新冠肺炎疫情背景下大众春节期间情绪状态及其影响因素研究

目的：调查在新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情背景下,大众在春节期间的情绪状态,分析其影响大众焦虑抑郁因素。方法：分别于2021年2月及2022年2月的春节期间,通过“问卷网”平台收集调查问卷,使用7项广泛性焦虑量表（Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item,GAD-7）、9项患者健康问卷（Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item,PHQ-9）评估大众的焦虑抑郁情绪。结果：本研究中,焦虑人群（GAD-7≥10）占比分别为14.1%(2021年)及10.6%(2022年),抑郁人群（PHQ-9≥10）占比分别为16.3%(2021年)及14.8%(2022年)。经济收入是大众焦虑抑郁情绪的主要影响因素。结论：2021及2022年春节期间,我国大众焦虑抑郁者的比例处于较高水平。促进经济发展有利于大众情绪健康。     

新冠肺炎疫情期间大学生价值观特征及变化趋势探究

社会价值观对于社会群体具有重要的导向和动力作用,而社会重大事件的发生会对社会价值观的走向产生影响。研究采用价值观类型量表,对908名大学生进行调查,其中包含144名湖北省大学生,探究新冠肺炎疫情期间大学生价值观的分布特征,对比湖北省和其他地区,以及与SARS时期的异同,并预测其在疫情后期的变化趋势。结果显示:(1)在大学生的总体样本中,实用型、社会型和科学型价值观依次占据重要地位;(2)湖北省大学生中社会型价值观占据主导地位,其他地区大学生中实用型价值观占据主导地位,两个样本的整体分布特征不存在显著差异;(3)两次疫情中,社会型和实用型价值观均占据主导地位,科学型价值观的地位显著提升。     

应对新冠肺炎疫情心理援助“热”战后的“冷”思考

2020年新春伊始发生的新型冠病毒肺炎疫情全面冲击了公众的生活，疫情防控中心理疏导工作始终处于重要位置。在教育部应对疫情工作领导小组办公室的领导下，“教育部华中师范大学心理援助平台”汇聚了来自全国的心理专业力量，面向社会提供免费心理援助服务。在教育部思政司、教育部心理学类专业教学指导委员会、全国应用心理专业硕士研究生教育指导委员会、中国心理学会相关机构的支持下，来自全国1200多所高校和相关机构的4000多名专业人员踊跃报名，以热情投入平台心理援助工作。青少年网络心理与行为教育部重点实验室（华中师范大学）搭建了满足心理援助需求的智能化云平台，具备分布式、多通道、大容量功能特点，支持热线电话、文本、语音三种接入方式，支持高频并发访问。平台每天24小时开放，服务于全国一线医护人员、病患和家属、安保人员、学生群体等重点人群和普通公众，以及海外留学生和华人华。平台工作化解了大量求助者的情绪问题和心理危机，向国内公众和海外游子传递了来自祖国的关切和支持，发挥了良好的心理支持和社会引导作用，服务满意率达到92%。平台以快速高效、专业规范的工作成为“心理战疫”的中坚阵地，向众多求助者传递了爱心和力量，受到媒体和公众的高度关注与肯定。平台成立了专家工作组和专家委员会，以专业管理支撑服务。为提升服务能力，做出更大贡献，平台于2020年4月12日召开（线上）专家委员会工作会议，对心理援助平台和相关学科发展给予专业指导，研讨心理援助的战略规划、机制建设、人才培养等问题，对心理学科如何更好地服务于国家和社会需要提出咨询建议。本文是作者在专家委员会工作会议上的讲话整理稿。对面向国家和社会需求的心理学学科发展和人才培养具有全面的指导和启发意义。     

当前我国邪教组织涉新冠肺炎疫情违法犯罪活动与应对

我国人民全力以赴防控新冠肺炎疫情,得到国际社会的高度肯定和普遍认可。然而,“法轮功”等邪教组织唯恐中国不乱,不但加紧通过编造、传播歪理邪说蛊惑群众,散发、张贴反动宣传品制造恐慌等方式进行滋扰破坏活动,危害公共安全与疫情防控,而且还与西方反华势力沆瀣一气,攻击、抹黑中国人民,必须严密防范,严厉打击。     

