Skip to main content
PMC home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
editorial
. 2020 May 8;119:103440. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103440

Taking control amidst the chaos: Emotion regulation during the COVID-19 pandemic☆

Simon Lloyd D Restubog a,b,⁎, Anna Carmella G Ocampo c, Lu Wang c
PMCID: PMC7206430  PMID: 32390659

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a major global health crisis that continues to threaten public health and safety. Although the pandemic is still unfolding, measures to reduce the spread of the virus have spawned significant challenges to people's current work as well as their careers more generally. In this commentary, we discuss the implications of COVID-19 for maintaining one's psychological well-being and employment security, and also managing family and work responsibilities. We also bring forth evidence from the emotion regulation literature to help mitigate the downstream negative consequences of COVID-19 on people's work lives. Finally, we offer several suggestions for future scholarly investigation into how this pandemic impacts vocational behavior.

Keywords: Emotional regulation, Family and work responsibilities, Global health crisis, Job security, Pandemic, And psychological well-being

The world has been rocked by the emergence of a novel coronavirus (referred to as COVID-19), which continues to wreak havoc worldwide. It has been characterized as a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO, 2020) as the number of confirmed cases and associated fatalities continue to rise. This ongoing global health crisis, along with worldwide efforts to contain the virus' transmission by “flattening the curve”, have not only resulted in unparalleled impact on human health and the global economy but also introduced unprecedented challenges for the working lives and careers of millions of people. For example, the International Labor Organization (2020) estimates a significant reduction of work hours in the second quarter of 2020 worldwide, in the order of 10.5% or the equivalent of 305 million full-time workers, along with a higher year-end projection of unemployment.

In this commentary, we draw upon existing organizational research to focus on some of the work and career challenges imposed by COVID-19 and discuss how working individuals can remain resilient in responding to this unprecedented pandemic. The goals of this commentary are three-fold. First, we focus on three broad and inter-related challenges that likely befall many working individuals. Second, we draw from careers and psychological research to discuss various emotion regulation strategies that may help effectively manage these career-related challenges. Finally, we offer suggestions for future scholarship on the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to emotion regulation.

1. Career and work challenges associated with infectious disease outbreaks and pandemics

1.1. The challenges of maintaining psychological well-being

Disease outbreaks not only disrupt basic life activities and impede economic growth (McKibbin & Fernando, 2020; Smith, Keogh-Brown, & Barnett, 2011), they can also elicit both acute and long-term effects on individuals' well-being. In other words, the toll on individuals is not just physical and financial, but emotional as well. Many studies have consistently found relationships between the occurrence of infectious disease outbreaks and a host of psychological and behavioral consequences. Among the negative psychological consequences that have been most frequently reported are greater incidence of depression and psychological distress (Bai et al., 2004 Bults et al., 2011; Jones & Salathé, 2009; Shultz et al., 2016), worry (Thompson, Garfin, Holman, & Silver, 2017), functional impairment (Thompson et al., 2017), anxiety about being infected (Horney, Moore, Davis, & MacDonald, 2010; Jehn, Kim, Bradley, & Lant, 2011; Rubin, Potts, & Michie, 2010; Leggat, Brown, Aitken, & Speare, 2010), and reduced quality of life (van Hoek, Underwood, Jit, Miller, & Edmunds, 2011) and subjective well-being (Lau et al., 2008). In terms of behavioral consequences, exposure to outbreaks also resulted in preventive behaviors such as improved hygienic practices (Bults et al., 2011; Kiviniemi, Ram, Kozlowski, & Smith, 2011), seeking medical assistance (Lau et al., 2008, Lau, Griffiths, Au, & Choi, 2011) and engaging in social distancing and isolation (Setbon, Le Pape, Létroublon, Caille-Brillet, & Raude, 2011; Wong & Sam, 2010).

