Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2020 Aug 3;168:110308. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110308

Collective self-esteem and perceived stress among the non-infected general public in China during the 2019 coronavirus pandemic: A multiple mediation model

Haopeng Chen 1, Xiaolin Zhao 1, Mei Zeng 1, Jiwen Li 1, Xi Ren 1, Mengning Zhang 1, Yadong Liu 1, Juan Yang 1,⁎
PMCID: PMC7396951  PMID: 32834290

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the multiple mediating effects of perceived social support and anxiety between collective self-esteem and perceived stress during the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. From February 18 to 25, 2020, 1921 participants aged 18–68 were recruited to complete the questionnaire online. The results showed that collective self-esteem reduced the perceived stress by increasing perceived social support and decreasing anxiety, and their chain mediation path. Our findings identified the important factors in reducing perceived stress and their relationship, which can be used to develop interventions to improve the mental health of the general public during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: COVID-19, Collective self-esteem, Perceived social support, Anxiety, Perceived stress

Highlights

  • •

    Collective self-esteem (CSE) was negatively related to perceived stress.

  • •

    CSE reduced perceived stress by increasing perceived social support.

  • •

    CSE reduced perceived stress by decreasing anxiety.

  • •

    Perceived social support buffered anxiety, which formed the chain mediation.

1. Introduction

The high contagiousness of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the concomitant hindrances to life/work have significantly increased the perceived stress of the non-infected general public, which is harmful to their mental and physical health (Wang et al., 2020; Zhao, Lan, Li, & Yang, 2020). Notably, a large number of studies have shown that self-esteem plays an important role in reducing perceived stress (Abouserie, 1994; Hubbs, Doyle, Bowden, & Doyle, 2012; Hudd et al., 2000; Kesting, Bredenpohl, Klenke, Westermann, & Lincoln, 2013). Specifically, the concept of self-esteem can be segmented into the individual level (personal self-esteem) and the collective level (collective self-esteem; Crocker & Major, 1989). Personal self-esteem is one's evaluation of self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001; Du, King, & Chi, 2017; Rosenberg, 1965), while collective self-esteem is one's value assessment of the collectivity one belongs to and one's membership of this collectivity (Crocker & Major, 1989). As a serious global catastrophe, COVID-19 is beyond the control of individuals and most of the important measures against COVID-19 (e.g., distribution of relief supplies, mobilization of medical personnel) must be conducted throughout the whole country (Anderson, Heesterbeek, Klinkenberg, & Hollingsworth, 2020; Lloyd-Sherlock, Ebrahim, Geffen, & McKee, 2020), which stress the importance of collectivity (Tziner, 1982; Wang et al., 2020). Therefore, the main aim of the present study is to investigate the influence of collective self-esteem on the perceived stress of the non-infected general public during COVID-19, and the collectivity of collective self-esteem in this study refers to the country.

As an important community resource, social support can help people alleviate the seeming uncontrollability of problems, which is the main cause of perceived stress (Heaney & Israel, 2008). A large number of studies have provided evidence that perceived social support could effectively relieve perceived stress (Budge, Adelson, & Howard, 2013; Dean & Lin, 1977), which was also confirmed by the latest research about COVID-19 (Li et al., 2020; Xiao, Zhang, Kong, Li, & Yang, 2020). Moreover, individuals with higher collective self-esteem tend to seek social support when facing difficulties (Barker, 2009; Gangadharbatla, 2008), which reminds us that collective self-esteem may reduce the perceived stress through the mediation of perceived social support.

Anxiety is conceptualized as an emotional state that includes worry, nervousness, apprehension, as well as physical symptoms (Spielberger & Sydeman, 1994). Much evidence has shown that higher anxiety was significantly associated with higher perceived stress (Bergdahl & Bergdahl, 2002; Hand, Phillips, & Dudgeon, 2006; Lee, 2012; Sanzcarrillo, Garciacampayo, Rubio, Santed, & Montoro, 2002). Besides, according to terror management theory, self-esteem is the main force to buffer against anxiety (Burke, Martens, & Faucher, 2010; Rosenblatt, Greenberg, Solomon, Pyszczynski, & Lyon, 1989). A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies has provided support for this theory, showing that higher self-esteem significantly predicted lower levels of anxiety (Sowislo & Orth, 2013). Importantly, many studies demonstrated that collective self-esteem could buffer better against anxiety when the importance of collectivity was recognized (Gupta, Rogers-Sirin, Okazaki, Ryce, & Sirin, 2014; Lam, 2007; Xie, Leong, & Feng, 2008; Zhang, 2005). Therefore, we assume that collective self-esteem could reduce the perceived stress by relieving anxiety.

