tp9171
The paper should be on 2 articles which are as below: The paper…
The paper should be on 2 articles which are as below:
The paper should include the following:
Length: About 1000-1500 words
Instructions:
An introduction where you contextualize the broader issue both articles are discussing, introduce the two articles you are using, and present a thesis that summarizes the connections you are going to make between the articles.
For the introduction, you can follow this basic model:
Set up the context – Provide one or two sentences to begin with that establish the issue you are writing about and that the two sources are exploring. Be general here and cover the broad sense of the topic or thing you are writing about.
Introduce the sources – Next, provide a one sentence summary of the two sources you are writing about. Include the name and title of the source in the sentence and provide a very general overview of what each is saying.
Establish the Thesis / Direction of paper – Finally, provide some sense of how you are putting the two sources into conversation. Offer a sentence that shows the reader where you see agreement / disagreement between the sources as a means of establishing the organization of the paper (more on that below).
After that, the organization of the paper can take two forms (at least):
The first option deals with the two sources in succession. That is, you will present the argument and points of source 1 (S1) in a few paragraphs, then follow that with the arguments and points of source 2 (S2) in several paragraphs. Your discussion of S2 will reference back to S1 as a means of presenting contrast and difference.
A second option deals with the two sources by presenting their arguments in tandem. In this pattern, you will start by presenting the ideas of both S1 and S2 around point one, in one or more paragraphs, followed by their ideas on point two, and so on through the paper. Here, your discussion would focus on the points and present both sources at each point in the paper where you discuss the points.
For Example: While Reena focuses on Anxiety and Depression of student life during covid 19 time and Tsai focuses on positive effects on student Resilience during covid 19 pandemic, both agrees on that Covid 19 creates major disruption in students’ life.
Either of these models of organization work. Choose the one that feels best for you as a writer and for the material you are addressing.
Body Paragraphs (the number will vary) in which you discuss what each of the two. Articles have to say about the issue at hand. You can discuss the articles one at a time, or go back and forth for different points, as you see fit. In the paragraph, however, you should include quotes and paraphrases of ideas and points from the articles as support. for what you are saying. A conclusion in which you briefly summarize the differences between the two sources, and then in which you offer sense of which source is more valid or presents a more compelling take on the issue. Here, you will be offering your evaluation of the sources.
Article 1: Anxiety and Depression among U.S. International Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370125080_Anxiety_and_Depression_among_US_International_Students_During_the_COVID-19_Pandemic
Article 2: The Roles of Positive Affect, Leadership, and Support in Student Resilience During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abstract: The COVID-19 pandemic has been an intense and far-reaching challenge. One aspect of trauma, such as the pandemic, is the ability to show resilience. This study focused on an individual’s ability to display resilience through trying times and uncertainty. More specifically, this study looked to identify the relationship between positive affect and state resilience, while also investigating what type of support was sought and from whom. The idea of servant leadership influencing student resilience was also investigated to understand who and what factored into a student’s ability to display resilience in times of uncertainty and stress. A sample of undergraduate students from a small Midwestern university participated in a mixed-methods study to evaluate perceptions of resilience, affect, and support from servant leaders. The results illustrate a positive correlation between positive affect and demonstrated resiliency in respect to support given to students during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the results also show servant leadership was not a significant contributor in a student’s ability to display resiliency. Moreover, the qualitative data gathered reflects the importance of feeling connected and supported by friends and family, which in turn positively impacted resilience. Future research is needed to further understand how resilience is sustained.
Keywords: resilience, college students, positive affect, leadership, emotional support Fields of specialization: organizational behavior, human resource management, leadership
The year 2020 left society, including organizations and their leaders, stunned. The pandemic brought with it intense change, unexpected trauma, and an increase in mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety (Giorgi et al., 2020). Despite this, individuals and organizations had to find ways to forge on, and some were able to do this better than others. In other words, some individuals demonstrated greater resilience than others during the pandemic.