The above psychological and behavioral consequences are experienced by the broader workforce but perhaps more acutely by essential workers. In studies focusing on health care workers, they often report concerns about the (non) availability of personal protective equipment (PPE), personal safety, vaccine availability, caregiving responsibilities at home, and prioritizing the well-being of family members (e.g., Damery et al., 2009; Ives et al., 2009; Martin, 2011; Tippett et al., 2010). Psychological distress also occurs as a result of mitigation strategies (e.g., social distancing, home containment, and travel restrictions) aimed to prevent the spread of the disease. For example, in a study of health care workers in a treatment facility during the SARS outbreak, Maunder et al. (2003) reported incidents of professional isolation arising from the use of protective masks and observance of non-physical contact with co-workers reduced morale among health care workers, and refusal to work among administrative and professional staff. Bai et al. (2004) investigated reactions of health care workers and professional staff shortly after 57 health care workers were quarantined due to the SARS epidemic. Results revealed that 20% of the participants reported feeling stigmatized, ostracized and rejected in their neighborhoods due to their hospital work while 9% expressed reluctance to return to work or had thoughts of quitting their job.

Beyond those in the health care sector, in response to disease outbreaks, individuals in many organizations and industries have to endure harsh workplace conditions such as limited availability of social and work support, increased work demands, irregular work hours, inadequate work benefits, and poor access to healthcare (Blake, Blendon, & Viswanath, 2010; Blendon et al., 2008, International Labor Organization, 2020). These challenging work conditions often increase general health complaints such as fatigue, upset stomach, sleeping difficulties and headaches (Matsuishi et al., 2012; Shigemura, Ursano, Morganstein, Kurosawa, & Benedek, 2020). Additionally, school closures and suspension of religious activities (Baum, Jacobson, & Goold, 2009; Berkman, 2008; Cauchemez et al., 2009; Lee, 2020) arising from social distancing measures further exacerbate these adverse psychological difficulties and contributed to serious financial strain (Cauchemez et al., 2009; Chen, Huang, Chuang, Chiu, & Kuo, 2011). Taken as a whole, these studies suggest that disease outbreaks can have pervasive consequences for mental health and well-being across the workforce.

1.2. The challenges of facing an uncertain labor market and work environment

The economic downturn associated with the COVID-19 pandemic has and will likely continue to result in layoffs, downsizing, and involuntary unemployment that threaten the job security of workers across different career stages and across different business sectors, such as hospitality and food services, manufacturing, retail, travel and trade (International Labor Organization, 2020; Morath, Torry, & Guilford, 2020). The labor market conditions resulting from COVID-19 may also substantially alter career trajectories and impede job search strategies among individuals entering the workforce. Those in school-to-work transition contexts as well as younger workers face scarce employment and apprenticeship prospects that not only disrupt formal entry to the labor market but also delay the acquisition of career competencies (Berkman, 2008; Blake et al., 2010; International Labor Organization, 2020). In addition, findings from national surveys involving US workers before and after previous economic downturns show that those who remain employed may experience significant pay cuts, reduction in work hours, and prolonged furloughs while also facing increased work demand and challenging working conditions (Frone, 2018).

Aside from these career and financial impacts, the widespread labor market uncertainty is also associated with many deleterious psychological outcomes (Cauchemez et al., 2009), including increased anxiety and fear about one's future career options and opportunities. Decades of research has demonstrated that involuntary unemployment is associated with poor psychological and physical health (Paul & Moser, 2009; Wanberg, 2012). Similarly, employed workers may also experience increased anxiety because of the uncertainty they face about the future of their jobs (Rothstein & Talbott, 2007; Shoss, 2017).

1.3. The challenges of managing family and work responsibilities

Since the COVID-19 outbreak and the resulting need for social distancing, many organizations have imposed remote work policies that require individuals to work at home (Adalja, Toner, & Inglesby, 2020), gradually blurring the lines between family and work roles (Capitano & Greenhaus, 2018). Simultaneously, the closure of childcare and school facilities force many working parents to abruptly take on full-time child-caring responsibilities and home-school instruction while also adjusting to their new work-from-home arrangements.

The impact of these changes cannot be underestimated, as maintaining family and work boundaries may become more challenging than ever as people now must undertake multiple role transitions (Ashforth, Kreiner, & Fugate, 2000). Although permeable family and work boundaries may be beneficial (Kossek & Lautsch, 2012; Olson-Buchanan & Boswell, 2006), enacting segmented roles that compete for primacy (e.g., as a parent and as an employee) may lead to inter-role conflict, family-work interference, and emotional strain (Allen, Cho, & Meier, 2014; Kossek, Ruderman, Braddy, & Hannum, 2012).

