4.5 Article

Development of Social Distancing Phobia Scale and Its Association with Anxiety and Perceived Stress

Journal

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11469-021-00664-2

Keywords

COVID-19; Social distance; Phobia; Social distancing phobia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study is to develop the social distancing phobia scale and examine the role of generalized anxiety disorder in predicting social distancing phobia and perceived stress. The sample consisted of 1260 individuals selected through convenience sampling. The results revealed a 17-item scale with three factors: physiological, emotional, and behavioral response. This scale, with its psychometric properties, contributes to a better understanding of emotions and psychological disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, generalized anxiety disorder was found to be a significant predictor for perceived stress and social distancing phobia.
The aim of the present study is to develop the social distancing phobia scale and is to determine the role of generalized anxiety disorder of the individual in predicting social distancing phobia and perceived stress. The sample of the study consists of 1260 people selected according to the convenience sampling method. Social distancing phobia scale, generalized anxiety disorder, perceived stress scale, and positive negative emotion scale were used in the study. As a result of the analysis, this scale consists of 17 items with three factors including physiological, emotional, and behavioral response. With its psychometric properties in assessing the three-sub-dimensional construct of the social distancing phobia scale, this scale will help to provide a better understanding of the emotions and psychological or psychiatric disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, generalized anxiety disorder was found to significantly predict perceived stress and social distancing phobia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available