the harmful effects of possible stress exposure in school environments. Awareness of the crucial role of cognitive flexibility as a protective factor for educators can be a breakthrough in improving educators' well-being and adaptive functioning.

Regulatory flexibility and school climate moderate the relationship between stress exposure and depression severity in school educators

“…Educators are frequently exposed to school-related stress that may impair their functioning and well-being 14 , 40 , 52 . The current study aimed to test the effect of internal (regulatory flexibility) and external (school climate) resources on the relationship between school-related stress and the tendency to develop depressive symptoms in this population.…”

“…Repeated exposure to school-related stress 40 , 46 , 47 is a 10-item questionnaire that assesses the frequency of exposure to common school-related stressful incidents in an average month. The respondents were asked to rate their exposure frequency to each incident on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 6 (at least a few times a week).…”

“…School climate reflects the school norms, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and organizational structures and can be viewed as one of the external- interpersonal resources for educators 46 , 47 . Previous studies consistently demonstrated that a better school climate is associated with greater resilience and significantly fewer psychological problems 40 , 46 , 47 . Specifically, educators who work in schools with a better climate reported higher well-being than those who work in schools with a poor climate 46 .…”

“…A relatively small number of studies have focused on the effects of other aspects of flexibility. For example, it was found that cognitive flexibility was associated with better coping with school-related stressors 40 and positively predicted psychological hardiness 41 . In addition, it was found that interventions aiming at improving psychological flexibility contribute to the general well-being of teachers 42 .…”

The HPA and SAM axis mediate the impairment of creativity under stress

“…To determine the appropriate sample size, a statistical power analysis was performed based on a medium effect size (Cohen's f = 0.25), which is frequently employed in previous research (Cohen, 1988;Harel et al, 2023;Huang et al, 2023;Zhao et al, 2022). The results suggested that a sample size of 54 participants was deemed necessary to detect the hypothesized effect at α = .05 and β = .95 (Faul et al, 2007).…”