The current lockdowns being imposed by government around the world further exacerbate these challenges as individuals have narrow opportunities to replenish cognitive and emotional resources depleted from fulfilling family and work demands. The need to balance challenging work and family demands not only may cause individuals to underperform in both the work and family domains but can also result in increased emotional exhaustion, stress and burnout (Sonnentag, Kuttler, & Fritz, 2010).

2. The alleviating effects of effective regulation of emotions

In the face of the challenges outlined above, what can working individuals do to ameliorate the negative consequences which flow from them? Having described the three broad and inter-related circumstances which many working individuals are likely to experience during the pandemic, we now discuss some ideas about the role of emotion regulation in alleviating negative impacts. Psychologists refer to emotion regulation as the process of initiating, maintaining, and modifying one's emotional experience and expression (Côté, DeCelles, McCarthy, Van Kleef, & Hideg, 2011; Gross, 2014). Compelling evidence reveals that effective emotion regulation is not only associated with myriad health and socio-psychological benefits but can also help employees manage many work and career-related challenges (Joseph & Newman, 2010; van der Linden et al., 2017). It is important to recognize and appreciate the power of emotion regulation in the face of the current destructive and disruptive COVID-19.

2.1. Effective regulation of emotions reduces negative emotions and enhances well-being

Effective regulation of emotions is crucial to reducing negative emotions and enhancing well-being both within and outside work. In a study of 260 employed students, Diefendorff, Richard, and Yang (2008) found that employed young adults utilize several emotion regulation strategies to manage their negative emotions, including: a) seeking and reaching out to others to make them feel good; b) keeping oneself busy/working on other things; c) engaging in enjoyable activities to improve one's mood; and d) attempting to solve a problem. However, they also identified an important difference between the most commonly and least commonly reported strategies. The most commonly reported strategies involve an active approach to coping with difficult situations and negative emotions. Conversely, the least commonly used strategies reflect a passive and avoidance-oriented approach in managing difficult situations and negative emotions. This has led the authors to suggest that more proactive, approach-oriented emotion regulation strategies are likely to be more effective in helping employees manage their negative emotions than avoidance-based strategies. In other words, actively taking control of one's emotions, such as attending to one's feelings and actively seeking ways to improve them result in positive psychological outcomes.

In a separate study, based on over 600 weekly dairies completed by over 200 social workers in training, Pekaar, Bakker, van der Linden, Born, and Sirén (2018) found support for these ideas. In their study, students who are training to become social workers in areas such as nursing and addiction care reported reduced stress and enhanced energy during their traineeship when they attended to their own emotional experience at work and initiated efforts to improve their emotional self-care (Pekaar et al., 2018). These research findings suggest that it is important to actively take control of one's emotions during this current pandemic. While there are likely many pressing work and family demands being imposed on workers, regular and active appraisal of emotions – or taking time out to “check in” with oneself – can help prevent individuals from being overwhelmed with stress and succumb to dysfunctional emotions. This in turn would enable employees to maintain psychological health and resilience in the long run.

2.2. Effective regulation of emotions enhances career adaptability

Now more than ever, it is important for individuals to become adaptable and agile with their careers. In order to do so, however, individuals need to draw on both their cognitive abilities and emotion skills to effectively adjust and respond to career challenges and events (Kidd, 2004). Extant research on career adaptability suggests that effective emotion regulation supports workers' capacity to prepare for and to cope with an uncertain and changing job market (Nilforooshan & Salimi, 2016; Puffer, 2011). Specifically, emotion regulation may increase employees' motivation and willingness to plan for their career, take responsibility for their careers and work experiences, and explore their environment for opportunities. Additionally, effective regulation of emotions can also lead to greater confidence in mastering the challenges associated with one's career (Brown, George-Curran, & Smith, 2003).

The positive influence of emotion regulation on career adaptability is especially salient for occupations characterized by low wage and status, short-term work contracts, and limited opportunities for career progression. Coetzee and Harry (2014) reported that those who demonstrate adequate ability to manage their own and others' emotions show increased capacity for planning their vocational future, pursuing their career choices, exploring career opportunities, and minimizing distress associated with career uncertainty.

