Dataset Information

The role of affect, satisfaction and internal drive on personal moral norms during COVID-19.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objective

Societies require prosocial activities during crises. The COVID-19 pandemic presents individuals with unique challenges that may affect their emotional state leading to reformed personal moral norms. Crucially, personal moral norms are important predictors of moral behaviour. Given the longevity of the pandemic, studying its impact on affect, satisfaction and internal drive of (non-)donors during COVID-19 and if personal moral norms are affected is paramount.

Material and methods

This study relies on longitudinal data, consisting of six waves carried out biweekly. Our panel is representative for the German population, capturing changes in affect, satisfaction, internal drive and personal moral norms. We compare the emotional state and personal moral norms of (non-)donors in the pandemic to pre-pandemic phase. Moreover, we analyse changes in emotional state and personal moral norms during the pandemic and investigate the role of emotional state on personal moral norms.

Results

Firstly, our results show that personal moral norms of (non-)donors drop compared to pre-pandemic. Within pandemic, personal moral norms of active donors are not further altered. Secondly, we find significant changes of emotional state in the pandemic compared to pre-pandemic phase, for example individuals feel more optimistic, but less satisfied and less energetic. Thirdly, we find that feeling more grateful increases personal moral norms of non-donors.

Conclusion

This study provides insights into how crises shape (non-)donors' emotional state and its impact on relevant donor motivations, that is, personal moral norms. Blood banks can use this knowledge to enhance recruiting and retention efforts during crises.

SUBMITTER: Veseli B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8250538 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere have been no studies to date of moral distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in national samples of U.S. health workers. The purpose of this study was to determine, in a national sample of internal medicine physicians (internists) in the U.S.: 1) the intensity of moral distress; 2) the predictors of moral distress; 3) the outcomes of moral distress.MethodsWe conducted a national survey with an online panel of internists, representative of the membership of the American College of Physicians, the largest specialty organization of physicians in the United States, between September 21 and October 8, 2020. Moral distress was measured with the Moral Distress Thermometer, a one-item scale with a range of 0 ("none") to 10 ("worst possible"). Outcomes were measured with short screening scales.ResultsThe response rate was 37.8% (N = 810). Moral distress intensity was low (mean score = 2.4, 95% CI, 2.2-2.6); however, 13.3% (95% CI, 12.1% - 14.5%) had a moral distress score greater than or equal to 6 ("distressing"). In multiple linear regression models, perceived risk of death if infected with COVID-19 was the strongest predictor of higher moral distress (β (standardized regression coefficient) = 0.26, p < .001), and higher perceived organizational support (respondent belief that their health organization valued them) was most strongly associated with lower moral distress (β = -0.22, p < .001). Controlling for other factors, high levels of moral distress, but not low levels, were strongly associated (adjusted odds ratios 3.0 to 11.5) with screening positive for anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, burnout, and intention to leave patient care.ConclusionsThe intensity of moral distress among U.S. internists was low overall. However, the 13% with high levels of moral distress had very high odds of adverse mental health outcomes. Organizational support may lower moral distress and thereby prevent adverse mental health outcomes.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic challenges the well-being and academic success of many students. Yet, little is known about students’ study satisfaction during the COVID-19 pandemic, a multilayered construct which accounts for students’ subjective cognitive well-being and academic success. Besides, previous studies on study satisfaction are mostly cross-sectional and hardly consider the distinct subdimensions of this construct. Therefore, our main goal in this study was to shed light on the understudied development of the subdimensions of study satisfaction (i.e., satisfaction with study content, conditions of studying, and coping with study-related stress) in two semesters amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, we examined how particular personal (i.e., gender, age, GPA, intrinsic motivation, motivational cost, and academic procrastination) and contextual (i.e., loneliness) factors are related to these subdimensions. We conducted two panel studies with convenience and purposeful samples of university students in Germany (Nstudy1 = 837; Nstudy2 = 719). Participants responded online to questions on each of the subdimensions of study satisfaction at the beginning, middle, and end of each semester but responded to measures of personal and contextual factors only at the beginning of each semester. In both studies, manifest growth curve models indicated a decrease in all subdimensions of study satisfaction as the semester progressed. Generally, gender (male) and intrinsic motivation were positive predictors but age (younger students), motivational cost, and loneliness were negative predictors of different subdimensions of study satisfaction – particularly satisfaction with study content. Overall, motivational costs and loneliness were the most consistent predictors of all subdimensions of study satisfaction across both studies. Our findings provide support for the understanding that study satisfaction could diminish in the face of challenging situations such as in this pandemic. The present study also highlights certain personal and contextual factors that relate to study satisfaction and calls for intensive research into the multidimensional construct of study satisfaction.