Psychological responses to U.S. statewide restrictions and COVID-19 exposures: A longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has generated debate as to whether community-level behavioral restrictions are worth the emotional costs of such restrictions. Using a longitudinal design, we juxtaposed the relative impacts of state-level restrictions and case counts with person-level direct and media-based exposures on distress, loneliness, and traumatic stress symptoms (TSS) during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. METHOD: From March 18, 2020 to April 18, 2020 and September 9, 2020 to October 16, 2020, a representative probability sample of U.S. adults (N = 5,594) completed surveys of their psychological responses and personal direct and media-based exposures to the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey data were merged with publicly available data on the stringency of state-level mitigation policies (e.g., school/business closures) during this period and longitudinal case/death counts for each state. RESULTS: Three multilevel models (outcomes: distress, loneliness, TSS) were constructed. Measurements of dependent variables (Level 1) were nested within respondents (Level 2) who were nested within states (Level 3). State-level mitigation, cases, or deaths were not associated with any dependent variables (all p's > .05). However, person-level exposures, including having contracted COVID-19 oneself (distress b = .22, p < .001; loneliness b = .13, p = .03; TSS b = .18, p = .001), knowing others who were sick (distress b = .04, p < .001; loneliness b = .02, p < .001; TSS b = .05, p < .001) or died (distress b = .10, p = .001; loneliness b = .10, p = .003; TSS b = .16, p < .001), and exposure to pandemic-related media (distress b = .12, p < .001; loneliness b = .09, p < .001; TSS b = .16, p < .001), were positively associated with outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Personal exposures to COVID-19 are more strongly associated with psychological outcomes than statewide mitigations levied to stop disease spread. Results may inform public health response planning for future disease outbreaks. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Media exposure, threat processing, and mitigation behaviors in Gulf Coast residents facing the co-occurring threats of COVID-19 and hurricanes.

The 2020 hurricane season threatened millions of Americans concurrently grappling with COVID-19. Processes guiding individual-level mitigation for these conceptually distinct threats, one novel and chronic (COVID-19), the other familiar and episodic (hurricanes), are unknown. Theories of health protective behaviors suggest that inputs from external stimuli (e.g., traditional and social media) lead to threat processing, including perceived efficacy (self- and response) and perceived threat (susceptibility and severity), guiding mitigation behavior. We surveyed a representative sample of Florida and Texas residents (N = 1846) between April 14, 2020 and April 27, 2020; many had previous hurricane exposure; all were previously assessed between September 8, 2017 and September 11, 2017. Using preregistered analyses, two generalized structural equation models tested direct and indirect effects of media exposure (traditional media, social media) on self-reported (1) COVID-19 mitigation (handwashing, mask-wearing, social distancing) and (2) hurricane mitigation (preparation behaviors), as mediated through perceived efficacy (self- and response) and perceived threat (susceptibility and severity). Self-efficacy and response efficacy were associated with social distancing (p = .002), handwashing, mask-wearing, and hurricane preparation (ps < 0.001). Perceived susceptibility was positively associated with social distancing (p = 0.017) and hurricane preparation (p < 0.001). Perceived severity was positively associated with social distancing (p < 0.001). Traditional media exhibited indirect effects on COVID-19 mitigation through increased response efficacy (ps < 0.05), and to a lesser extent self-efficacy (p < 0.05), and on hurricane preparation through increased self-efficacy and response efficacy and perceived susceptibility (ps < 0.05). Social media did not exhibit indirect effects on COVID-19 or hurricane mitigation. Communications targeting efficacy and susceptibility may encourage mitigation behavior; research should explore how social media campaigns can more effectively target threat processing, guiding protective actions.

The unfolding COVID-19 pandemic: A probability-based, nationally representative study of mental health in the United States.

The COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic is a collective stressor unfolding over time; yet, rigorous empirical studies addressing its mental health consequences among large probability-based national samples are rare. Between 18 March and 18 April 2020, as illness and death escalated in the United States, we assessed acute stress, depressive symptoms, and direct, community, and media-based exposures to COVID-19 in three consecutive representative samples from the U.S. probability-based nationally representative NORC AmeriSpeak panel across three 10-day periods (total N = 6514). Acute stress and depressive symptoms increased significantly over time as COVID-19 deaths increased across the United States. Preexisting mental and physical health diagnoses, daily COVID-19-related media exposure, conflicting COVID-19 information in media, and secondary stressors were all associated with acute stress and depressive symptoms. Results have implications for targeting public health interventions and risk communication efforts to promote community resilience as the pandemic waxes and wanes over time.

Preparing for the aftermath of COVID-19: Shifting risk and downstream health consequences.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the public is currently living through a collective continuous traumatic stressor. Objective risk levels shift with each new piece of data regarding the coronavirus. These data points are communicated through public health officials and the media, easily accessible through modern advanced technology including online news and push notifications. When objective risk changes, individuals must reappraise their subject risk levels. Updating subjective risk levels several times per week is linked to ambiguity of the situation and uncertainty in daily life. The uncertainty and potential feelings of uncontrollability is linked to heightened anxiety. The continuous stress, anxiety, and uncertainty may have several negative downstream mental and physical health effects nationwide. The health care sector must begin preparing for the long-term consequences of the pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).