China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Job Stress, Coping, and Dissatisfaction in the Health Professions: A Comparison of Nurses and Pharmacists
Published in Rick Crandall, Pamela L. Perrewé, Occupational Stress, 2020
Significant intercorrelations of the stress, dissatisfaction, and coping scale scores reveal both similarities and differences between the nurses and pharmacists in the sample (Table 3). For both groups of professionals, HPSI scores were correlated positively with job dissatisfaction scale scores. This indicates that, as perceived stress increased, job dissatisfaction increased. Among both pharmacists and nurses, avoidance coping scores were positively correlated with both HPSI and job dissatisfaction scores. Thus, greater use of avoidance coping was associated with higher levels of stress and lower job satisfaction. For pharmacists, stress scores also were correlated positively with scores on both the active-cognitive and active-behavioral coping scales. Among nurses, scores on the same two coping scales were correlated negatively with job dissatisfaction scale scores, indicating that more frequent use of active-cognitive and active-behavioral coping strategies were associated with greater job satisfaction.
The Mind at Work: Intention, Action and Interpretation
Published in R. S. Bridger, Introduction to Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2017
The kinds of coping strategies adopted by operators can also affect the mental workload. Many of these, such as work scheduling and error recovery, have to be taught. In general terms, avoidance coping consists of doing something else when the workload becomes high (e.g., carrying out a secondary or less demanding task) or ignoring the problem. Avoidance coping strategies may work as a last resort (e.g., fleeing the scene before the reactor melts down) but are not generally problem focused enough to maintain system performance. In the short term, they may reduce the mental workload but at the cost of the system's operation and increased workload in the future. Approach coping strategies consist of finding out more about the problem, speaking to others about it, trying to “see the bigger picture,” etc. and are more likely to lead to solutions, even though the mental workload may increase in the short term.
Coping with Bullying at Work
Published in Ståle Valvatne Einarsen, Helge Hoel, Dieter Zapf, Cary L. Cooper, Bullying and Harassment in the Workplace, 2020
Morten Birkeland Nielsen, Eva Gemzøe Mikkelsen, Roger Persson, Ståle Valvatne Einarsen
At the highest categorical level, coping strategies can be classified into active and passive responses (Bandler and Shipley, 1994; Ely and Henry, 1978; Obrist, 1981). In addition, whereas some coping strategies are generally considered as adaptive in that they improve functioning, other strategies are considered as maladaptive as they are associated with maintained or increased levels of strain and distress (Zeidner and Saklofske, 1996). Another commonly used distinction of coping strategies is between problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. The former refers to active attempts to eliminate the problem, whereas the latter describes attempts to attenuate discomfort by altering the individual´s perception or appraisal of the problem. Even another distinction is between engagement coping (which is aimed at dealing with the stressor or related emotions), and disengagement coping (which is aimed at escaping the threat or related emotions)(Carver and Connor-Smith, 2010). Engagement coping includes problem-focused coping and some forms of emotion-focused coping such as support seeking, emotion regulation, acceptance and cognitive restructuring. Disengagement coping includes passive and maladaptive responses which include avoidance, denial, substance (ab-)use and wishful thinking (Bardwell et al., 2001; Holahan and Moos, 1986). Finally, several studies refer to the terms approach- and avoidance coping. Whereas approach coping refers to “engaged coping strategies in which the goal is to reduce, eliminate, or manage the internal or external demands of a stressor,” avoidance coping refers to “disengaged coping, in which the goal is to ignore, avoid, or withdraw from the stressor” (Nes and Segerstrom, 2006). Hence, when reviewing the literature on coping and bullying we may expect a plethora of concepts used across studies. This includes studies looking at how one may evaluate the relevance of the situation in the first place (the primary appraisal), on how one evaluates the available resources and possibilities to deal with the situation (secondary appraisal), as well as on how one act when exposed to bullying (coping).
How does AI use drive individual digital resilience? a conservation of resources (COR) theory perspective
Published in Behaviour & Information Technology, 2022
Qian Hu, Yaobin Lu, Zhao Pan, Bin Wang
Avoidance coping refers to the degree to which users withdraw to handle complex and adverse situations. Avoidance coping aims at maladaptive strategies and attitudes (Wang, Li, and Rao 2017). An individual who adopts avoidance coping has a weak motivation to handle complex and adverse situations (Zheng, Luo, and Ritchie 2021). Avoidance coping can come into being a state of escapism. For example, Chopdar, Paul, and Prodanova (2022) suggested that part of the public escape the COVID-19 phobia through smartphone addiction and mobile shopping behaviour. Avoidance behaviour, however, does not resolve an unfavourable situation and may make it worse. For example, Li et al. (2016) found that adolescents who experienced stressful life events employed avoidance coping, which could lead to Internet addiction. Avoidance coping causes individuals’ negative performance, resulting in them not adaptively dealing with the external challenges in complex and adverse situations. In addition, due to the avoidance of problem-solving, it is difficult to learn and acquire new knowledge from unfavourable situations (Saldanha and Barclay 2021). Thus, avoidance coping can lead to low resilience in complex and adverse situations (Burns et al. 2017). We hypothesize: H3: Avoidance coping is negatively associated with individual resilience.