Next Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Analyses of the Event of Death for 1480 in Milan Using the Data Contained in the Sforza’s Registers of the Dead
Previous Article in Journal
Loneliness in Older Migrants: Exploring the Role of Cultural Differences in Their Loneliness Experience
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 20
Issue 4
10.3390/ijerph20042782
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Emotional Regulation, Resilience, and Distress Disclosure on Post-Traumatic Growth in Nursing Students

by
Kyungmi Kim
1,
Jongeun Lee
2,* and
Jaeyeon Yoon
1
1
Department of Nursing, Gangdong University, Eumseong-gun 27690, Republic of Korea
2
Department of Nursing Science, College of Medicine, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju-si 28644, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20(4), 2782; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042782
Submission received: 8 January 2023 / Revised: 29 January 2023 / Accepted: 2 February 2023 / Published: 4 February 2023
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Nursing students, who need to reflect on self, secure their identity, and be prepared as would-be nurses, can make a good use of post-traumatic growth (PTG) that can function as a catalyst for positive change even amidst this COVID-19 crisis. Emotional regulation strategies in traumatic events are key factors for successful growth, resilience is positively associated with PTG, and distress disclosure is an important factor for stress reduction. In this context, this study is a descriptive research study to identify factors influencing the PTG of nursing students, using emotional regulation, resilience, and distress disclosure as the main variables. Data were collected from 231 junior and senior students of the nursing departments of two universities, and the collected data were analyzed using the t-test, the Mann–Whitney U test, ANOVA, the Scheffé test, Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and stepwise multiple regression in SPSS/WIN 26.0. Analysis of the PTG scores of the nursing students by general characteristics revealed significant differences in PTG according to the transfer status, perceived health status, and levels of satisfaction with major, hybrid-learning class, interpersonal relationship satisfaction, and clinical practice. Factors influencing PTG were identified to be resilience, reappraisal among emotional regulation strategies, satisfaction with clinical practice, and transfer, with the overall explanatory power calculated at 44%. Based on the results of this study, it is necessary to consider resilience and reappraisal, which is a sub-variable of emotional regulation strategies, in order to develop programs designed to promote PTG of nursing students in the future.

1. Introduction

COVID-19, the worst global public health crisis ever, with its unprecedented transmission rate and mutation process that defy comparison with previous epidemics, such as SARS or MERS, has a tremendous impact on our daily lives and behavior, causing depression and extreme stress [1]. People who have been exposed directly or indirectly to the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years may develop posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms [2]. PTSD is a mental illness that appears after experiencing extreme stress that threatens life of body [2]. Such psychosocial effects can appear and persist in complex forms of physical sequelae and psychological problems such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms, and social problems such as unemployment and economic difficulties, even after the end of the pandemic [3]. In a study analyzing the impact of the lockdown policy due to the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of the general public, PTSD symptoms were observed, more markedly in women and younger adults [4]. However, while traumatic events can trigger PTSD symptoms, they can also act as a catalyst for positive change [5].
Post Traumatic Growth (PTG) refers to positive psychological changes perceived by individuals after exposure to traumatic or adverse events by achieving a personal development that goes beyond their usual psychological functions and coping abilities. It means a change in human psychology [6]. Trauma is a wound caused by experiencing a shocking and painful event [7]. Traumatic events include physical and emotional maltreatments and disasters, including war [8], and the South Korean “Framework Act on Disaster and Safety Management” defines infectious diseases as social disaster [9]. Thus, COVID-19-like disaster events can have considerable adverse effects on individuals [10]. However, traumatic experiences do not necessarily develop into maladjustment or psychopathology; rather, they can also function as a driving force to further growth [11].
Over the lifetime, 71.9% of adolescents, college students, and adults experience one or more traumatic events [12], and 26.5% of nursing students were found to have experienced trauma in their daily lives, and 61.2% during clinical practice [13]. Prior to COVID-19, most of the nursing education courses in Korea were face-to-face classes, except for practical training, but after the COVID-19 pandemic, various forms of hybrid learning were introduced. Hybrid learning is a teaching method where teachers instruct in-person and remote students at the same time [14]. Nursing students are required to have the ability to flexibly cope with these types of classes. Nursing students perceive fear of COVID-19 infection and death and can lose confidence and fall into depression due to severance of interpersonal relationships, economic difficulties, fear of practice, and fear of coursework and employment. However, they were also found to begin to reflect on self amid this global crisis, secure their identity, and realize their role as student nurses [15]. Emotional regulation in traumatic events is a key factor for successful growth, resilience is positively associated with life satisfaction and PTG [16], and distress disclosure is an important factor for stress reduction [17].
Emotional regulation is an individual’s ability to react to stress as a coping strategy that regulates a wide range of functions such as emotional, behavioral, cognitive, physiological, and environmental functions [18], and has been attracting increasing interest as an important factor in relation to social adaptation problems [19]. Emotional regulation in nursing students was found to be conducive to stress reduction and help improve their nursing professionalism [20]. Emotional dysregulation was found to be a contributing factor for the exacerbation of PTSD symptoms [21], and emotional regulation is essential in effectively alleviating and preventing PTSD symptoms in college students exposed to trauma [22].
Resilience can function as an important growth factor in individuals because it reflects the ability to return their energies and abilities impaired through exposure to trauma back to the pre-trauma levels and to achieve recovery [23]. Nursing students’ ability to overcome difficult situations and endure adversity is attributable to resilience [24]. Nursing students’ resilience is a predictor of their ability to cope with stress, and those with high resilience can leverage positive emotions for recovery even in the face of stress [25].
Distress disclosure refers to an individual’s tendency to reveal personally distressing information to others [26]. Individuals who can express their feelings well, verbally or non-verbally, can reduce their pain caused by suppressed emotions and improve their insights, which has a desirable effect on interpersonal relationships [27]. Nursing students’ self-disclosure has been reported to be a major factor in reducing clinical practice stress [17]. In a related study, participants who proceeded to deep self-disclosure to a person who listened to and accepted their pain reported on their feeling of relief and lightness of heart [28]. Disclosing one’s painful events and negative emotions to a social supporter promotes PTG through its effect of alleviating negative feelings [29]. In addition, some studies [30,31] demonstrated that distress disclosure was associated with PTG.
People with traumatic experiences try to understand themselves and the world anew by examining the causal relationships and meaning of the problem after the traumatic experience. This challenge, which is a process of emotional regulation of severe stress caused by the traumatic experience, helps trauma survivors better adapt and promotes PTG [32]. There are studies on nursing students’ traumatic experiences and PTG during clinical practice [13] and the experience of PTG experience in nursing students [28]. However, little research has been dedicated to PTG after the national disaster of the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, this study was conducted to examine the PTG factors in nursing students who had experienced the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim of preparing basic data to help nursing students better adapt. To this end, the following objectives have been formulated:
(1) Examining the differences in PTG according to the general characteristics of nursing students;
(2) Identifying the emotional regulation strategies, resilience, distress disclosure, and PTG level in nursing students;
(3) Calculating the correlations between major variables;
(4) Determining the factors influencing PTG in nursing students.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Participants