It is worth mentioning that perceived social support and anxiety are not separate mediators. According to the cognitive theory of emotion, negative emotions (anxiety) usually arise when we appraise our life pessimistically. (Beck, 1971; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Oatley & Johnsonlaird, 1987). Social support can help people reinterpret events or problems in a more positive and constructive light, which helps relieve anxiety (House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988; Thoits, 1995). Therefore, collective self-esteem may reduce perceived stress through the chain mediation of perceived social support and anxiety.

In conclusion, the current study aimed to investigate the influence of collective self-esteem on the perceived stress of the non-infected general public during COVID-19. Furthermore, we hypothesized that collective self-esteem could reduce the perceived stress through the indirect paths of perceived social support and anxiety separately, and their chain mediating path. The proposed multiple mediation model is shown in Fig. 1 . Compared with the traditional simple mediating effect, the multiple mediating effect in this study is more likely to reveal the complex mechanism between collective self-esteem and perceived stress, which can guide subsequent research. Furthermore, the current study will identify the important factors buffering perceived stress, and their relationship, which helps enact psychological interventions for the non-infected general public during COVID-19.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

The proposed multiple mediation model.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Participants

Fig. 2 shows the development trend of the COVID-19 pandemic in China from February 4 to March 9, 2020. Existing confirmed cases continued to increase until February 17 and then decreased. Our survey was conducted from February 18 to February 25, 2020, a period when the existing confirmed cases gradually declined in number.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

The development trend of the COVID-19 pandemic in China from February 4 to March 9, 2020.

A total of 2023 participants were recruited to complete the questionnaire via an online survey platform called “SurveyStar,” from February 18 to 25, 2020. Among them, 102 participants (13 unhealthy participants (e.g., with a fever), 1 suspected case, 1 cured case, and 87 first-line workers) were excluded, resulting in a final sample of 1921 participants (mean age = 29.28, SD = 10.66, range = 18–68). Because of program failure during data collection, 968 participants did not report their gender. The remaining 953 participants constituted 291 males and 662 females. 82.9% (n = 1593) of participants had a college degree or above. Participants were asked to choose “Yes” or “No” on their work status (e.g., Do you start to work outside the home?), and only 13.0% (n = 250) of participants had started to work outside the home. Besides, participants were asked to rate their attention to COVID-19 (e.g., to what extent do you take an interest in information on COVID-19?) from 1 (little) to 5 (extreme), and 71.9% (n = 1381) of them paid great attention (more than or equal 4) to COVID-19. All participants provided written informed consent and were paid 5 yuan (approximately $0.70 US) as an incentive. The study was approved by the local institutional review board (Grant No. IRB20200218).

2.2. Materials

2.2.1. Collective self-esteem scale (CSES)

Collective self-esteem was assessed by CSES (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), which includes 16 items. Each item was rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher collective self-esteem. Moreover, the collectivity in the current study referred to the country (questions such as “I am a worthy member of the country I belong to”, and “I feel good about the country I belong to”). Cronbach's α for the present study was 0.88.

2.2.2. Perceived social support scale (PSSS)

Perceived social support was measured by PSSS (Zimet, Powell, Farley, Werkman, & Berkoff, 1990). There are 12 items, which are rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating higher perceived social support (questions such as “There are some people in my life who care about my feelings”). Cronbach's α for the present study was 0.91.

2.2.3. Self-rating anxiety scale (SAS)

Levels of anxiety during the previous seven days were measured by the 20-item SAS (Zung, 1971). All responses were distributed on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = never, 4 = very often), with higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety (questions such as “I feel more nervous and anxious than usual”). Cronbach's α for the present study was 0.80.

2.2.4. Perceived stress scale (PSS)

10-item PSS was conducted to assess the perceived stress over the past month (Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein, 1983). This scale assessed the extent to which individuals believe their lives are overloaded, unpredictable and uncontrollable. Participants rated the items from 0 (never) to 4 (very often), with higher scores indicating higher stress (questions such as “In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?”). Cronbach's α for the present study was 0.81.