新冠肺炎疫情影响下的死亡心理质性探究

在新型冠状病毒威胁下,人们不得不思考一些终极的存在问题,比如生命与死亡。本研究采用扎根理论,探索新冠肺炎疫情影响下人们面对死亡威胁时的心理机制。抽取18名成年被试进行深入访谈,对资料依次进行开放式编码、主轴编码和选择性编码。结果发现,随着时间发展死亡心理分为疫情前的平静期,疫情爆发后的死亡威胁期以及应对期。从物理现实、社会现实和精神现实层面,死亡威胁带给人们的影响有控制感丧失、关系断裂以及意义危机三个方面,应对策略为控制感应对、关系应对及意义应对。     

新冠肺炎疫情下积极社会心理的建设与培育

以新型冠状病毒肺炎（coronavirus disease 2019,COVID-19）为背景,总结归纳出此次疫情下各类人群个体心理反应的特点。COVID-19疫情事件对个体的心理影响因素较多,为深入了解,应从个体心理应激的角度、群体心理对个体的影响以及个体心理与群体心理交互作用等多个层次进行分析。针对疫情下个体和社会心理的特点,积极社会心理培育应从重视全民心理健康教育、注重舆论引导、发挥文化的软实力作用及构建社会心理的舆情数据库等方面开展工作。     

生命科学家的社会伦理责任

生命科学的发展导致了复杂的伦理道德问题,对传统的社会道德观念形成了强烈的冲击.为了最大限度地避免和消除生命科学技术的负面效应,必须制定相应的科技政策和强有力的社会伦理道德规范来约束生命科学家的行为,增强生命科学家的社会责任感,使生命科学更好地为人类造福.     

新冠疫情下俄罗斯宗教组织的防疫进程与发展趋势

宗教组织的社会行为是通过参与社会政治、经济、文化等活动,而对社会公共生活态度与立场的正式表达。本文通过对新型冠状病毒(COVID-19)背景下俄罗斯宗教界的防疫态度与防疫实践等方面来剖析俄罗斯宗教组织参与社会发展进程的路径,旨在探寻宗教组织与世俗社会联动防疫的合作基础与对话可能性。     

新冠肺炎疫情下的评估、应对与抑郁和焦虑的关系：多元多重中介模型

作为全球性公共卫生事件,新型冠状病毒肺炎疫情成为潜在心理应激事件。本研究以线上调研形式在疫情爆发上升期考察了民众对疫情的可控性评估、应对方式和抑郁焦虑水平。结果表明：自控性显著负向预测抑郁焦虑,他控性对抑郁焦虑无显著预测作用;前行应对显著负向预测抑郁焦虑,创伤应对显著正向预测抑郁焦虑;前行应对在自控性与抑郁焦虑间起中介作用,即自控性通过正向预测前行应对进而负向预测抑郁焦虑;前行应对在他控性与抑郁焦虑间起中介作用,即他控性通过正向预测前行应对进而负向预测抑郁焦虑;创伤应对亦在他控性与抑郁焦虑间起中介作用,即他控性通过正向预测创伤应对进而正向预测抑郁焦虑。本研究对可控性评估与应对方式对抑郁焦虑的影响及其间中介路径进行了探讨。     

新冠疫情中英国国教的应对举措分析

本文对新冠疫情中英国国教(即英格兰教会)的应对举措进行分析。英格兰教会在疫情期间出现了新发展甚至是新变革,同时也遭受了冲击和影响。在"国家-宗教"关系方面,英格兰教会及其他宗教团体与国家机构的互动折射出了英国宗教"硬治理"和"软治理"的深层特征与传统,同时也突出了英格兰教会的特殊地位。     

Some Philosophical Thinking about the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic will inevitably change the evolutionary process of human civilization. It not only affects everyone’s understanding of globalization, but also makes people reflect on many cultural values and on the institutional arrangements of society. The underlying problems are ultimately men’s survival and life’s meaning. The outbreak, which was so sudden, has forced people to reconsider the possible forms of a reasonable lifestyle, the relationship between individual and collective rights, the boundaries of men’s right to freedom, the relationship between man and nature, the relationship between man and other creatures, and so on.     