The present study used a descriptive survey design to identify the relationship between emotional regulation, resilience, distress disclosure and PTG in nursing students and to identify the factors influencing PTG. The sample size was calculated using the G power 3.1 program. Based on a medium effect size of 0.15, a significance level of 0.05, a power of 0.90 and 21 predictors used for multiple linear regression analysis, the minimum number of participants required for this study was 195. The study population consisted of 231 nursing students (115 and 116 juniors, and seniors, respectively) from two nursing colleges in Chungcheong Province, Korea.

2.2. Research Instruments

2.2.1. Post Traumatic Growth Inventory-X (PTGI-X)

The level of PTG was measured using the Post Traumatic Growth Inventory-X (PTGI-X) developed by Tedeschi et al. [33] and adapted into Korean and validated by Kim et al. [34]. This questionnaire consisted of a total of 25 items, with each item rated on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 6 = to a very great degree). The total score is calculated by adding up the item scores, and a higher score indicates a higher level of positive posttraumatic changes. The internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.97 in the study by Kim et al. [34], and 0.95 in this study.

2.2.2. Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)

Emotional regulation strategy was measured using the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) developed by Gross and John [35], adapted by Shon [36], and modified by Cho and Lee [37] into an easy-to-answer 5-point scale. This 10-item psychometric instrument consists of two domains: reappraisal (6 items) and suppression (4 items). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very great degree), with a higher total score indicating a higher degree of using the emotional regulation strategy of cognitive reassessment or emotional suppression. The internal reliability of ERQ was 0.85 for reappraisal and 0.73 for suppression in the study by Shon [36], and 0.87 and 0.77, respectively, in this study.

2.2.3. Resilience

Resilience was measured using a resilience scale developed by Yang et al. [38] for nursing students. Each item of this 24-item instrument is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very great degree), with a higher total score indicating a higher level of resilience. The internal reliability of the instrument was 0.84 at the time of development, and 0.90 in this study.

2.2.4. Distress Disclosure Index (DDI)

The level of distress disclosure was measured using the Distress Disclosure Index (DDI) developed by Kahn and Hessling [39] and adapted by Shin and Ahn [40]. DDI measures an individual’s tendency to disclose emotions and thoughts after experiencing a negative event. Each item of this 12-item instrument is rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 5 = to a very great degree), with a higher total score indicating a higher tendency to disclose uncomfortable information. The internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of the original scale was 0.95, that of the adapted version as reported by Shin and Ahn [40] was 0.92, and 0.92 in this study.

2.3. Data Collection and Ethical Consideration

The present study was conducted with an approval from the Institutional Review Board of “C” University. Data were collected between 20 and 26 June 2022, using Google Forms as a non-face-to-face mobile questionnaire survey. To protect personal information, items containing personal identifiable information were not separately collected, and serial numbers were assigned to the questionnaire to ensure confidentiality. The announcement of recruitment of research participants was posted on the social media platform used by all university students, along with a link to the Google Form for the online consent form and information sheet. The questionnaire required approximately 15 min to complete. After completing the survey, we provided mobile drink coupons to those who provided their personal contact information as a token of appreciation for their participation. After the coupon was issued, all personal information was destroyed.

