A Qualitative Analysis of Older Adults’ Cognitive Appraisal in Coping during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Social Capital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to adaptively cope with the challenges of stressful events such as the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial for healthy aging. One effective coping strategy is social coping in which social networks are tapped for support. However, our review of the current literature on older adults’ coping abilities reveals two shortcomings: (1) a lack of consideration of a specific context and (2) an inadequate amount of attention paid to the different types of social networks in the cognitive appraisal process. As coping is a process in which older adults undergo the cognitive appraisal process to identify appropriate coping strategies, the shortcomings result in an incomplete understanding of older adults’ coping efforts and impair the development of effective community and intervention programs to improve older adults’ well-being. To fill this gap, drawing on the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping and the Social Capital Theory, we conducted 22 interviews with older adults who experienced lockdown measures during COVID-19. Our in-depth qualitative analysis shows the different roles played by bonding and bridging social capital in the cognitive appraisal process and illustrates the influence of a specific context on cognitive appraisals and subsequent coping efforts. Our findings provide significant contributions to theories regarding coping and social capital, as well as practices and policies for improving the well-being of older adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".