It is also important to note that being adaptable with one's career may also help employees deal with stress and increase their psychological well-being. For example, in a longitudinal study involving over 1000 Swiss employees, Fiori, Bollmann, and Rossier (2015) found that career adaptable workers experienced less negative affect, which in turn resulted in reduced job stress and high levels of job satisfaction. In sum, these studies suggest that emotion regulation influences how individuals process information and make judgments, which can have important implications for career planning and career decision-making.

2.3. Effective regulation facilitates work-family balance

Effective regulation of emotions can also counter some of the adverse effects of family-work overload on employees' work effectiveness and psychological well-being (Diestel & Schmidt, 2010; Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). First, the ability to resist emotional distractions and impulses enables individuals to focus and persist in pursuing difficult goals and recover from emotionally-demanding tasks (Sanz-Vergel, Demerouti, Moreno-Jiménez, & Mayo, 2010). Therefore, employees who can successfully regulate their emotions may be more effective and efficient in completing their work goals despite having to suddenly transition their work to a home environment where many other distractions and demands may exist (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Second, emotion regulation has many social benefits as it facilitates positive social interactions and enhances relationship quality (Gross, 2014). For instance, emotion regulation cultivates empathy, compassion, and helping behavior toward others (Eisenberg, 2000; Lebowitz & Dovidio, 2015). In multi-wave data obtained from over 100 matched dual-career couples, Chen, Allen, and Hou (2020) found that mindful and empathic dual-career spouses enjoy more positive work-family experiences. Sharing pleasant and positive events with significant others elicits positive affective states that support employee, job and relationship satisfaction (Ilies, Keeney, & Scott, 2011).

Further, in navigating family-work demands, couples who effectively regulate their emotions not only sustain their own well-being but may also provide emotional and instrumental support to their partners (Ocampo, Restubog, Liwag, Wang, & Petelczyc, 2018). In a daily diary study involving dual-earner couples, Hahn, Binnewies, and Dormann (2014) found that employees' psychological recovery and well-being is facilitated by their own and their partners' psychological detachment. Collectively, these studies suggest that emotion regulation benefits the self, and is also likely to crossover to partners and family members, mitigating psychological distress and supporting recovery processes.

3. Future research opportunities

The COVID-19 pandemic is not only threatening our physical health, business and the economy, it is also presenting unprecedented challenges for individuals' work and careers. While our commentary has discussed three broad career-related challenges confronting working individuals, we also recognize that the type and range of challenges are likely to change and evolve as the virus continues to spread around the globe and as we learn more about the virus and its potential longer-term impacts on society. Therefore, we believe it is valuable for future research to take a more comprehensive approach to investigating how this pandemic will significantly alter people's career choices, career development, attitudes about work, and work-family dynamics.

Moreover, as the three authors of this commentary are at three different career stages, we face uniquely different challenges related to maintaining our emotional well-being, dealing with job and career uncertainty, and juggling work-family roles. While our commentary did not consider these important differences, we believe it would be valuable for future research to examine how this pandemic may differentially impact the career and vocational behavior of individuals in various career stages. Given previous research showing that minority or disadvantaged workers often bore the brunt of stressful work events (Lewis, Cogburn, & Williams, 2015), it is especially important to examine the impact of this pandemic on economically and socially vulnerable groups (e.g., single parents, immigrants, refugees).

While physical mitigation strategies (e.g., social distancing and quarantining) are effective in curbing transmission and protecting human life (Ferguson et al., 2006; Kelso, Milne, & Kelly, 2009), our review of the literature also suggests that these measures could also impose a significant burden on individuals and communities (e.g., Bai et al., 2004; Maunder et al., 2003). As such, in addition to investigating the direct impact of this pandemic on working life, we believe it is also valuable to analyze how various efforts to mitigate the transmission of the virus can indirectly influence people's career and work lives. For example, are some mitigation strategies less harmful on individuals' well-being and work effectiveness? Given the necessity and prevalence of social distancing, what are the affective and behavioral consequences of social distancing for working individuals? Under what conditions does social distancing harm employees' well-being (e.g., the length of time that social distancing measures are in effect)? Are there contextual conditions and personal resources that can buffer the impact of social distancing on well-being? Can social distancing even serve as an opportunity for self-reflection that can potentially facilitate adaptive self-reflection thereby resulting in meaning-making? We believe that answering these contextually-relevant questions would provide us with an in-depth and holistic understanding of how this pandemic is shaping individual's work lives and career choices both in the short and long term.