COVID-19防控的责任伦理考量

在积极应对疫情防控引发的法律及现实问题的同时,应该更加关注其责任伦理问题。如个人自由与公共责任冲突的问题,特殊从业者与职业责任冲突的问题,政府公权力的行使主体与个人知情同意的冲突问题。针对上述问题,基于责任伦理原则,提出培养个人责任伦理意识,形成群体认知共识、制定特殊人员免责条款,约束集体无意识的责任迷失、政府明确社会组织主体行使公权力的权利及限度等具体对策完善COVID-19防控机制,以保护人民的生命健康权益,促进当前及未来社会的稳定发展。

     

Social determinants of health,prenatal maternal stress,and earlier birth during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, pregnant women, especially those from socioeconomically disadvantaged and marginalized groups, experienced unprecedented stress. Prenatal stress and social determinants of health (SDoH) such as lower education and lack of a relationship partner are known to contribute to earlier birth. However, whether SDoH and stress independently contribute or whether the harmful impact of SDoH is mediated by stress is unknown. Moreover, the contributions of these factors has not been investigated in the context of a communal health crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic. To examine these processes, we used a longitudinal cohort of 2473 women pregnant during the COVID-19 pandemic who reported a live birth. We compared structural equation models predicting gestational age at birth from SDoH (race/ethnicity, education, financial security, health insurance, relationship status, and lifetime abuse) and from prenatal maternal stress related and unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results indicate that the association of SDoH with earlier birth was partially mediated by prenatal stress. These findings help uncover mechanisms explaining health disparities in the U.S. and highlight the need to address both SDoH and the stress that these factors produce in under-resourced and marginalized communities.     

COVID-19 Pandemic: Applying a Multisystemic Lens

The COVID-19 pandemic has a pervasive effect on all aspects of family life. We can distinguish the collective societal and community effects of the global pandemic and the risk and disease impact for individuals and families. This paper draws on Rolland’s Family Systems-Illness (FSI) model to describe some of the unique challenges through a multisystemic lens. Highlighting the pattern of psychosocial issues of COVID-19 over time, discussion emphasizes the evolving interplay of larger systems public health pandemic challenges and mitigation strategies with individual and family processes. The paper addresses issues of coping with myriad Covid-19 uncertainties in the initial crisis wave and evolving phases of the pandemic in the context of individual and family development, pre-existing illness or disability, and racial and socio-economic disparities. The discussion offers recommendations for timely family oriented consultation and psychoeducation, and for healthcare clinician self-care.     

Changes in loneliness and coping strategies during COVID-19

The social distancing measures implemented to slow the spread of COVID-19 impacted many aspects of people's lives. Previous research has reported negative consequences of these measures for people's psychological well-being, and that people differed in the impact on their psychological well-being. The present study aimed to describe the different coping strategies Dutch people used to deal with these measures and to link these strategies to loneliness. In addition, the study aimed to examine mean-level changes in loneliness and to explore individual differences in loneliness change. We used data from 2009 participants of a panel study of representative Dutch households. We assessed coping strategies used during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in May 2020 and examined changes in loneliness between October 2019 (before COVID-19) and May 2020 (during the first wave of COVID-19). First, results showed that most people employed specific coping strategies. The most frequently used social strategies were chatting and (video)calling; the most frequently used non-social strategies were going outside, doing chores, watching TV, reading and self-care. Second, people who used more coping strategies reported lower levels of loneliness. Third, analyses revealed an average increase in loneliness between October 2019 and May 2020. Fourth, we observed two significant interaction effects, showing a stronger positive link between the number of social coping strategies and initial loneliness levels among those with a partner or living with others than for those who were single or lived alone. Yet, no moderating effects on changes in loneliness were found: people using more coping strategies did not differ in loneliness changes from people using fewer coping strategies. Together, findings suggest that loneliness increased in the Netherlands during the first phase of COVID-19 and that, while people's coping strategies were related to loneliness levels, they did not buffer against loneliness increases.