If researchers can better understand what promotes resilience, then organizations would serve to benefit, as resilience has been linked to important organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Youssef and Luthans, 2007) and may serve to improve employee performance (Luna-Arocas and Danvila-del-Valle, 2022). Thus, the purpose of this research study was to explore resilience, determine what factors may have increased one’s ability to be resilient, and whether particular leadership styles foster resiliency. This study also examined what type of support people sought out and from whom.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
Resilience is the ability to “carry on” or positively adapt, even given significant adversity (Garcia-Dia et al., 2013; Luthar et al., 2000), and is an essential trait when dealing with adversity (Yu et al., 2022). Some researchers have viewed resilience as related to more of a static and engrained trait (Block and Block, 2006), which can be termed “trait resilience.” However, most researchers agree that resilience has much more to do with other external factors (Jogulu and Franken, 2023; Luthar et al., 2000; Southwick et al., 2017), and have thus focused more on “state resilience.” If resilience is a result of external factors (Bowman, 2022), and given that the pandemic was a very significant adverse event, it leads to the question of what factors contributed to some individuals being more resilient during the pandemic than others.
Positive Affect and Resilience
Perhaps the greatest source of insight into what kept individuals resilient during the pandemic may be found in the literature on coping. Although initially focused largely on negative emotions and their adaptive nature, coping researchers eventually shifted to examine the role of positive emotions in coping (Folkman, 2008; Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000). For instance, Lazarus et al. (1980) suggest that positive emotions play a pivotal role in the coping process by providing a psychological break to individuals in distress, which may allow them to replenish resources that have been depleted. The revised stress and coping model (Folkman, 2008) builds upon this notion by suggesting that positive emotions are associated with more positive forms of coping such as problem-focused coping and positive reappraisal.
The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions (Frederickson 1998; 2001) further supports the connection between positive emotions and coping. The broaden- and-build theory suggests, in part, that positive emotions help to build an individual’s personal resources (e.g., physical, intellectual, and social resources), resources which may be diminished due to stress (Folkman and Moskowitz, 2000). Thus, individuals may be able to better cope during stressful times by using positive emotions to help replenish internal resources, thereby allowing them to remain resilient.
Consistent with the notion that positive emotions play a role in resilience, this study focuses on positive affect as a possible factor in building resilience. Affect encompasses both emotions and moods (Brief and Weiss, 2002), and numerous studies have supported the link between positive emotions and resilience. For instance, across a series of studies, Tugade and Fredrickson (2004) found that the experience of positive emotions contributed to individuals’ abilities to cope with, and bounce back from, stressful situations by assisting with emotional regulation. Additionally, research into employee resilience during an organizational crisis suggests that greater levels of positive affect for team members predicted greater resilience for those members, thus, supporting the positive connection between positive affect and resilience (Sommer et al., 2016). For this reason, the following hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Increased positive affect will be associated with increased resilience.
Servant Leadership and Resilience
Although individuals may be able to promote their own resilience through positive affect and other factors, in many circumstances, individuals may need the support of others such as leaders (Awasthi and Walumbwa, 2022). This may be especially true during a crisis such as the pandemic. Individual’s reactions to the pandemic have included fear, anxiety, depression and withdrawal, and leaders offering a support system are needed more than ever. In fact, they may be required (Smothers, 2021). The physical and emotional support provided by leaders could make a substantial impact on an individual’s ability to cope with, and respond to, the challenges of the pandemic.
This research study focused on servant leadership when addressing the complex nature of support and resilience needed for individuals to navigate through so much personal and professional upheaval. Servant leaders tend to focus on serving, caring, and compassion (Nahavandi, 2015). Servant leaders have also historically been associated with building strong, ethical, and nurturing bonds with employees that would help them to thrive using persistence and perseverance (Greenleaf, 1970).
According to Greenleaf (1970), servant leaders have the desire to serve others. They do not need the spotlight, nor do they need recognition for their own accomplishments. Rather servant leaders are characterized by such qualities as community building, stewardship, foresight, conceptualization, awareness, persuasion, growth, listening, empathy, and healing (Spears, 2005). They also show an ability to nurture, communicate, and negotiate (Awasthi and Walumbwa, 2022). To build confidence and increase self-sufficiency, the servant leader allows others to learn and grow. Changes as a result of the pandemic, including remote work and increased autonomy, were anticipated to lend themselves to a leadership style that fostered growth and independence. At the same time, many individuals needed emotional and social support to combat feelings of isolation, exclusion, and loneliness. Servant leaders have historically been able to provide support as they expand skills, create a safe space for dialog, and show empathy for others during times of struggle or duress (Awasthi and Walumbwa, 2022; Nahavandi, 2015).