As we write this commentary and uncover research related to emotion regulation and infectious disease outbreaks/pandemics, we have become aware of the dearth of scholarship that explores the role of emotion regulation in these unsettling times. While the impact of pandemics/global health crises (e.g., SARS outbreak; Avian H5N1 strain; Ebola virus) on individuals' emotional and mental health has been frequently articulated in the literature (e.g., Bults et al., 2011; Maunder et al., 2003; Shultz et al., 2016), most of the research tends to be descriptive (e.g., documenting its deleterious effects on mental health) and prescriptive (e.g., offering ways to cope without testing their effectiveness) in nature. We are not suggesting that the prior work has less value or is insignificant. In fact, these studies serve as a foundation for setting the stage for a timely and pragmatic research agenda that utilizes more rigorous methods and analysis; one that enables us to study more closely and scientifically how working individuals can respond to a pandemic of this magnitude from an emotion regulation perspective. For example, do employees experience different types of emotions in response to this pandemic (e.g., sadness, anger, hopelessness, guilt, or even shame) and if so, why? How do the different types of negative emotions influence people's careers differently? Are there different ways to manage these distinct negative emotions?

Although we recognize that this pandemic might lead to an overwhelming sense of pessimism, thereby taking a toll on one's emotional health, are there any potential silver linings? In particular, what are the roles of positive emotions, such as hope, compassion, kindness, and gratitude, in how we build our resilience? How do communities restore our strength and help us find meaning and connections in these dark times? Lastly, we have discussed the impact of this pandemic on employees' ability to manage family and work demands. While much has been said about how family and work demands can overwhelm and deplete individuals (Nohe, Meier, Sonntag, & Michel, 2015; Shockley & Singla, 2011), family life can also enrich work life and vice versa (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). From this perspective, it would be relevant to examine how employees can learn emotion regulation skills and draw emotional energy from their family members (e.g., spouses) to enrich their well-being and personal effectiveness. Such a future research agenda should help identify a set of evidence-based ideas and practices about how the effective regulation of emotions can function to help employees not only cope, but perhaps even thrive during these challenging times. As we navigate through the COVID-19 pandemic, we hope that this commentary inspires research efforts to understand the consequences of global health crises such as this one from an emotion regulation perspective.

Footnotes

☆

Authors' note: We thank Amit Kramer, Bill Techau, and David Thorpe for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We also thank Catherine Deen, James Michael Deen and Yaqing He for their research assistance.