2.4. Data Analysis

Data collected in the study were analyzed using the IBM SPSS Statistics 26.0 program (IBM Corp, NY, USA). The general characteristics of the participants were analyzed using frequency/percentage and mean/standard deviation (SD). Analysis of the differences in PTG according to general characteristics was performed using the independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, and the Mann–Whitney test, and the Scheffé test was used for post hoc testing. The correlations between PTG, emotional regulation, resilience, and distress disclosure were calculated using Pearson’s correlation coefficients, and a stepwise regression analysis was performed to determine the factors influencing the participants’ PTG.

3. Results

3.1. Respondents’ General Characteristics

Respondents’ general characteristics can be summarized as follows: approximately equal number of juniors (49.8%) and seniors (50.2%) participated in the survey; gender distribution was uneven with 15.2% males and 84.8% females; transfer students accounted for 5.6%; the majority of students were living with the family (65.4%), had no religions (68.0%), and rated their parents’ economic status as middle level (53.2%); approximately equal number of students rated their health status as healthy (45.9%) or average (46.3%), was satisfied (46.8%) or neutral (45%) with their major, and was neutral (46.8%) or dissatisfied (41.6%) with their academic achievements; “neutral” was the most frequent response to the question about satisfaction with hybrid-learning class (47.2%), interpersonal relationship (52.8%), and clinical practice (56.3%) (Table 1).
The results of analyzing the differences in PTG according to general characteristics are as follows. PTG showed significant differences depending on the transfer status (t = −2.14, p = 0.032), as did the subjective health status, with the group that perceived themselves as “healthy” scoring significantly higher in PTGI-X than the “poor” health group in post hoc testing (F = 3.37, p = 0.036). Differences were observed in PTG between different levels of satisfaction with the major, with the “satisfied” ‘and “neutral” groups scoring significantly higher than the “dissatisfied” group in post hoc testing (F = 8.28, p < 0.001). Differences were observed also in PTG between different levels of satisfaction with the hybrid-learning class, with the “satisfied” group scoring significantly higher than the “dissatisfied” group in post hoc testing (F = 4.13, p = 0.017). Differences were observed also in PTG between different levels of satisfaction with interpersonal relationship, with the “neutral” and “satisfied” groups scoring significantly higher than the “dissatisfied” group in post hoc testing (F = 12.70, p < 0.001). Significant differences were observed in PTG between different levels of satisfaction with clinical practice, scoring in the PTGI-X in descending order or satisfied, neutral, and dissatisfied groups in post hoc testing (F = 12.63, p < 0.001).

3.2. PTG, Emotional Regulation, Resilience, and Distress Disclosure Levels

The participants’ overall mean PTG was 3.90 ± 0.91. The mean scores of the two domains of emotional regulation were 2.61 ± 0.92 and 3.32 ± 0.87 for suppression and reappraisal, respectively. The mean score for resilience was 3.70 ± 0.54, and that of distress disclosure, 3.25 ± 0.81 (Table 2).

3.3. Correlations among PTG, Emotional Regulation, Resilience, and Distress Disclosure

Table 3 shows the analysis results of the correlation between PTG, emotional regulation, and distress disclosure of the subjects. The participant’s PTG showed significant positive correlations with the emotional regulation strategy “reappraisal” (r = 0.56, p < 0.001), resilience (r = 0.59, p < 0.001), and distress disclosure (r = 0.18, p = 0.005). The emotional regulation strategy “suppression” showed a significant positive correlation with the emotional regulation strategy “reappraisal” (r = 0.23, p < 0.001) and significant negative correlation with distress disclosure (r = −0.62, p < 0.001). Resilience showed a significant positive correlation with distress disclosure (r = 0.32, p < 0.001).

