Vol. 23 No. 3 (2020)
Articles

In an ambiguous situation frightening us

Download PDF View Abstract
  • Katya STOYCHEVA,
  • Kalina POPOVA

Published 12/10/2020

Keywords

  • tolerance – intolerance of ambiguity,
  • anxiety,
  • danger of infection with coronavirus,
  • measures to avoid the infection with coronavirus,
  • measures to prevent the coronavirus spread

How to Cite

STOYCHEVA, K., & POPOVA, K. (2020). In an ambiguous situation frightening us. Psychological Research (in the Balkans), 23(3). Retrieved from https://journalofpsychology.org/index.php/1/article/view/44

Copyright (c) 2020 Psychological Research (in the Balkans)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

In March – May 2020, the Department of Psychology of the Institute for Population and Human Studies at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences conducted an empirical investigation of individuals’ stress and coping strategies in the situation of a spreading coronavirus infection. This is a new, unknown situation which challenges and frightens us with its ambiguity and uncertainty. Ambiguity tolerance is one of the personality characteristics that are relevant to individual behaviour in such a situation (Stoycheva 2003). The present paper examines the theoretical and methodological grounds for the inclusion of this variable into the investigation, and analyses the relationship of individual differences in tolerance – intolerance of ambiguity with some characteristics of the way Bulgarians experience the situation of a spreading coronavirus infection. Individuals with higher intolerance of ambiguity experience higher anxiety, but do not perceive the risk of coronavirus infection as greater. According to them, the measures introduced in the country are more adequate, and they comply more with them, both with the safety measures to avoid coronavirus infection and with the safety measures to prevent the spread of coronavirus infection. These results are discussed in the framework of the proposed theoretical model of the ambiguity intolerant behavior “threat - helplessness – failure to deal with” (Stoycheva 2003).

Download PDF View Abstract

References

  1. Georgieva, R., Bavro, N. (2009). Sotsialnata kriza prez prizmata na ekzistentsialnata psihologia i psihoterapia. [The social crisis through the prism of existential psychology and psychotherapy. Psychological Research, 2, 23-32] (in Bulgarian).
  2. Karastoyanov, G., Hristova, A. (2000). Balgarska adaptatsia na vaprosnika za vazpriet stress. [Bulgarian version of the perceived stress scale. Psychological Research, 1-2, 67-77] (in Bulgarian).
  3. Karastoyanov, G., Hristova, A. (2015). Stres i spravyaneto s nego ot gledna tochka na kognitivno-prejivelishtnata teoria. [Stress and coping with from the point of view of cognitive-experiential theory. In: Psychological-pedagogical knowledge in the context of modernity: theory and practice, Eds. Ahryamkina, T. A., Gorohova, M. U., Potanina, T. A., Samara, 47-61] (in Bulgarian).
  4. Stoycheva, К. (2003). Tolerantnostta kam neopredelenost [Tolerance for ambiguity. Pleven: Lege Artis] (in Bulgarian).
  5. Stoycheva, К., Shtetinski, D., Bajdekova, R. (1998). Metodichesko posobie za rabota s balgarskata adaptatsia na skalata na Robert Norton za tolerantnostta kam neopredelenost МАТ-50 / БG-3 [Norms technical manual for the Bulgarian adaptation of Norton’s questionnaire for measuring ambiguity tolerance MAT-50/BG-3. Sofia: Institute of Psychology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences] (in Bulgarian). Психично здраве Психологични изследвания, Том 23, кн. 3, Декември 2020 297
  6. Hristova, A., Nacheva, I., Andreev, B. (2017). Optimistichni i pesimistichni naglasi v sotsialen kontekst. [Optimistic and pessimistic attitudes in the social context. Psychological Research, 20, 2, 261-285] (in Bulgarian).
  7. Ashford, S. J. (1988). Individual strategies for coping with stress during organizational transitions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 24(1)
  8. Carver, Ch. S. & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality and Coping. Annual Review of Psychology. Vol. 61:679-704
  9. Cohen B. H. (2013). Explaining Psychological Statistics, Wiley, 4th Ed.
  10. Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385-396.
  11. Friedland, N., Keinan, G., Tytiun, T. (1999). The effect of psychological stress and tolerance of ambiguity on stereotypic attributions, Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 12:4
  12. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 141, No. 1, 2-18.
  13. Greco, V. & Roger, D. (2003). Uncertainty, stress, and health. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(6), 1057-1068.
  14. Iannello, P., Mottini, A., Tirelli, S., Riva, S., Antonietti, A. (2017). Ambiguity and uncertainty tolerance, need for cognition, and their association with stress. A study among Italian practicing physicians, Medical Education Online, 22:1
  15. Keinan, G. (1994). Effects of stress and tolerance of ambiguity on magical thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 48-55.
  16. Lazarus, R. & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
  17. Norton, R. W. (1975). Measurement of ambiguity tolerance, Journal of Personality Assessment, 39(6), 607-619.
  18. Tomczak, M. & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. Trends in Sport Sciences 21 (1), 19-25

Most read articles by the same author(s)