References

  1. Adalja A.A., Toner E., Inglesby T.V. Priorities for the US health community responding to COVID-19. JAMA. 2020;323(14):1343–1344. doi: 10.1001/jama.2020.3413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Allen T.D., Cho E., Meier L.L. Work–family boundary dynamics. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. 2014;1(1):99–121. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091330. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashforth B.E., Kreiner G.E., Fugate M. All in a day’s work: Boundaries and micro role transitions. Academy of Management Review. 2000;25(3):472–491. doi: 10.5465/amr.2000.3363315. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bai Y., Lin C.C., Lin C.Y., Chen J.Y., Chue C.M., Chou P. Survey of stress reactions among health care workers involved with the SARS outbreak. Psychiatric Services. 2004;55(9):1055–1057. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.55.9.1055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baum N.M., Jacobson P.D., Goold S.D. “Listen to the people”: Public deliberation about social distancing measures in a pandemic. The American Journal of Bioethics. 2009;9(11):4–14. doi: 10.1080/15265160903197531. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berkman B.E. Mitigating pandemic influenza: The ethics of implementing a school closure policy. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2008;14(4):372–378. doi: 10.1097/01.PHH.0000324566.72533.0b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Blake K.D., Blendon R.J., Viswanath K. Employment and compliance with pandemic influenza mitigation recommendations. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2010;16(2):212. doi: 10.3201/eid1602.090638. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Blendon R.J., Koonin L.M., Benson J.M., Cetron M.S., Pollard W.E., Mitchell E.W.…Herrmann M.J. Public response to community mitigation measures for pandemic influenza. Emerging Infectious Diseases. 2008;14(5):778–786. doi: 10.3201/eid1405.071437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown C., George-Curran R., Smith M.L. The role of emotional intelligence in the career commitment and decision-making process. Journal of Career Assessment. 2003;11(4):379–392. doi: 10.1177/1069072703255834. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bults M., Beaujean D.J.M.A., de Zwart O., Kok G., van Empelen P., van Steenbergen J.E.…Voeten H.A.C.M. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: Results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(2):1. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Capitano J., Greenhaus J.H. When work enters the home: Antecedents of role boundary permeability behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2018;109:87–100. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cauchemez S., Ferguson N.M., Wachtel C., Tegnell A., Saour G., Duncan B., Nicoll A. Closure of schools during an influenza pandemic. The Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2009;9(8):473–481. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70176-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chen W.C., Huang A.S., Chuang J.H., Chiu C.C., Kuo H.S. Social and economic impact of school closure resulting from pandemic influenza a/H1N1. Journal of Infection. 2011;62(3):200–203. doi: 10.1016/j.jinf.2011.01.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen Z., Allen T.D., Hou L. Mindfulness, empathetic concern, and work–family outcomes: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2020;119:103402. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103402. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Coetzee M., Harry N. Emotional intelligence as a predictor of employees' career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2014;84(1):90–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2013.09.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Côté S., DeCelles K.A., McCarthy J.M., Van Kleef G.A., Hideg I. The Jekyll and Hyde of emotional intelligence: Emotion-regulation knowledge facilitates both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Psychological Science. 2011;22(8):1073–1080. doi: 10.1177/0956797611416251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Damery S., Wilson S., Draper H., Gratus C., Greenfield S., Ives J.…Sorell T. Will the NHS continue to function in an influenza pandemic? A survey of healthcare workers in the West Midlands, UK. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(142) doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-142. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Diefendorff J.M., Richard E.M., Yang J. Linking emotion regulation strategies to affective events and negative emotions at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2008;73(3):498–508. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2008.09.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Diestel S., Schmidt K.H. Interactive effects of emotional dissonance and self-control demands on burnout, anxiety, and absenteeism. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;77(3):412–424. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2010.05.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Eisenberg N. Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of Psychology. 2000;51(1):665–697. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferguson N.M., Cummings D.A.T., Fraser C., Cajka J.C., Cooley P.C., Burke D.S. Strategies for mitigating an influenza pandemic. Nature. 2006;442(7101):448–452. doi: 10.1038/nature04795. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Fiori M., Bollmann G., Rossier J. Exploring the path through which career adaptability increases job satisfaction and lowers job stress: The role of affect. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2015;91:113–121. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2015.08.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Frone M.R. What happened to the employed during the Great Recession? A US population study of net change in employee insecurity, health, and organizational commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2018;107:246–260. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.05.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenhaus J.H., Powell G. When work and family are allies: A theory of work family enrichment. Academy of Management Review. 2006;31:72–92. doi: 10.5465/amr.2006.19379625. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Gross J.J., editor. Handbook of emotion regulation. 2nd ed. Guilford Publications; New York: 2014. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hahn V.C., Binnewies C., Dormann C. The role of partners and children for employees’ daily recovery. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2014;85(1):39–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2014.03.