2.3. Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation analysis were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0. Model 6 of the PROCESS macro was conducted to examine the multiple mediating effect of perceived social support and anxiety (Hayes, 2017). Furthermore, the bootstrapping method (5000 bootstrap samples) with 95% confidence intervals was conducted to test the significance of indirect effects (Hayes, 2017).

3. Results

3.1. Correlations for all variables

The results of Pearson correlations are presented in Table 1 . As expected, collective self-esteem was negatively correlated with perceived stress (r = −0.26, p < 0.001). Perceived social support was positively correlated with collective self-esteem (r = 0.42, p < 0.001) and negatively correlated with perceived stress (r = −0.26, p < 0.001). Anxiety was negatively correlated with collective self-esteem (r = −0.29, p < 0.001) and positively correlated with perceived stress (r = 0.52, p < 0.001). Moreover, perceived social support was negatively correlated with anxiety (r = −0.30, p < 0.001).

Table 1.

Correlations for all variables (N = 1921).

Mean SD CSES PSSS SAS PSS
CSES 89.93 11.50 1.00
PSSS 63.82 9.78 0.42⁎⁎⁎ 1.00
SAS 40.08 8.40 −0.29⁎⁎⁎ −0.30⁎⁎⁎ 1.00
PSS 15.86 5.55 −0.26⁎⁎⁎, ⁎⁎, ⁎ −0.26⁎⁎⁎ 0.52⁎⁎⁎ 1.00
Open in a new tab

Note. CSES = Collective Self-Esteem Scale; PSSS = perceived social support scale; SAS = Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; PSS = perceived stress scale.

⁎⁎⁎

p < 0.001.

⁎⁎

p < 0.01.

⁎

p < 0.05.

3.2. Multiple mediating analysis

Controlling for age, education, work or not (whether participants started to work outside the home), and their attention to COVID-19, a multiple mediating analysis was conducted (see Table 2 and Fig. 3 ). Results showed that higher collective self-esteem significantly predicted higher perceived social support (B = 0.35, t = 19.97, p < 0.001; see Model 1 of Table 2). Collective self-esteem (B = −0.16, t = −9.42, p < 0.001) and perceived social support (B = −0.16, t = −7.86, p < 0.001) negatively predicted levels of anxiety (see Model 2 of Table 2). Higher collective self-esteem (B = −0.05, t = −4.41, p < 0.001) and perceived social support (B = −0.04, t = −2.93, p < 0.001) were predictors of lower perceived stress, and anxiety positively predicted perceived stress (B = 0.30, t = 22.02, p < 0.001; see Model 3 of Table 2) After controlling for perceived social support and anxiety, collective self-esteem could significantly predict perceived stress, which indicates that perceived social support and anxiety were partial mediators between collective self-esteem and perceived stress. Moreover, the bootstrap method indicated that the mediation effect of perceived social support (Effect = −0.01, Boot SE = 0.005, Boot 95%CI = [−0.023, −0.003]) and anxiety (Effect = −0.05, Boot SE = 0.006, Boot 95%CI = [−0.060, −0.037]), and their chain mediation were all significant (Effect = −0.02, Boot SE = 0.003, Boot 95%CI = [−0.022, −0.012]), and they separately accounted for 10.61%, 38.87% and 13.68% of the total effect (Table 3 ).

Table 2.

Multiple mediating models between collective self-esteem and perceived stress (N = 1921).

Predictors Model 1 (PSSS)
 Model 2 (SAS)
 Model 3 (PSS)
B t B t B t
Age 0.13 6.09⁎⁎⁎ −0.11 −5.99⁎⁎⁎ −0.07 −6.15⁎⁎⁎
Education 1.36 7.32⁎⁎⁎ −1.14 −6.81⁎⁎⁎ −0.12 −1.17
Work or not 0.04 0.07 1.04 1.97⁎ 0.58 1.83⁎
Attention 0.68 2.51⁎ 0.69 2.86⁎⁎ −0.07 −0.46
CSES 0.35 19.97⁎⁎⁎ −0.16 −9.42⁎⁎⁎ −0.05 −4.41⁎⁎⁎
PSSS −0.16 −7.86⁎⁎⁎ −0.04 −2.93⁎⁎
SAS 0.30 22.02⁎⁎⁎
R2 0.21 0.15 0.31
F 100.25⁎⁎⁎ 58.21⁎⁎⁎ 121.09⁎⁎⁎
Open in a new tab

Note. Attention = Attention to COVID-19; CSES = Collective Self-Esteem Scale; PSSS = perceived social support scale; SAS = Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; PSS = perceived stress scale; the dependent variable in Models 1–3 was separately perceived social support, anxiety, and perceived stress.

⁎⁎⁎

p < 0.001.

⁎⁎

P < 0.01.

⁎

p < 0.05.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Multiple mediating paths between collective self-esteem and perceived stress.

Table 3.

Multiple mediating paths between collective self-esteem and perceived stress.

Effect BootSE BootLLCI BootULCI Relative effect
Direct effect −0.05 0.012 −0.069 −0.023
Indirect effect 1 −0.01 0.005 −0.023 −0.003 10.61%
Indirect effect 2 −0.05 0.006 −0.060 −0.037 38.87%
Indirect effect 3 −0.02 0.003 −0.022 −0.012 13.68%
Total indirect effect −0.08 0.008 −0.093 −0.063 63.24%
Open in a new tab

Note. Indirect effect 1 = CSES–PSSS–PSS; Indirect effect 2 = CSES–SAS–PSS; Indirect effect 3 = CSES–PSSS–SAS–PSS.

4. Discussion

The current study principally investigated the influence of collective self-esteem on perceived stress in the non-infected general public during COVID-19 and the multiple mediating effects of perceived social support and anxiety. Results showed that collective self-esteem could reduce perceived stress through the indirect paths of perceived social support and anxiety, and their chain mediating path.

Consistent with our hypothesis, collective self-esteem was effective in reducing perceived stress. In general, individuals with higher self-esteem could respond better to threats and frustrations, which is important for reducing perceived stress (Abouserie, 1994; Hubbs et al., 2012; Hudd et al., 2000; Kesting et al., 2013). Importantly, a serious catastrophe can be more effectively addressed by the collectivity (Tziner, 1982; Wang et al., 2020); therefore, we may speculate that the relationship between collective self-esteem and perceived stress may be enhanced during COVID-19. Finally, the collectivity in the current study referred to the country, which indicated the individual's value assessment of their own country and their citizenship of this country can effectively reduce perceived stress during COVID-19.

Multiple mediating analysis further revealed the reasons why collective self-esteem could reduce perceived stress. The first reason is individuals with higher collective self-esteem could perceive more social support. Social support is defined as an important resource deriving from the social relationship, which means a good social relationship is the precondition of more social support (Heaney & Israel, 2008). Individuals with higher collective self-esteem usually emphasize their social relationships and tend to ask for help when facing difficulties (Barker, 2009; Gangadharbatla, 2008), which, arguably, makes them perceive more social support during COVID-19. Furthermore, perceived stress is essentially a sense of uncontrollability (Cohen et al., 1983), which can be effectively relieved by perceived social support (Budge et al., 2013; Dean & Lin, 1977; Heaney & Israel, 2008).

Another reason is that collective self-esteem could buffer against anxiety. Terror management theory has demonstrated that self-esteem plays an important role in relieving anxiety, which is confirmed by many studies (Burke et al., 2010; McFarlin & Blascovich, 1981; Rosenblatt et al., 1989; Sowislo & Orth, 2013). Furthermore, based on this theory, many researchers have investigated the influence of collective self-esteem on anxiety, and results were consistent with the current study, indicating that collective self-esteem could also be effective in relieving anxiety (Gupta et al., 2014; Lam, 2007; Xie et al., 2008; Zhang, 2005). Above all, the conception of “emotion-focused coping” suggested that reducing negative emotions such as anxiety is an effective way to reduce perceived stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Also, evidence showed that lower anxiety was significantly associated with lower perceived stress (Bergdahl & Bergdahl, 2002; Hand et al., 2006; Lee, 2012; Sanzcarrillo et al., 2002), which was further confirmed by our study.

Finally, collective self-esteem could reduce perceived stress through the chain mediation of perceived social support and anxiety, which is in line with our hypothesis. An important function of perceived social support is to provide emotional comfort (House et al., 1988), which can make us more optimistic (Thoits, 1995). Anxiety is usually caused by our pessimistic appraisal of our life (Beck, 1971; Folkman & Lazarus, 1985; Oatley & Johnsonlaird, 1987), for which it can be effectively relieved by perceived social support. Moreover, the effect of chain mediation was stronger than the mediation of perceived social support, which reminds us the general public might perceive more emotional support from the country.

There are some limitations. First, 968 participants did not report their gender because of a program failure during data collection, for which we only analyzed the data with gender information again to control the potential influence of gender differences (N = 953, 291 males and 662 females). Results showed that the chain mediating effect (Effect = −0.02, Boot SE = 0.004, Boot 95%CI = [−0.024, −0.010]) was stable. Second, the current study mainly explored the influence of collective self-esteem on perceived stress. Future studies could carefully examine other types of self-esteem. Finally, the present study was a cross-sectional design that cannot confirm causality. Further research should adopt experimental or longitudinal designs to explore the causal assumptions in this study.

5. Conclusion

In all, the current study showed that collective self-esteem could reduce perceived stress through the indirect paths of perceived social support and anxiety, and their chain mediating path. These findings have important implications for enacting psychological interventions, which should show the efforts and achievements of the country in combating the pandemic and provide emotional support for the non-infected general public during COVID-19.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Haopeng Chen:Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft.Xiaolin Zhao:Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing.Mei Zeng:Conceptualization, Formal analysis.Jiwen Li:Conceptualization, Formal analysis.Xi Ren:Formal analysis, Investigation.Mengning Zhang:Formal analysis, Investigation.Yadong Liu:Formal analysis, Investigation.Juan Yang:Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing, Supervision.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [31971019], Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology [cstc2019jcyj-msxmX0016] and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [SWU2009202], China. We are grateful to Xuehan Zhang, Weiyu Hu, Huixiang Li, Yang He and Mengxue Lan for data collection.

References

  1. Abouserie R. Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self esteem in university students. Educational Psychology. 1994;14(3):323–330. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson R.M., Heesterbeek H., Klinkenberg D., Hollingsworth T.D. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The Lancet. 2020;395(10228):931–934. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Barker V. Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. Cyberpsychology & Behavior. 2009;12(2):209–213. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0228. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Beck A.T. Cognition, affect, and psychopathology. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1971;24(6):495–500. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1971.01750120011002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergdahl J., Bergdahl M. Perceived stress in adults: Prevalence and association of depression, anxiety and medication in a Swedish population. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress. 2002;18(5):235–241. [Google Scholar]
  6. Budge S.L., Adelson J.L., Howard K.A. Anxiety and depression in transgender individuals: The roles of transition status, loss, social support, and coping. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2013;81(3):545. doi: 10.1037/a0031774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Burke B.L., Martens A., Faucher E.H. Two decades of terror management theory: A meta-analysis of mortality salience research. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2010;14(2):155–195. doi: 10.1177/1088868309352321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cohen S., Kamarck T., Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1983:385–396. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Crocker J., Major B. Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review. 1989;96(4):608. [Google Scholar]
  10. Crocker J., Wolfe C.T. Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological Review. 2001;108(3):593. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.108.3.593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dean A., Lin N. The stress-buffering role of social support. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1977;165(6):403–417. doi: 10.1097/00005053-197712000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Du H., King R.B., Chi P. Self-esteem and subjective well-being revisited: The roles of personal, relational, and collective self-esteem. PLoS One. 2017;12(8) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183958. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Folkman S., Lazarus R.S. If it changes it must be a process: Study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1985;48(1):150. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.48.1.150. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gangadharbatla H. Facebook me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong, and internet self-efficacy as predictors of the iGeneration’s attitudes toward social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising. 2008;8(2):5–15. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gupta T., Rogers-Sirin L., Okazaki S., Ryce P., Sirin S.R. The role of collective self-esteem on anxious-depressed symptoms for Asian and Latino children of immigrants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. 2014;20(2):220. doi: 10.1037/a0035022. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hand G., Phillips K., Dudgeon W. Perceived stress in HIV-infected individuals: Physiological and psychological correlates. AIDS Care. 2006;18(8):1011–1017. doi: 10.1080/09540120600568376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hayes A.F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A 32 regression-based approach. Guilford publications; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. Heaney C.A., Israel B.A. Social networks and social support. In: Glanz K., Rimer B.K., Viswanath K., editors. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons; Hoboken, NJ: 2008. pp. 189–201. [Google Scholar]
  19. House J.S., Umberson D., Landis K.R. Structures and processes of social support. Annual Review of Sociology. 1988;14(1):293–318. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hubbs A., Doyle E.I., Bowden R.G., Doyle R.D. Relationships among self-esteem, stress, and physical activity in college students. Psychological Reports. 2012;110(2):469–474. doi: 10.2466/02.07.09.PR0.110.2.469-474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Hudd S.S., Dumlao J., Erdmannsager D., Murray D., Phan E., Soukas N., Yokozuka N. Stress at college: Effects on health habits, health status and self-esteem. College Student Journal. 2000;34(2):217–228. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kesting M., Bredenpohl M., Klenke J., Westermann S., Lincoln T.M. The impact of social stress on self-esteem and paranoid ideation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry. 2013;44(1):122–128. doi: 10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Lam B.T. Impact of perceived racial discrimination and collective self-esteem on psychological distress among Vietnamese-American college students: Sense of coherence as mediator. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2007;77(3):370–376. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.77.3.370. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Lazarus R.S., Folkman S. Springer Publishing Company; New York: 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping. [Google Scholar]
  25. Lee E. Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nursing Research. 2012;6(4):121–127. doi: 10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Li Z., Ge J., Yang M., Feng J., Qiao M., Jiang R.…Yang C. Vicarious traumatization in the general public, members, and non-members of medical teams aiding in COVID-19 control. Brain Behavior and Immunity. 2020;88:916–919. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.03.007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Lloyd-Sherlock P., Ebrahim S., Geffen L., McKee M. Bearing the brunt of covid-19: Older people in low and middle income countries. BMJ. 2020;368 doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Luhtanen R., Crocker J. A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 1992;18(3):302–318. [Google Scholar]
  29. McFarlin D.B., Blascovich J. Effects of self-esteem and performance feedback on future affective preferences and cognitive expectations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1981;40(3):521. [Google Scholar]
  30. Oatley K., Johnsonlaird P.N. Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cognition and Emotion. 1987;1(1):29–50. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rosenberg M. Princeton; 1965. The measurement of self-esteem, society and the adolescent self-image; pp. 16–36. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rosenblatt A., Greenberg J., Solomon S., Pyszczynski T., Lyon D. Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1989;57(4):681. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.57.4.681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Sanzcarrillo C., Garciacampayo J., Rubio A., Santed M., Montoro M. Validation of the Spanish version of the Perceived Stress Questionnaire. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2002;52(3):167–172. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3999(01)00275-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Sowislo J.F., Orth U. Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 2013;139(1):213. doi: 10.1037/a0028931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Spielberger C., Sydeman S. The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcome assessment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ: 1994. State-trait anxiety inventory and state-trait anger expression inventory. [Google Scholar]
  36. Thoits P.A. Stress, coping, and social support processes: Where are we? What next? Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 1995:53–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Tziner A. Group cohesiveness — A dynamic perspective. Social Behavior and Personality. 1982;10(2):205–211. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wang C., Pan R., Wan X., Tan Y., Xu L., Ho C.S., Ho R.C. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17(5):1729. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051729. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Xiao H., Zhang Y., Kong D., Li S., Yang N. The effects of social support on sleep quality of medical staff treating patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in January and February 2020 in China. Medical Science Monitor: International Medical Journal of Experimental and Clinical Research. 2020;26:e923549-1–e923549-8. doi: 10.12659/MSM.923549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Xie D., Leong F.T., Feng S. Culture-specific personality correlates of anxiety among Chinese and Caucasian college students. Asian Journal of Social Psychology. 2008;11(2):163–174. [Google Scholar]
  41. Zhang L. Prediction of Chinese life satisfaction: Contribution of collective self-esteem. International Journal of Psychology. 2005;40(3):189–200. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhao X., Lan M., Li H., Yang J. Perceived stress and sleep quality among the non-diseased general public in China during the 2019 coronavirus disease: A moderated mediation model. Sleep Medicine. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.sleep.2020.05.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Zimet G.D., Powell S.S., Farley G.K., Werkman S., Berkoff K.A. Psychometric characteristics of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1990;55(3–4):610–617. doi: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Zung W.W. A rating instrument for anxiety disorders. Psychosomatics: Journal of Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry. 1971;12(6):371–379. doi: 10.1016/S0033-3182(71)71479-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Personality and Individual Differences are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES