Search

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the psychological wellbeing of some people, there is evidence that many have been much less affected. The Ecological Model of Resilience (EMR) may explain why some individuals are not resilient whilst others are. In this study we test the EMR in a comparison of UK survey data collected from the COVID-19 Psychological Research Consortium (C19PRC) longitudinal study of a representative sample of the United Kingdom (UK) adult population and data from an Italian arm of the study. We first compare data from the third wave of the UK arm of the study, collected in July/August 2020, with data from an equivalent sample and stage of the pandemic in Italy in July 2020. Next, using UK longitudinal data collected from C19PRC Waves 1, 3 and 5, collected between March 2020 and April 2021 we identify the proportion of people who were resilient. Finally, we examine which factors, drawn from the EMR, predict resilient and non-resilient outcomes. We find that the 72% of the UK sample was resilient, in line with the Italian study. In the cross-sectional logistic regression model, age and self-esteem were significantly associated with resilience whilst death anxiety thoughts, neuroticism, loneliness, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) symptoms related to COVID-19 were significantly associated with Non-Resilient outcomes. In the longitudinal UK analysis, at Wave 5, 80% of the sample was Resilient. Service use, belonging to wider neighbourhood, self-rated health, self-esteem, openness, and externally generated death anxiety were associated with Resilient outcomes. In contrast, PTSD symptoms and loneliness were associated with Non-Resilient outcomes. The EMR effectively explained the results. There were some variables which are amenable to intervention which could increase resilience in the face of similar future challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two theoretical perspectives have been proffered to explain changes in alcohol use during the pandemic: the 'affordability-availability' mechanism (i.e., drinking decreases due to changes in physical availability and/or reduced disposable income) and the 'psychological-coping' mechanism (i.e., drinking increases as adults attempt to cope with pandemic-related distress). We tested these alternative perspectives via longitudinal analyses of the COVID-19 Psychological Consortium (C19PRC) Study data (spanning three timepoints during March to July 2020). Respondents provided data on psychological measures (e.g., anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, paranoia, extraversion, neuroticism, death anxiety, COVID-19 anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, resilience), changes in socio-economic circumstances (e.g., income loss, reduced working hours), drinking motives, solitary drinking, and 'at-risk' drinking (assessed using a modified version of the AUDIT-C). Structural equation modelling was used to determine (i) whether 'at-risk' drinking during the pandemic differed from that recalled before the pandemic, (ii) dimensions of drinking motives and the psychosocial correlates of these dimensions, (iii) if increased alcohol consumption was predicted by drinking motives, solitary drinking, and socio-economic changes. The proportion of adults who recalled engaging in 'at-risk' drinking decreased significantly from 35.9% pre-pandemic to 32.0% during the pandemic. Drinking to cope was uniquely predicted by experiences of anxiety and/or depression and low resilience levels. Income loss or reduced working hours were not associated with coping, social enhancement, or conformity drinking motives, nor changes in drinking during lockdown. In the earliest stage of the pandemic, psychological-coping mechanisms may have been a stronger driver to changes in adults' alcohol use than 'affordability-availability' alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

COVID-19 continues to pose a threat to global public health. Multiple safe and effective vaccines against COVID-19 are available with one-third of the global population now vaccinated. Achieving a sufficient level of vaccine coverage to suppress COVID-19 requires, in part, sufficient acceptance among the public. However, relatively high rates of hesitance and resistance to COVID-19 vaccination persists, threating public health efforts to achieve vaccine-induced population protection. In this study, we examined longitudinal changes in COVID-19 vaccine acceptance, hesitance, and resistance in two nations (the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland) during the first nine months of the pandemic, and identified individual and psychological factors associated with consistent non-acceptance of COVID-19 vaccination. Using nationally representative, longitudinal data from the United Kingdom (UK; N = 2025) and Ireland (N = 1041), we found that (1) COVID-19 vaccine acceptance declined in the UK and remained unchanged in Ireland following the emergence of approved vaccines; (2) multiple subgroups existed reflecting people who were consistently willing to be vaccinated ('Accepters': 68% in the UK and 61% in Ireland), consistently unwilling to be vaccinated ('Deniers': 12% in the UK and 16% in Ireland), and who fluctuated over time ('Moveable Middle': 20% in the UK and 23% in Ireland); and (3) the 'deniers' and 'moveable middle' were distinguishable from the 'accepters' on a range of individual (e.g., younger, low income, living alone) and psychological (e.g., distrust of scientists and doctors, conspiracy mindedness) factors. The use of two high-income, Western European nations limits the generalizability of these findings. Nevertheless, understanding how receptibility to COVID-19 vaccination changes as the pandemic unfolds, and the factors that distinguish and characterise those that are hesitant and resistant to vaccination is helpful for public health efforts to achieve vaccine-induced population protection against COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The over-purchasing and hoarding of necessities is a common response to crises, especially in developed economies where there is normally an expectation of plentiful supply. This behaviour was observed internationally during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. In the absence of actual scarcity, this behaviour can be described as 'panic buying' and can lead to temporary shortages. However, there have been few psychological studies of this phenomenon. Here we propose a psychological model of over-purchasing informed by animal foraging theory and make predictions about variables that predict over-purchasing by either exacerbating or mitigating the anticipation of future scarcity. These variables include additional scarcity cues (e.g. loss of income), distress (e.g. depression), psychological factors that draw attention to these cues (e.g. neuroticism) or to reassuring messages (eg. analytical reasoning) or which facilitate over-purchasing (e.g. income). We tested our model in parallel nationally representative internet surveys of the adult general population conducted in the United Kingdom (UK: N = 2025) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI: N = 1041) 52 and 31 days after the first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were detected in the UK and RoI, respectively. About three quarters of participants reported minimal over-purchasing. There was more over-purchasing in RoI vs UK and in urban vs rural areas. When over-purchasing occurred, in both countries it was observed across a wide range of product categories and was accounted for by a single latent factor. It was positively predicted by household income, the presence of children at home, psychological distress (depression, death anxiety), threat sensitivity (right wing authoritarianism) and mistrust of others (paranoia). Analytic reasoning ability had an inhibitory effect. Predictor variables accounted for 36% and 34% of the variance in over-purchasing in the UK and RoI respectively. With some caveats, the data supported our model and points to strategies to mitigate over-purchasing in future crises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. conservative politicians and the media downplayed the risk of both contracting COVID-19 and the effectiveness of recommended health behaviors. Health behavior theories suggest perceived vulnerability to a health threat and perceived effectiveness of recommended health-protective behaviors determine motivation to follow recommendations. Accordingly, we predicted that-as a result of politicization of the pandemic-politically conservative Americans would be less likely to enact recommended health-protective behaviors. In two longitudinal studies of U.S. residents, political conservatism was inversely associated with perceived health risk and adoption of health-protective behaviors over time. The effects of political orientation on health-protective behaviors were mediated by perceived risk of infection, perceived severity of infection, and perceived effectiveness of the health-protective behaviors. In a global cross-national analysis, effects were stronger in the U.S. (N = 10,923) than in an international sample (total N = 51,986), highlighting the increased and overt politicization of health behaviors in the U.S., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.