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. van Hoek A.J., Underwood A., Jit M., Miller E., Edmunds W.J. The impact of pandemic influenza H1N1 on health-related quality of life: A prospective population-based study. PLoS One. 2011;6(3):1–6. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Horney J.A., Moore Z., Davis M., MacDonald P.D. Intent to receive pandemic influenza A (H1N1) vaccine, compliance with social distancing and sources of information in NC, 2009. PLoS One. 2010;5(6):1–7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011226. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ilies R., Keeney J., Scott B.A. Work–family interpersonal capitalization: Sharing positive work events at home. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2011;114(2):115–126. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. International Labor Organization . 3rd ed. 2020, May 5. ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work.https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_743146.pdf Retrieved from. [Google Scholar]
  31. Ives J., Greenfield S., Parry J.M., Draper H., Gratus C., Petts J.I.…Wilson S. Healthcare workers’ attitudes to working during pandemic influenza: A qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(1):56. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jehn M., Kim Y., Bradley B., Lant T. Community knowledge, risk perception, and preparedness for the 2009 influenza A/H1N1 pandemic. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. 2011;17(5):431–438. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0b013e3182113921. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jones J.H., Salathé M. Early assessment of anxiety and behavioral response to novel swine-origin influenza A(H1N1) PLoS One. 2009;4(12) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Joseph D.L., Newman D.A. Emotional intelligence: An integrative meta-analysis and cascading model. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2010;95(1):54–78. doi: 10.1037/a0017286. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Kelso J.K., Milne G.J., Kelly H. Simulation suggests that rapid activation of social distancing can arrest epidemic development due to a novel strain of influenza. BMC Public Health. 2009;9(117) doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kidd J.M. Emotion in career contexts: Challenges for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2004;64(3):441–454. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2003.12.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kiviniemi M.T., Ram P.K., Kozlowski L.T., Smith K.M. Perceptions of and willingness to engage in public health precautions to prevent 2009 H1N1 influenza transmission. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):152. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kossek E.E., Lautsch B.A. Work–family boundary management styles in organizations: A cross-level model. Organizational Psychology Review. 2012;2(2):152–171. (doi:10.1177%2F2041386611436264) [Google Scholar]
  39. Kossek E.E., Ruderman M.N., Braddy P.W., Hannum K.M. Work–nonwork boundary management profiles: A person-centered approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2012;81(1):112–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2012.04.003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Lau A.L., Chi I., Cummins R.A., Lee T.M., Chou K.L., Chung L.W. The SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) pandemic in Hong Kong: Effects on the subjective wellbeing of elderly and younger people. Aging and Mental Health. 2008;12(6):746–760. doi: 10.1080/13607860802380607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lau J.T.F., Griffiths S., Au D.W.H., Choi K.C. Changes in knowledge, perceptions, preventive behaviours and psychological responses in the pre-community outbreak phase of the H1N1 epidemic. Epidemiology & Infection. 2011;139(1):80–90. doi: 10.1017/S0950268810001925. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lebowitz M.S., Dovidio J.F. Implications of emotion regulation strategies for empathic concern, social attitudes, and helping behavior. Emotion. 2015;15(2):187–194. doi: 10.1037/a0038820. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Lee J. Mental health effects of school closures during COVID-19. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health. 2020 doi: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30109-7. Advanced online publication. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Leggat P.A., Brown L.H., Aitken P., Speare R. Level of concern and precaution taking among Australians regarding travel during pandemic (H1N1) 2009: Results from the 2009 Queensland Social Survey. Journal of Travel Medicine. 2010;17(5):291–295. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8305.2010.00445.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lewis T., Cogburn C., Williams Self-reported experiences and health: Scientific advances, ongoing controversies and emerging issues. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2015;11:407–440. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112728. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. van der Linden D., Pekaar K.A., Bakker A.B., Schermer J.A., Vernon P.A., Dunkel C.S., Petrides K.V. Overlap between the general factor of personality and emotional intelligence: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2017;143(1):36–52. doi: 10.1037/bul0000078. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Martin S.D. Nurses’ ability and willingness to work during pandemic flu. Journal of Nursing Management. 2011;19(1):98–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01190.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Matsuishi K., Kawazoe A., Imai H., Ito A., Mouri K., Kitamura N.…Hitokoto H. Psychological impact of the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 on general hospital workers in Kobe. Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences. 2012;66(4):353–360. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2012.02336.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Maunder R., Hunter J., Vincent L., Bennett J., Peladeau N., Leszcz M.…Mazzulli T. The immediate psychological and occupational impact of the 2003 SARS outbreak in a teaching hospital. Canadian Medical Association Journal. 2003;168(10):1245–1251. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. McKibbin W., Fernando R. Crawford School of Public Policy, Australian National University; 2020. The global macroeconomic impacts of COVID-19: Seven scenarios [Manuscript in preparation] [Google Scholar]
  51. Morath E., Torry H., Guilford G. Few are safe; The Wall Street Journal: 2020, April 14. A second round of coronavirus layoffs has begun.https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-second-round-of-coronavirus-layoffs-has-begun-no-one-is-safe-11586872387 Retrieved from. [Google Scholar]
