The study explored the role of two dissimilar familial and religious practices in distinctly shaping independent and interdependent self-affirmations in two value systems (individualism and collectivism) that emerged to protect self-integrity and self-worth challenged by the threats of COVID-19. A qualitative research design was employed. A heterogeneous sample of 19 participants (10 joint and 9 nuclear families) was recruited who reported in a semi-structured interview about the consequences of COVID-19 and the role of family and religious values in coping with the pandemic threats. The thematic method was used to analyse the data. Codes were generated using a priori criteria while reviewing and re-reviewing, multiple discussions and iterations helped in theme identification and ascertaining validity. Five themes were generated: perceived strong threat of COVID-19, dissimilar genesis of independent and interdependent self-affirmations, positive roles of joint familial values, significance of religious values, and traditional and modern religious routes of self-affirmation. Threats were expressed in experiences of anxiety, uncertainty and mood fluctuations. Interdependence, affiliation and support were joint familial values whereas independence and self-esteem reflected nuclear family-values. Focus on explicit attributes denoted modern while divine interpretation and will of God reflected traditional religious values. Novelty, uncertainty and incurability of COVID-19 caused threats to self-integrity that compelled hem to affirm their most preferred values originating from two family forms. The pandemic posed threats to their self-worth, which in turn, activated affirmations in two distinct value systems leading to the development of independent and interdependent self-affirmations. Study findings will help surface novel features of the two self-affirmations. It provides new insights for making successful behavioural changes at individual, group and community levels for the success of social, health and educational policies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tiwari et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: