EXPERIENCE PERSONAL WELL-BEING IN THE FIRST STAGE OF PANDEMIC COVID-19
Abstract
Annotation. The paper presents the study of the experiencing personal well-being (N=263).The aim of the study was to identify the dynamics of experiencing personal well-being in the pandemic. Theobject is the personal well-being of Ukrainians. The results of the study of 4 groups are compared which wereconducted in 2018 (before the pandemic) - 100 people, in March (80 people), April (42 people) and August(41 people) of 2020.Methods. E. Diener’s Life Satisfaction Scale (SWLS) and questions from the European Social Survey(2013) were used. The surveyed respondents were the residents of different regions of Ukraine; the averageage is 34.95 years.Result and conclusion. It is demonstrated that the level of personal well-being has not changed. Nohedonistic adaptation was observed, as the response to pandemic stress among Ukrainians was not pronounced.The transformation of the criteria for assessing personal well-being was detected. The first reaction in a situationof uncertainty was the shift in priorities, a search for the personal sense of what is happening. The differentiation of the structure of personal well-being is lost, the criteria become vague. At the second stage (adjustment) therecan be observed the acceptance of the pandemic as an inevitable fact. The personal boundaries are restructuredconsidering the new situation – there appear new criteria for personal freedom. At the third stage (adaptation)the differentiation of the personal well-being structure to the level of the beginning of the pandemic is restored,i.e. the search for new criteria of personal well-being is completed. The share of components of personalwell-being has changed. While in the pre-quarantine period the most significant was the search for positiveemotions (hedonistic component), in the initial adjustment to the crisis conditions of the pandemic, the shareof the eudaemonic component – the search for sense in life – increased.The spread of COVID is a factor not of eudaemonic but of emotional well-being – the reduction of positiveaffect. At the second stage the key factors of personal well-being were optimism and trust in people. Theimportance of social trust is growing. At the third stage the main factor of personal well-being was the abilityto master new activities and creativity.
References
2. Великодна М., Циганенко Г. Надання психологічної допомоги вразливим групам населення під час та після карантину через пандемію COVID-19 : Практичний посібник. Київ : Роман Козлов, 2020. URL: http://elibrary.kdpu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/3827/3/83.pdf
3. Водяха С.А. Современные концепции психологического благополучия личности. Дискуссия. 2012. № 2. 132–138. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sovremennye-kontseptsii-psihologicheskogo-blagopoluchiya-lichnosti
4. Данильченко Т.В. Соціальний контекст особистісного благополуччя. Psychological resources of the individual under the conditions of modern challenges. Editors: Józef Kaczmarek, Hanna Varina. Monograph. Opole: The Academy of Management and Administration in Opole, 2020. Р. 23–32.
5. Магомед-Эминов М.Ш. Психологические рекомендации о поведении и деятельности человека в экстремальной ситуации пандемии (COVID-19) Москва, 2020. URL: https://www.msu.ru/info/virusprevention/docs/phyrecomend.pdf
6. Нестик T.A. Коронавирусы: вызовы личности, обществу и государству / Выступление на 14-м Санкт-Петербургском саммите психологов (31 мая – 3 июня 2020 г.) Опубликовано (23 июня 2020 г.) URL: https://youtu.be/aSvxFMw6PMo
7. Осин Е.Н., Леонтьев Д.А. Апробация русскоязычных версий двух шкал экспресс-оценки субъективного благополучия. Мат-лы III Всероссийского социологического конгресса (Москва, 21-24 октября 2008 г.). URL: http://www.hse.ru/data/2010/03/15/1228959627/%D0%9E%D181(2013):D0.
8. Павлик Н.В. Гармонізація психологічного здоров’я особистості в умовах психічного напруження та епідемічної загрози в суспільстві. Психологія і педагогіка у протидії пандемії COVID-19: Інтернет-посібник / за наук. ред. В.Г. Кременя. Київ: ТОВ «Юрка Любченка», 2020. С. 54–61.
9. Психологія і педагогіка у протидії пандемії COVID-19: Інтернет-посібник / за наук. ред. В.Г. Кременя; [координатор інтернет-посібника В.В. Рибалка; колектив авторів]. Київ : ТОВ «Юрка Любченка», 2020. 243 с. URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qXwyN0dnd7BJHm2HS_aq4CLuDWqkupWC/view
10. Титаренко Т.М. (2020). Особистість в часи пандемії: наративний аналіз. Презентація на семінарі «Дистанційні психологічні дослідження в умовах пандемії і карантину» (Київ, 15.05.2020). URL: https://youtu.be/jb4-rMja-w4
11. Aspinwall, L. C., Richter, L., & Hoffmann, R. R. (2001). Understanding how optimism works: An examination of opimists’ adaptive moderation of belief and behavior. In E. C. Chang (Ed.). Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2021. Рр. 217–238.
12. Cummins, R. The second approximation to an international standard of life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research. 1998. 43. Рр. 307-334.
13. Cummins, R. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A Synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2010. 11. Рр. 1-17.
14. Dodge, R., Daly, A., Huyton, J., & Sanders, L. The challenge of defining well-being. International Journal of Wellbeing, 2012. 2(3). Рр. 222-235.
15. Easterlin, R. A. Building a Better Theory of Well-Being. In L. Bruni, & P. L. Porta (Eds.). Economics and Happiness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005. Рр. 29–64.
16. Headey B.W., Wearing A.J. Subjective well-being: a stocks and flows framework. In Strack F., Argyle M., Schwarz N. (Eds.). Subjective Wellbeing – An interdisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 1991. Рр. 40–76.
17. Huppert, А. F., & So, T. C. Flourishing across Europe: application of a new conceptual framework for defining well-being. Social Indicator Research, 2013. Vol. 110, Pp. 837-861.
18. Keyes, C. L. M., Shmotkin, D., & Ryff, C. D. Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002. 82. Pp. 1007-1022.
19. Ormel, J., & Schaufeli, W. Stability and change of psychological distress and their relationship with self-esteem and locus of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991. Vol. 60. Pp. 288-299.
20. Ryff, C. D., & Singer B. Know thyself and become what you are: A eudaimonic approach to psychological wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2008. Vol.(9)1. Pp. 13-39.
21. Suh, E., Diener, E., & Fujita, F. Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996. Vol. 70(5). Pp. 1091-1102.
22. Thompson, S., & Marks N. (2008). Measuring well-being in policy: issues and applications. New Economics Foundation report to UK Government Foresight Project. London: NEF. Retrieved from: http://b.3cdn.net/nefoundation/575659b4f333001669_ohm6iiogp.pdf