  52. Muraven M., Baumeister R.F. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin. 2000;126(2):247–259. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Nilforooshan P., Salimi S. Career adaptability as a mediator between personality and career engagement. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2016;94:1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2016.02.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Nohe C., Meier L.L., Sonntag K., Michel A. The chicken or the egg? A meta-analysis of panel studies of the relationship between work–family conflict and strain. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2015;100(2):522–536. doi: 10.1037/a0038012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Ocampo A.C.G., Restubog S.L.D., Liwag M.E., Wang L., Petelczyc C. My spouse is my strength: Interactive effects of perceived organizational and spousal support in predicting career adaptability and career outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2018;108:165–177. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.08.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Olson-Buchanan J.B., Boswell W.R. Blurring boundaries: Correlates of integration and segmentation between work and nonwork. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2006;68(3):432–445. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.006. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Paul K.I., Moser K. Unemployment impairs mental health: Meta-analyses. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2009;74(3):264–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  58. Pekaar K.A., Bakker A.B., van der Linden D., Born M.P., Sirén H.J. Managing own and others’ emotions: A weekly diary study on the enactment of emotional intelligence. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2018;109:137–151. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2018.10.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Puffer K.A. Emotional intelligence as a salient predictor for collegians’ career decision making. Journal of Career Assessment. 2011;19(2):130–150. doi: 10.1177/1069072710385545. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  60. Rothstein M.A., Talbott M.K. Encouraging compliance with quarantine: A proposal to provide job security and income replacement. American Journal of Public Health. 2007;97(Supplement_1):S49–S56. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.097303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Rubin G.J., Potts H.W.W., Michie S. The impact of communications about swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on public responses to the outbreak: Results from 36 national telephone surveys in the UK. Health Technology Assessment. 2010;14(34):183–266. doi: 10.3310/hta14340-03. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sanz-Vergel A.I., Demerouti E., Moreno-Jiménez B., Mayo M. Work-family balance and energy: A day-level study on recovery conditions. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;76(1):118–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.07.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  63. Setbon M., Le Pape M.C., Létroublon C., Caille-Brillet A.L., Raude J. The public’s preventive strategies in response to the pandemic influenza A/H1N1 in France: Distribution and determinants. Preventive Medicine. 2011;52(2):178–181. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Shigemura J., Ursano R.J., Morganstein J.C., Kurosawa M., Benedek D.M. Public responses to the novel 2019 coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in Japan: Mental health consequences and target populations. Psychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences. 2020;74(4):281–282. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Shockley K.M., Singla N. Reconsidering work—Family interactions and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management. 2011;37(3):861–886. doi: 10.1177/0149206310394864. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Shoss M. Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management. 2017;43(6):1911–1939. [Google Scholar]
  67. Shultz J.M., Cooper J.L., Baingana F., Oquendo M.A., Espinel Z., Althouse B.M.…Mazurik L. The role of fear-related behaviors in the 2013–2016 West Africa Ebola virus disease outbreak. Current Psychiatry Reports. 2016;18(11):104. doi: 10.1007/s11920-016-0741-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Smith R.D., Keogh-Brown M.R., Barnett T. Estimating the economic impact of pandemic influenza: An application of the computable general equilibrium model to the UK. Social Science & Medicine. 2011;73(2):235–244. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Sonnentag S., Kuttler I., Fritz C. Job stressors, emotional exhaustion, and need for recovery: A multi-source study on the benefits of psychological detachment. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2010;76(3):355–365. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2009.06.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  70. Tangney J.P., Baumeister R.F., Boone A.L. High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality. 2004;72(2):271–324. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Thompson R.R., Garfin D.R., Holman E.A., Silver R.C. Distress, worry, and functioning following a global health crisis: A national study of Americans’ responses to Ebola. Clinical Psychological Science. 2017;5(3):513–521. doi: 10.1177/2167702617692030. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  72. Tippett V.C., Watt K., Raven S.G., Kelly H.A., Coory M., Archer F., Jamrozik K. Anticipated behaviors of emergency prehospital medical care providers during an influenza pandemic. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. 2010;25(1):20–25. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X00007603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Wanberg C.R. The individual experience of unemployment. Annual Review of Psychology. 2012;63:369–396. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100500. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Wong L.P., Sam I.C. Temporal changes in psychobehavioral responses during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. Preventive Medicine. 2010;51(1):92–93. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.04.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. World Health Organization WHO director-general's opinion remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. 2020, March 11. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-mediabriefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020

Articles from Journal of Vocational Behavior are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES