4.3 Article

Environmental and psychological variables influencing reactions to the COVID-19 outbreak

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 1020-1038

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12473

Keywords

COVID-19; risk perception; emotion regulation; protective behaviour

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective The COVID-19 outbreak in Italy caused a major health emergency and high uncertainty. We studied how media outlets, risk perception, state anxiety, and emotion regulation impacted peoples' reactions and undertaking of protective behaviours aimed at reducing the spread of the virus. Design Data were collected in two cross-sectional waves (N = 992 at T1;N = 1031 at T2): at the beginning of the outbreak and once the national lockdown was imposed. Methods Participants completed online surveys on their perception of the COVID-19 outbreak. Moreover, they were asked to self-report on their emotion regulation, state anxiety, and protective behaviours. Results Media exposure and wave predicted risk perception. An interaction between wave, risk perception, and emotion regulation predicted the number of protective behaviours people undertook. Specifically, in the second wave, the number of protective behaviours was predicted by risk perception only among those who were ineffective at regulating emotions. Instead, effective regulators undertook the same number of behaviours regardless of their level of risk perception. In the second wave, we also found that the risk perception by emotion interaction predicting protective behaviours was mediated by state anxiety. Conclusions The present study provides important insights on how people experienced the early stages of the outbreak. This information could prove valuable in the coming months to understand who might have been more impacted by the stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent restrictive measures.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available