For these reasons, it was anticipated that individuals would find support through servant leaders in their lives. Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
Hypothesis 2: Servant leadership will be positively associated with resilience.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Given the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, the authors thought it important to also explore how individuals responded to the pandemic, and the support they needed to remain resilient. Reactions to changes and stress tend to be very personal in nature, and can be impacted by gender, culture, environment, and context (Jogulu and Franken, 2023). While some can adjust to transitions rather easily, others do not (Bridges, 2016; Kotter, 2012). The reasons for this are varied and include such things as the availability of resources and psychological health (Murphy et al., 2022). The pandemic highlights this distinction as society saw some individuals become very isolated and fearful, while others took on a role to help or support others. Therefore, this study also explored what type of support individuals received, how often, and what outcomes the support provided (e.g., reduced anxiety, more confidence, ability to adjust, etc.). Because of the exploratory nature of this portion of the study, no formal hypotheses are provided here.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 111 undergraduate Introductory Psychology students (44 males; 62 females; 3 nonbinary; 1 unreported) from a small Midwestern private university participated in the study for research participation credit. The majority of participants identified as Caucasian (60%) with Latino/Hispanic students being the largest minority (22%). Additionally, participants ranged in age from 18 to 55 years, but most participants were either 18 (60%) or 19 (23%) years of age.
Undergraduate college students were chosen to participate in this study for a number of reasons. First, they are a convenient sample of participants that offered an opportunity to begin understanding the factors that affect resilience and to begin to assess the reliability of measures that may be used in future studies in other samples such as workers. Second, college students have been particularly affected by the pandemic, resulting in an increase in mental and emotional challenges for them (Browning et al., 2021; Madrigal and Blevins, 2021). Thus, by understanding what promotes college students’ resilience, researchers can gain insight into what may promote worker resilience during challenging times.
Procedure
Participants provided informed consent and then completed an online survey containing the study items. The study items included an assessment of demographic, as well as qualitative and quantitative factors. A description of the quantitative measures and qualitative questions follows.
Quantitative Measures
Positive Affect. Items from the positive affect subscale of the International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form (I-PANAS-SF; Thompson, 2007) were used to assess participants’ positive affect during the pandemic. Participants were presented with three positive emotion adjectives and asked to indicate how often they felt each of these emotions during the pandemic on a scale from 1-5, with 1 indicating Never and 5 indicating Always.
State and trait resilience. The State-Trait Assessment of Resilience Scale (STARS; Lock et al., 2020) was used to assess participants’ state and trait resilience. For state resilience, participants were asked to indicate how they feel right now regarding six items. An example includes, “At the moment I can cope with any difficulties I might face in my life.” For trait resilience, participants were asked to indicate how they feel in general regarding seven items such as: “I generally bounce back following stressful situations.” Participants indicated the extent of their agreement with each item using a scale from 1-4 (1 = disagree; 4 = strongly agree).
Servant leadership. Servant leadership was assessed using a short form of the Servant Leadership Behavior Scale (SLBS-6; Sendjaya et al., 2019). Participants were asked to think about the person who supported them most during the pandemic and respond to six items such as, “This person uses power in service to others, not for his or her ambition.” Participants responded using a five-point scale wherein 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Qualitative Assessments
For this portion of the online survey, participants were asked to think about the person who has supported them the most through the pandemic and then were asked to respond to a series of questions regarding that person. The questions included asking about the participant’s relationship with the person who supported them (e.g., family member, friend, etc.) and how long they had known him or her. Participants also indicated how frequently they were in contact with the person who supported them and the gender of that individual. (See Table 1 for a summary of these responses.) Additionally, participants were asked to describe in what ways the individual supported them, including a specific example of how they were supported.
Table 1
Frequency Tables for Qualitative Analysis
Who Supported You?
No. of Responses
Family Member
59
Friend
31
No one supported me
10
Significant Other
6
Leader at School
2
Therapist
1
My Dog
1
Gender of Supporter
No. of Responses
Female
66
Male
34
N/A
11
Frequency of Contact
No. of Responses
Daily
88
Weekly
12
Less Frequently than Monthly
1
N/A
10
How long have you known them?
No. of Responses
Less than a Year
8
1-5 Years
26
More than 5 Years
70
No Answer
7
Overview of Analyses
Correlation and regression were used to analyze the quantitative data. The qualitative data was analyzed using an iterative coding process, conducted by two independent researchers. The primary qualitative researcher reconciled the few discrepancies. The process resulted in a clear distinction between “physical” supports and “emotional” supports. All coding was separated into these two categories.