3.4. Determinants of PTG

Factors influencing nursing students’ PTG were analyzed using stepwise regression, with the variables that exhibited significant differences in the participants’ general characteristics, resilience, emotional regulation strategy “reappraisal,” and distress disclosure set as independent variables. Among these variables, categorical variables were entered into the regression model after being converted to dummy variables. Consequently, the regression model was found to be statistically significant (F = 45.24, p < 0.001), with its explanatory power calculated at 44%. The variance inflation factor (VIF) ranged from 1.01 to 1.66, with all variables determined to have no multicollinearity problem. Analysis of the residuals confirmed the normality of error terms, homogeneity of variances, and the linearity of the model. In the autocorrelation test, the Durbin-Watson statistic stood at 1.97, i.e., close to 2, indicating the absence of autocorrelation. The most important factor influencing PTG was resilience (β = 0.37, p < 0.001), followed by emotional regulation strategy “reappraisal” (β = 0.31, p < 0.001), satisfaction with clinical practice (β = 0.14, p = 0.005), and transfer status (β = 0.13, p = 0.012) (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This study examined the correlations among PTG, emotional regulation, resilience, and distress disclosure in nursing students, and determined the factors influencing their PTG. As a result of this study, the factors influencing PTG were resilience and emotional regulation strategy—’reappraisal’, satisfaction with clinical practice, and transfer status.
The participants’ general characteristics that showed differences in PTG were transfer status, subjective health status, and the levels of satisfaction with major, hybrid-learning class, interpersonal relationship, and clinical practice.
Transfer students scored higher in PTG than general admission students. The PTG score of transfer students was higher compared to the results of previous studies on nursing students [13,41]. The Department of Nursing is a department that operates a nursing education certification program and requires additional credits for graduation in addition to the graduation requirements of the university. Therefore, in the case of general transfer, even if transferred to the third year, it is common for more than one year of study time to be added to graduate, and students who want to transfer apply with this burden. Although a direct comparison cannot be made as there is no similar study, it is thought that the high PTG score of transfer students is due to the challenge and effort to transfer to the department of nursing while putting down the existing stable life [42].
Nursing students who perceived their health as good and were satisfied with clinical practice scored higher in PTG compared with those who answered otherwise, which is consistent with the findings of previous research [13]. A positive perception of one’s health can maintain and improve physical and mental health and enhance access to social support [43], which in turn may contribute to enhancing PTG.
In this study, nursing students who were dissatisfied with their major showed lower PTG than those who were not, consistent with the result of a previous study [41]. Nursing students dissatisfied with their major can have confused and negative views of their job, which can negatively affect their adaptation to clinical settings [44]. Low satisfaction with major leads to low self-esteem, which in turn can exert a negative effect on PTG [45].
Students who responded flexibly to the hybrid-learning class scored higher in PTG than those who did not. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, students participated in various types of classes in which real-time remote classes and asynchronous video classes were mixed. While a direct comparison cannot be made for lack of previous research on the relationship between satisfaction with hybrid-learning class and PTG, it is worthwhile to note the results of a study on college students attending e-learning classes [46] that the level of emotional regulation varied depending on the level of participation in e-learning activities and that passive learners experienced negative emotions more frequently than active learners. These results support the research finding the active participation in e-learning classes help the learner vent their feelings instead of suppressing them, which can positively affect PTG [47]. Therefore, it is necessary for teachers to use various teaching methods to better motivate learners to actively participate in class.
Nursing students satisfied with their interpersonal relationships scored higher in PTG than their dissatisfied counterparts, which is consistent with the research finding that PTG scores were significantly higher in university students who were satisfied with their interpersonal relationships than who were not [48], and also in line with the research finding that social support is needed to succeed in PTG [49].
Finally, the positive correlation between PTG and satisfaction with clinical satisfaction is also in line with the research finding that nursing students with high satisfaction with clinical practice can actively cope with stress and adapt to crisis situation [50,51].
The PTG score of the nursing students in this study was 78 on a 100-point scale, which is higher than the 61.3 points [41] and 52.6 points [13] of the studies using the original version of PTGI prior to expansion. From the higher score achieved in this study using the PTGI-X, the extended version of PTGI, it can be inferred that the expanded version measures more sensitively than the original version by adding four existential growth items. The resilience score of this study was 3.70 ± 0.54, which was slightly higher than 3.56 ± 0.44 of a previous study on nursing students [52]. The mean score for suppression, one of the two domains of emotional regulation, was 2.61 ± 0.92, which is slightly higher than that of 2.56 ± 4.53 achieved by health teachers [53] and similar to 2.62 ± 2.91 achieved by adolescents [54]. The mean score for reappraisal, the other domain of emotional regulation, was 3.32 ± 0.87, lower than 3.59 ± 9.37 and 3.58 ± 3.86 achieved by health teachers and adolescents [53,54]. This indicates that nursing students are less successful than health teachers and adolescents in changing their thoughts as an emotional regulation strategy. The nursing students’ mean score for distress disclosure was 3.25 ± 0.81, similar to 3.25 ± 8.93 in college students [55] and slightly lower than 3.36 ± 0.48 in firefighters [30].
According to the correlation analysis of this study, nursing students’ PTG was positively correlated with the emotional regulation domain “cognitive reappraisal,” but not with the other domain “emotional suppression,” which is consistent with the research finding that the higher the cognitive reappraisal, the higher the PTG score in college students [56], but inconsistent with the research finding that adults who frequently used emotional suppression strategy did not experience PTG [57]. This may be interpreted as meaning that cognitive reappraisal may have a stronger impact on PTG compared to emotional suppression by significantly reducing discomfort [58,59,60]. Therefore, to help nursing students better succeed in PTG, it is necessary to provide a program with contents that can promote cognitive reappraisal. Nursing students’ resilience was found to be correlated with PTG and determined as a contributing factor for PTG, which is consistent with the reports in previous studies [41,61,62,63]. Since resilience is an intrapersonal factor prior to trauma, confirmed to directly promote PTG, it is necessary to strengthen resilience as a preventive measure. In this study, nursing students’ distress disclosure was positively correlated with PTG, but did not have a direct effect on PTG. Kim and Ahn [64], reporting on the relationship between distress disclosure and PTG, noted that self-disclosure could appear differently depending on emotional regulation patterns. According to another study [65], although self-disclosure does not directly affect PTG, expressing trauma-related thoughts and emotions affects adaptation [65]. Since self-disclosure can affect PTG when accompanied by social support [66], while self-disclosure itself does not contribute to PTG, it is important in interpersonal relationships [67]. Therefore, it is necessary to clearly perceive one’s own feelings and increase the chance of self-disclosure to receive support from close others [68]. In this respect, a follow-up study is considered necessary to determine factors influencing PTG, including social support variables.
The limitation of this study is its generalizability. Caution is warranted in interpreting its results by generalizing them for all nursing students because the analysis data was collected from nursing students in one region. Therefore, it is suggested to conduct repeated studies on factors affecting PTG by expanding data collection to various regions. Nevertheless, this study is significant in that it determined the factors influencing PTG in nursing students who experienced a national disaster called the COVID-19 pandemic.

