In the current study, we conduct an exploratory study on children’s emotional and physical health in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The direct and interactive effects of parental stress, family socioeconomic status (SES), and family support on child adjustment were investigated. A total of 116 children of varied socioeconomic and their parents were interviewed. Parents with low household income perceived greater distress related to uncertainty and health worries compared to those with higher household income. However, it was among high-SES families that parental distress was associated with child difficulties. At a multivariate level, children’s health was associated with SES, family support, and parental COVID-19 stress. Among families with low household income, when parents perceived low/average COVID-19 stress, family support worked as a protective factor for children’s adjustment. Understanding how COVID-19 relates with children’s emotional and physical health within families with low and high household income may help to inform recommendations for best practices, for example through family support interventions.
23 May 2015 in British Journal of Educational Psychology
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.