RESULTS
Quantitative Analysis
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations for each of the study variables. The table also indicates the correlations among each of the study variables. As seen in the table, positive affect was positively correlated with state resilience. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported. However, servant leadership was not significantly correlated with resilience. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is not supported, and no further analyses were conducted using the servant leadership variable.
Table 2
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Factors
Factor
M
SD
1
2
3
4
1. Positive Affect
3.28
0.74
0.72
2. Trait Resilience
3.19
0.56
0.53*
0.85
3. State Resilience
2.93
0.64
0.53*
0.69*
0.86
4. Servant Leadership
4.22
0.73
0.14
0.17
0.17
0.89
Note. N = 102. Cronbach’s alphas for each scale are on the diagonal.
*p <0.01. To further assess the effect of positive affect on state resilience, a regression analysis was conducted in which trait resilience was used as a controlfactor. Table 3 shows the results of this analysis. Positive affect did significantly predict state resilience even after controlling for trait resilience, thus further supporting Hypothesis 1. Table 3 Regression Coefficients of Positive Affect on State Resilience Variable Model 1 Model 2 B ß SE B ß SE Constant 0.46 0.26 0.26 0.26 Trait Resilience 0.78*** 0.69*** 0.08 0.65*** 0.57*** 0.09 Positive Affect 0.19** 0.22** 0.07 R2 0.47*** 0.51** ?R2 0.04** Note. N = 102. This analysis examined the impact of positive affect on state resilience. In Model 1, control variable of trait resilience was entered as a predictor. In Model 2, positive affect was added as a predictor. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001 Qualitative Analysis As noted earlier, Table 1 illustrates the frequency of answers in particular categories. It is not surprising that the highest two categories of respondents indicated that their support came from a family member or friend in that order. Given that the population is college students, this was to be expected. A full 60% of respondents indicated that the person they turned to was female, and 80% of respondents indicated that they had contact with this person on a daily basis. In the questionnaire, one question asked individuals "In what ways did this person support you?" This allowed respondents to answer in a general way. Answers ranged from one-word answers to several sentences. For another question, respondents were encouraged to be specific, and share, "What is a specific way they supported you?" Individuals were not always successful in providing more specific details, but their responses helped highlight what type of support they looked for during the pandemic. Individuals differentiated between emotional support and physical/financial support, with the vast majority, 69% of all codes pulled from the comments calling to mind emotional support. This includes comments where it was either unclear whether the respondent was referencing emotional support, or where the comment included references to both emotional and physical support. Examples of these types of comments include "They would listen to me when times got tough and validated what I was thinking," or "They constantly helped keep my mind away from overthinking and if I were struggling they would help me confront and cope with it." Within the emotional support comments, there was a repeated pattern of individuals using the phrase "there for me," indicating that the help was likely more intimate, multi-faceted, and continuous in nature. This phrase, "there for me," appeared in 19 different responses, making it the most repeated phrase throughout the survey. Some respondents used this exact phrase, "Always there for me," while others added context, "He (my dad) is always there for me and can tell when I am upset or stressed, and when he sees that he helps to ground me." Most of the emotional comments indicated maintenance support, or help simply maintaining the status quo. An often-repeated phrase was "listened to me." One individual shared "[They] listened to me and supported my decisions," and another, "We would talk most days and communicate how we were feeling." Many individuals also sought support for negative emotions, common during the pandemic. Stress, loneliness, and dealing with tough times were mentioned multiple times. One statement that best seems to exemplify this: "She kept me company when I felt lonely. Kept me from feeling fearful about the pandemic." A few respondents (20% of emotional support comments) referred to positive emotions. Several of these people mentioned having someone to laugh with, or generally helping to alleviate the isolating conditions of the pandemic. For example, one individual shared, "[This person was] someone I could talk to and have fun with during the lockdown." In 47% of the codes pulled from the comments, including those where the comment was unclear or referenced both physical and emotional support, individuals mentioned physical support. This included everything from financial support to playing sports, to providing food and shelter. Most comments in this category referenced financial support, including "Financially, in ways that a mother is expected to support her children," and "They make sure me and my siblings eat and have a roof [over] our head." Examples of non-financial ways individuals sought support generally included activities that helped with distraction or alleviated the loneliness and isolation of the pandemic. These activities included talking with the person, going on drives, and playing golf, volleyball, and videogames. One person shared, "She made what was called the quarantine Olympics which she definitely got off of Facebook." While several individuals chose not to answer this question, and six more entered a response of n/a, only one individual responded that they had not experienced any support during the pandemic saying, "No one helped me because I don't tell people about my issues generally." When asked to consider specific examples of how someone had supported them during the pandemic, the responses, expectedly, spoke more often to physical support or specific actions taken by the supporter. Emotional support (non-physical), however, still accounted for 42% of the codes from these comments. In many cases, this non-physical support came in the form of advice. For example, one individual shared, "I was going through a rough time because of school so I called her, she gave me good advice." Another individual stated, "It's more of the fact that if I am struggling, that person always stops and helps me, guides me and try to give me the best advice." As in the previous question, when discussing physical support, there are mentions of both financial and non-financial support, with the non-financial support being twice as common as the financial support. In the non-financial category, the most common elements include talking, followed by other activities that involve individuals spending time together. Typical of these types of statements include the following, "Specifically she would exercise every morning with me which would help me get out of bed and not stay in bed all day. We would also watch Netflix shows together so we wouldn't feel so alone in the pandemic." DISCUSSION The current study was intended to explore resilience, determine what factors may have increased one's ability to be resilient, and whether particular leadership styles foster resiliency. The study also explored what type of support people sought out and from whom. Findings from this study indicate that positive affect did predict state resilience, which aligns with feelings of being supported that were indicated in the qualitative results. Support was demonstrated in different ways, although the main message was having someone that would "be there" and "talk to me." Emotional support was indeed the most salient type of support indicated by participants. Although support needed may differ person by person, the current study findings suggest that a sense of having someone who cared and listened, as well as someone who was "there for you," may create the strongest sense of resilience. Interestingly, Hypothesis 2, relating to the role of servant leadership in resilience, was not supported. Perhaps during the trying times of the pandemic, individuals focused on support from family and friends. As a result, those support networks may not have been perceived as a "leader" in a more formal sense. It is also possible that individuals needed support day to day; and that they looked for someone to help hold them steady rather than to create leadership within them, which is often associated with the qualities of a servant leader. Limitations and Future Research Directions There were some limitations to the current research. First, the sample size was relatively small. Second, the data was collected from undergraduate students from only one Midwestern university. Thus, generalization of the findings is limited. Additionally, while the first hypothesis was supported, the relationship indicated between the variables is strictly correlational in nature, and therefore, no cause and effect can be determined. There is much to be gained by studying resilience during a crisis. Those who are resilient may push through the uncertainty and achieve goals rather than feeling deflated or sidetracked. These are important personal and professional qualities that can influence productivity, satisfaction, and overall mental health. For this reason, and because of the limitations of the current study, additional studies looking into the promotion of resilience are needed. In addition to studying resilience further in college students, future studies should examine the factors from this study within a work environment. It would be interesting to see whether similar results would be found. It would also be especially helpful to know whether servant leadership would play a role in resilience within a workplace. Theoretical Implications The finding that positive affect significantly predicted state resilience supports the notion that positive emotions are related to better coping. Indeed, qualitative responses regarding support during the pandemic focused largely on emotional support versus other types of support (e.g., physical, financial, etc.). This suggests that emotions play a key role in helping individuals to stay resilient, and consistent with the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotion (Fredrickson, 1998; 2001), it would seem that students who are better able to summon positive emotions and get support in doing so, are better able to remain resilient. It would be helpful to gain an understanding as to whether the same would be true in the workplace in future studies. Practical Implications The results of this study highlight a few different implications for higher education institutions and organizations. The first is understanding that positive affect and state resilience have a positive correlational relationship. This finding is important because state resilience is not fixed and is dynamic in nature; it can be learned and influenced. Higher education institutions and organizations can play a role in supporting an individual's state resilience by ensuring that their students and employees feel supported in one way or another through limiting negative affect. As seen in the qualitative data results, many students received support from individuals who they trusted. Thus, it is important for both institutions and organizations to recognize this and ensure that students and employees have proper support during times of chaos or uncertainty. Leaders can encourage their students and employees to reach out to those they trust to empower and empathize with them. Moreover, institutions can ensure that support resources (e.g., counseling services, affinity groups, etc.) are available in case extra support is needed. CONCLUSION The COVID-19 pandemic caused a great deal of disruption to everyone's lives. Individuals had to find ways to carry on and remain resilient. This study examined the role of positive affect and servant leadership on resilience and explored what support individuals sought, and from whom, during the pandemic. Given that the pandemic will not be the last major crisis or disruption, it is imperative that research into resilience in organizations continue, so organizations know how best to support the well-being of their employees and others who they serve.