5. Conclusions

The significance of this study is twofold. First, it determined the factors influencing PTG in nursing students by examining the correlations between PTG (dependent variable) and emotional regulation, resilience, and distress disclosure (major independent variables). Second, it prepared basic data for establishing measures to promote PTG in nursing students.
Therefore, in order to improve nursing students’ PTG, it is necessary to help them increase their satisfaction with their major, improve their interpersonal skills, and better adapt to the clinical practice settings. Moreover, lecturers need to seek various teaching methods to motivate students to participate more actively in learning activities. It is also necessary for nursing students to set up a PTG program that can help them perceive their emotions more clearly and accurately, utilize cognitive reappraisal as a positive emotion regulation strategy, and increase resilience.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K., J.L. and J.Y.; data curation, K.K. and J.L.; formal analysis, K.K.; funding acquisition, J.L.; Investigation, K.K., J.L. and J.Y.; methodology, K.K. and J.L.; project administration, J.L.; resources, K.K., J.L. and J.Y.; software, K.K.; supervision, J.L.; validation, J.L.; visualization, K.K. and J.L.; writing—original draft, K.K., J.L. and J.Y.; writing—review and editing, J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Chungbuk National University Korea National University Development Project (2022).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Chungbuk National University (IRB No. CBNU-202208-HR-0196, approved on 24 August 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Online informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Seo, H.W. Change and Adaptation of Post-COVID-19. BRIC View 2021-T08. 2021. Available online: https://www.ibric.org/myboard/read.php?Board=report&id=3718 (accessed on 18 April 2022).
  2. Healthchosun. Coexisting with COVID-19, How to Relieve ‘Posttraumatic Stress’. Available online: https://health.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2021/10/18/2021101801373.html (accessed on 21 December 2022).
  3. Shim, M.Y. Psychological effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Korean J. Med. 2020, 95, 360–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Rossi, R.; Socci, V.; Talevi, D.; Mensi, S.; Niolu, C.; Pacitti, F.; Di Marco, A.; Rossi, A.; Siracusano, A.; Di Lorenzo, G. COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures impact on mental health among the general population in Italy. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Tedeschi, R.G.; Calhoun, L.G. Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol. Inq. 2009, 15, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maercker, A.; Zoellner, T. The janus face of self-perceived growth: Toward a two-component model of posttraumatic growth. Psychol. Inq. 2004, 15, 41–48. [Google Scholar]
  7. Jang, H.; Kim, J.S. A meta-analysis on relationship between post-traumatic growth and related variables. Korean J. Couns. 2017, 18, 85–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1980; Volume 3, pp. 399–406. [Google Scholar]
  9. Korean Law Information Center. Framework Act on the Management of Disasters and Safety. Available online: https://www.law.go.kr/%EB%B2%95%EB%A0%B9/%EC%9E%AC%EB%82%9C%EB%B0%8F%EC%95%88%EC%A0%84%EA%B4%80%EB%A6%AC%EA%B8%B0%EB%B3%B8%EB%B2%95 (accessed on 21 December 2022).
  10. Morris, B.A.; Shakespeare-Finch, J.; Rieck, M.; Newbery, J. Multidimensional nature of posttraumatic growth in an Australian population. J. Trauma Stress 2005, 18, 575–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Calhoun, L.G.; Tedeschi, R.G. The foundation of posttraumatic growth: New Considerations. Psychol. Inq. 2004, 15, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Seo, Y.S.; Cho, H.J.; An, H.Y.; Lee, J.S. Traumatic events experienced by South Koreans: Types and prevalence. Korean J. Couns. Psychother. 2012, 24, 671–701. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sung, K.M.; Park, S.A.; Oh, E.J.; Lee, S.M.; Lee, S.Y. Traumatic experiences and posttraumatic growth of nursing students who were in the clinical training. J. Digit. Converg. 2018, 16, 489–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Boyarsky, K. What Is Hybrid Learning? Here’s Everything You Need to Know. Available online: https://resources.owllabs.com/blog/hybrid-learning (accessed on 29 January 2023).
  15. Lee, C.K.; Ahn, J.H. College nursing students’ experiences of COVID-19 pandemic. J. Korea Acad. -Ind. Coop. Soc. JKIAS 2020, 21, 142–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Finstad, G.L.; Giorgi, G.; Lulli, L.G.; Pandolfi, C.; Foti, G.; León-Perez, J.M.; Cantero-Sánchez, F.J.; Mucci, N. Resilience, coping strategies and posttraumatic growth in the workplace following COVID-19: A narrative review on the positive aspects of trauma. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 9453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Han, S.H.; Tu, H.S. College women’s self-leadership, stress of clinical practice and self-disclosure in an Area. J. Korean Acad. Soc. Nurs. Educ. 2012, 18, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Compas, B.E.; Connor-Smith, J.K.; Saltzman, H.; Thomsen, A.H.; Wadsworth, M.E. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problem, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 127, 87–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Bowes, L.; Carnegie, R.; Pearson, R.; Mars, B.; Biddle, L.; Maughan, B.; Lewis, G.; Fernyhough, C.; Heron, J. Risk of depression and self-harm in teenagers identifying with goth subculture: A longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry 2015, 2, 793–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Jang, I.S. The effects of emotional regulation between clinical practice stress and nursing professionalism in nursing students. J. Korean Data Inf. Sci. Sociaty JKDIS 2016, 27, 749–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kwon, J.H.; Park, J.I.; Sakong, J.K.; Yang, J.C. Characteristics of the perception of the somatic symptoms and the cognitive emotional regulation strategies in patients with posttraumatic stress disorder. Korean J. Psychosom. Med. 2021, 29, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ji, E.H.; Cho, Y.R. The influences of trauma-related negative cognitions and difficulties in emotional regulation on posttraumatic stress symptoms in a sample of traumatized university students. Cogn. Behav. Ther. Korea CBTK 2015, 15, 195–212. [Google Scholar]
  23. Werner, E.E. Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Pediatrics 2004, 114, 492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hong, H.S.; Kim, H.Y. Effect of academic stress, clinical practice stress, resilience on nursing student’s adjustment to college life. Asia-Pac. J. Multimed. Serv. Converg. Art Humanit. Sociol. AJMAHS 2016, 6, 221–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Baek, H.S.; Lee, K.U.; Joo, E.J.; Lee, M.Y.; Choi, K.S. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Connor-Davidson resilience scale. Psychiatry Investig. 2010, 7, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kahn, J.H.; Hucke, B.E.; Bradley, A.M.; Glinski, A.J.; Malak, B.L. The distress disclosure index: A research review and multitrait-multimethod examination. J. Couns. Psychol. 2012, 59, 134–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kennedy-Moore, E.; Watson, J.C. How and when does emotional expression help? Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2001, 5, 187–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Park, J.W. Experiences of posttraumatic growth by undergraduate. Korean J. Stres Res. 2016, 24, 285–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Shin, S.Y.; Chung, N.W. The effect of meaning in life and social support on posttraumatic growth: Rumination as a mediating variable. J. Hum. Underst. Couns. 2012, 33, 217–235. [Google Scholar]
  30. Hwang, C.U. The influence of unconditional self-acceptance and distress disclosure on post-traumatic growth of firefighters. Fire Sci. Eng. 2020, 34, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Han, H.J.; Kim, M.; Nam, S.I. The effects of intentional rumination, self-disclosure and cherishing activities of university students involved in cherishing the memory of SEWOL ferry disaster on their indirect posttraumatic growth. Korean J. Youth Stud. 2017, 24, 179–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Cozolino, L. The Neuroscience of Psychotherapy: Healing the Social Brain (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology), 2nd ed.; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tedeschi, R.G.; Cann, A.; Taku, K.; Senol-Durak, E.; Calhoun, L.G. The posttraumatic growth inventory: A revision integrating existential and spiritual change. J. Trauma Stress 2017, 30, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kim, S.Y.; Lim, S.J.; Shin, J.Y.; Lee, D.H.; Lee, D.H. Validation of the Korean version of the posttraumatic growth inventory expanded. Korean Psychol. J. Cult. Soc. Issues 2020, 26, 195–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gross, J.J.; John, O.P. Individual differences in two emotional regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 85, 348–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shon, J.M. Individual Differences in Two Regulation Strategies: Cognitive Reappraiser vs. Emotion Suppressor. Master’s Thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  37. Cho, S.H.; Lee, K.N. Effects of maternal parenting, self-esteem and emotional regulation strategy on emotional regulation of children. Fam. Environ. Res. 2010, 48, 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  38. Yang, Y.H.; Kim, E.M.; Yu, M.; Park, S.M.; Lee, H.Y. Development of the resilience scale for Korean nursing college students. Korean J. Adult Nurs. 2015, 27, 337–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kahn, J.H.; Hessling, R.M. Measuring the tendency to conceal versus disclose psychological distress. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2001, 20, 41–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shin, Y.H.; Ahn, H.U. The relative importance of approach factors and avoidance factors in predicting professional help seeking behavior. Korean J. Couns. Psychother. 2005, 14, 177–195. [Google Scholar]
  41. Kim, M.J. Effects of emotional intelligence, resilience, and post-traumatic growth on communication skills of nursing students. J. Ind. Converg. JIC 2018, 16, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kim, K.H.; Hwang, E.H. Transfer-students’ lived experience of the first semester in the baccalaureate nursing program: University life adjustment and crisis overcome. Crisisonomy 2012, 8, 123–142. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mclntyre, J.; Cheal, K.; Bartels, S.; Durai, U.N.; Herr, B.M.; Quijano, L.; Llorente, M.; Ware, J.J.; Costantino, G.; Miller, C.; et al. Anxiety and depressive disorders in older primary care patients: Defining a clinical severity gradient corresponding to differences in health status. Ageing Int. 2008, 32, 93–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Park, H.J.; Oh, J.W. The relationships of the clinical practice stress and the major satisfaction with the nursing professionalism of nursing college students. J. Digit. Converg. 2014, 12, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Kim, K.N.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, H.J.; Kim, H.J.; Moon, Y.; Moon, H.J.; Park, E.S. Factors influencing nursing students’ adjustment to college life. J. Korean Clin. Health Sci. 2020, 8, 1417–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Nummenmaa, M.; Nummenmaa, L. University students’ emotions, interest and activities in a web-based learning environment. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 78, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lee, I.S. Influence of experienced emotion and emotional regulation to learning activity and learning achievement in synchronous participative environment: Focusing on Facebook environment. J. Educ. Technol. JET 2014, 30, 413–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Jun, W.H.; Yun, S.H. Factors affecting spirituality in nursing students. J. Korean Acad. Soc. Home Care Nurs. 2019, 26, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kim, J.O.; Yoon, J.H. Effects of social support perceived by youth on post-traumatic growth: Mediating effects of hope and deliberate rumination. Korean J. Youth Stud. 2017, 24, 229–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lee, S.Y.; Jeon, S.Y.; Kim, Y.Y. Mediation effect of a positive stress coping strategy in the relationship between clinical practice stress and clinical practice satisfaction. Korean J. Health Serv. Manag. KJOHSM 2016, 10, 193–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hwang, H.M.; Kim, J.O. Influence of job stress, coping strategies on life satisfaction in long-term care workers –focused in Gyeonggi-do. J. Korea Acad. Ind. Coop. Soc. 2015, 16, 6152–6159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kim, S.Y. The influence of self-control and resilience on college life adjustment in nursing students. J. KOEN 2018, 12, 253–262. [Google Scholar]
  53. Xu, X.; Chen, L.; Yuan, Y.; Xu, M.; Tian, X.; Lu, F.; Wang, Z. Perceived stress and life satisfaction among Chinese clinical nursing teachers: A moderated mediation model of burnout and emotional regulation. Front. Psychiatry 2021, 12, 548339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Gullone, E.; Taffe, J. The emotional regulation questionnaire for children and adolescents (ERQ-CA): A psychometric evaluation. Psychol. Assess. 2012, 24, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Klunk, E.R. Distress Disclosure and Personaity in College Students. Honors Theses. 2014, p. 283. Available online: https://digitalcommons.bucknell.edu/honors_theses/283/ (accessed on 26 December 2022).
  56. Kno, K.; Kwon, H.J.; Kwon, H.I. Reducing non-suicidal self-injury craving by emotional regulation strategies. Cogn. Behav. Ther. Korea CBTK 2021, 21, 689–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sull, K.H.; Kim, M.H. Relationship between suppression strategy of emotional expression and posttraumatic growth: Serial multiple mediating effects of self-disclosure on Traumatic event and social support. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2021, 21, 392–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Dillon, D.G.; Ritchey, M.; Johnson, B.D.; LaBar, K.S. Dissociable effects of conscious emotional regulation strategies on explicit and implicit memory. Emotion 2007, 7, 354–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gross, J.J. Emotional regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology 2002, 39, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Hayes, J.P.; Morey, R.A.; Petty, C.M.; Seth, S.; Smoski, M.J.; McCarthy, G.; LaBar, K.S. Staying cool when things get hot: Emotional regulation modulates neural mechanisms of memory encoding. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2010, 4, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Kim, H.; Kim, E.; Yu, Y. Traumatic events and factors affecting post-traumatic growth of nurses in general hospitals. J. Korean Acad. Nurs. Adm. 2020, 26, 218–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Jung, K.I.; Jeon, H.S. Analysis of structural relationships among perceived spouse support, post traumatic growth, resilience and cognitive emotional regulation strategies in middle-aged adults with trauma experiences. Fam. Fam. Ther. 2020, 28, 427–450. [Google Scholar]
  63. Kim, H.J.; Nam, C.W.; Lee, S.K. The impact of social support on the psychological well-being of returnee college students and ordinary college students: Mediating Effects of Resilience. Korea J. Couns. 2015, 16, 433–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kim, S.Y.; Ahn, G.Y.R. The effect of trauma-experienced college students’ emotional regulation style and emotional distress disclosure on Post Traumatic Growth. Korean J. Youth Stud. 2021, 28, 145–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Lee, D.H.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, S.Y.; Choi, S.J. The effects of perceived social support and self-disclosure on posttraumatic growth: The mediating effects of stress coping strategy. Korean J. Couns. Psychother. 2018, 30, 371–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Emmons, R.A.; Colby, P.M. Emotional conflict and well-being: Relation to perceived availability, daily utilization, and observer reports of social support. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1995, 68, 947–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Song, H.; Lee, Y.S. A analysis of posttraumatic growth processes structural relationship. Korean J. Rehabil. Psychol. KJRP 2017, 24, 573–591. [Google Scholar]
  68. Lee, H.S.; Sin, H.J. Effects of parameters of distress disclosure and social support in Relation to emotional cognitive clarity and post-traumatic growth. J. Wellness KSW 2021, 16, 257–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Differences in post-traumatic growth by general characteristics (N = 231).
Table 1. Differences in post-traumatic growth by general characteristics (N = 231).
CharacteristicsCategoriesn (%)Mean ± SDt/Z/Fp Scheffé
GradeJunior115 (49.8)3.94 ± 0.890.630.530
Senior116 (50.2)3.86 ± 0.93
GenderMale35 (15.2)3.81 ± 1.05−0.660.511
Female196 (84.8)3.92 ± 0.88
Transfer studentYes13 (5.6)4.43 ± 0.80−2.140.032 †
No218 (94.4)3.87 ± 0.91
Housing typeHome151(65.4)3.86 ± 0.91−0.970.333
Independent
residence		80 (34.6)3.98 ± 0.90
ReligionNo157 (68.0)3.85 ± 0.91−1.130.258
Yes74 (32.0)4.00 ± 0.91
Economic statusHigh54 (23.4)4.02 ± 0.881.650.194
Middle123 (53.2)3.93 ± 0.80
Low54 (23.4)3.90 ± 0.91
Subjective health statusHealthy a106 (45.9)3.99 ± 0.953.370.036
a > c
Average b107 (46.3)3.90 ± 0.85
Bad c18 (7.8)3.40 ± 0.88
Satisfaction with majorSatisfied a108 (46.8)4.11 ± 0.928.28<0.001
a, b > c
Neutral b104 (45.0)3.80 ± 0.80
Dissatisfied c19 (8.2)3.30 ± 1.07
Satisfaction with academic
achievement		Satisfied27 (11.7)4.16 ± 0.922.500.085
Neutral108 (46.8)3.96 ± 0.82
Dissatisfied96 (41.6)3.76 ± 0.99
Satisfaction with hybrid-learning classSatisfied a87 (37.7)4.06 ± 0.984.130.017
a > c
Neutral b109 (47.2)3.90 ± 0.83
Dissatisfied c35 (15.2)3.54 ± 0.89
Satisfaction with interpersonal relationshipSatisfied a85 (36.8)4.20 ± 0.8612.70<0.001
a, b > c
Neutral b122 (52.8)3.83 ± 0.81
Dissatisfiedc24 (10.4)3.23 ± 1.15
Satisfaction with
clinical practice		Satisfied a63 (27.3)4.27 ± 0.8612.63<0.001
a > b > c
Neutral b130 (56.3)3.86 ± 0.86
Dissatisfied c38 (16.5)3.38 ± 0.90
† Mann–Whitney U test; a, b, c: post hoc test- Scheffé
Table
Table 2. Levels of emotional regulation, resilience, distress disclosure, and post-traumatic growth (N = 231).
Table 2. Levels of emotional regulation, resilience, distress disclosure, and post-traumatic growth (N = 231).
VariablesMinMaxMean ± SD
Post-traumatic growth1.406.003.90 ± 0.91
Emotional regulation-Suppression1.005.002.61 ± 0.92
Emotional regulation- Reappraisal1.005.003.32 ± 0.87
Resilience1.964.903.70 ± 0.54
Distress disclosure1.255.003.25 ± 0.81
Table
Table 3. Correlation among emotional regulation, resilience, distress disclosure, and post-traumatic growth.
Table 3. Correlation among emotional regulation, resilience, distress disclosure, and post-traumatic growth.
VariablesPost-Traumatic GrowthEmotion RegulationResilienceDistress Disclosure
SuppressionReappraisal
Post-Traumatic Growth1
Emotional Regulation
-Suppression		0.03
(0.684)		1
Emotional Regulation
-Reappraisal		0.56
(<0.001)		0.23
(<0.001)		1
Resilience0.59
(<0.001)		0.03
(0.681)		0.62
(<0.001)		1
Distress Disclosure0.18
(0.005)		−0.62
(<0.001)		0.11
(0.094)		0.32
(<0.001)		1
Table
Table 4. Influencing Factors on Post-Traumatic Growth (N = 231).
Table 4. Influencing Factors on Post-Traumatic Growth (N = 231).
VariablesBSEβtp
(constant)0.430.32 1.360.174
Resilience0.620.110.375.71<0.001
Emotional regulation
-Reappraisal		0.330.070.315.00<0.001
Satisfaction with
clinical practice = satisfied *		0.290.100.142.850.005
Transfer student = yes *0.500.200.132.540.012
Tolerance = 0.60–0.99, VIF = 1.01–1.66, Durbin-Watson = 1.97
Adjusted R² = 0.44, R² = 0.45, F = 45.24, p < 0.001
* Dummy variables had the followed referent groups: Satisfaction with clinical practice (Dissatisfied = 0), Transfer student (No = 0).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kim, K.; Lee, J.; Yoon, J. Effects of Emotional Regulation, Resilience, and Distress Disclosure on Post-Traumatic Growth in Nursing Students. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042782

AMA Style

Kim K, Lee J, Yoon J. Effects of Emotional Regulation, Resilience, and Distress Disclosure on Post-Traumatic Growth in Nursing Students. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042782

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kim, Kyungmi, Jongeun Lee, and Jaeyeon Yoon. 2023. "Effects of Emotional Regulation, Resilience, and Distress Disclosure on Post-Traumatic Growth in Nursing Students" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20042782

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop