In February 2020, Italy became the first and most affected country in Europe by COVID-19 and, in response to the ongoing public health emergency, the Italian government implemented strong restrictions (isolation and social distancing) to protect people’s health. Although the COVID- 19 preventive measures guaranteed protection in terms of contagious’ spread and sustainability of national health services (Anderson et al., 2020), different studies have shown the negative impacts of long-term isolation on individuals’ physical and psychological well-being (e.g., Phiri et al., 2021). For instance, in Italy, there has been an increase in the anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders symptoms during quarantine, compared to the period before the quarantine (e.g., Cellini et al., 2020), especially for young adults (e.g., Di Giuseppe et al., 2020). However, the extent to which individual characteristics were associated with adaptive and maladaptive outcomes during quarantine in Italy remains largely unexplored. Following a social-cognitive perspective in which individual dispositions and beliefs act in concert to predict human functioning, we focused on the following constructs in relation to both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) three broad individual dispositions, namely, positivity (i.e., a dispositional tendency to view one’s self, life, and future under a positive outlook; Caprara et al., 2012), irritability (i.e., a tendency to react impulsively and rudely at the slightest provocation; Caprara et al., 1985), and hostile rumination (the tendency to harbor, over time, feelings of hostility); (b) self-efficacy beliefs in the perceived capability in expressing of positive emotions (e.g., joy) and in regulating negative ones (e.g., anger). The study was conducted through an online survey from May 2020 to June 2020 and included 1,229 participants living in Italy, divided into two groups: 703 young adults, aged 18-35 (M age = 27.05, SD = 4.07, 31.4% males) and 526 adults aged 36-60 years old (M age = 48.57, SD = 6.93, 35,3% males). Participants used well-validated scales to report their dispositional positivity (Caprara et al., 2012), irritability (Caprara et al., 1985), hostile rumination (Caprara, 1986), and their self-efficacy beliefs in the emotion domain (Caprara & Gerbino, 2001). Participants also indicated how often, during the quarantine from March 2020 to June 2020, they engaged in prosocial behaviors (Pastorelli et al., 1997), interpersonal aggression (Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993), depression (Radloff, 1977), and anxiety (Spielberger et al., 1983). Using a person-oriented approach, a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA; Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007) based on both broad dispositions and self-efficacy beliefs showed that a 3-class solution was the best one to fit the data. Three personality profiles were identified: (i) Resilient (23% of the sample) characterized by high levels of positivity, self-efficacy in positive emotion and anger regulation, and lower levels of irritability and hostile rumination; (ii) Vulnerable (17% of the sample) characterized by low levels of positivity, self-efficacy in positive emotion and anger regulation and high levels of irritability and hostile rumination; (c) Moderate (60% of the sample) that showed average levels in all the variables. The three profiles resulted invariant across the two age groups (young adults vs adults), meaning that young adults and adults have a similar configuration within the profile. However, the vulnerable profile among the young adults showed lower levels of positivity and emotional self-efficacy beliefs, and higher levels of hostile rumination, compared to the same profile among adults, indicating a emotional-related dysregulation among the youngest. Finally, we tested the identified profile in relation to both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes in a multi-group path analysis by age group. The results showed that young adults and adults with a resilient profile showed a positive association with prosocial behavior (β=0.115 and β=0.159, ps<.001, respectively), and negative association with interpersonal aggression (β= -0.151 and β= -0.212, ps<.001, respectively), depression (β= -0.178 and β= -0.218, ps<.001, respectively), and anxiety (β= -0.169, and β= -0.213, ps<.001, respectively). Differently, young adults and adults with the vulnerable profile showed a negative association with prosocial behavior (β=0.084 and β=0.077, ps<.05, respectively), and positive association with interpersonal aggression (β=0.325 and β=0.229, ps<.001, respectively), depression (β=0.362 and β=0.224, ps<.001, respectively), and anxiety (β=0.399 and β=0.204, ps<.001, respectively). Moreover, age group differences were found for the vulnerable profile. In particular, young adults belonging to a vulnerable profile showed a greater association especially with interpersonal aggression, depression and anxiety problems, as compared to adults belonging to the same profile. Regarding the covariate effects of gender (0=male 1=female), no age group difference emerged. For both, young adults and adults, gender resulted statistically significant in predicting prosociality (β= 0.159 and β= 0.159, ps<.001, respectively), interpersonal aggression (β= -0.088 and β= -0.115, ps<.001, respectively), depression (β= 0.129 and β= 0.148, ps<.001, respectively), anxiety (β= 0.131 and β= 0.154, ps<.001, respectively). These results indicated that during the quarantine young adults and adults’ women showed a greater tendency to engage in prosocial behaviors, and to experience depression and anxiety problems, while young adults and adults’ men showed a greater tendency to engage in interpersonal aggression. Regarding the covariate effect of exposure to COVID-19 (0=no exposure 1=exposure), in both age groups (young adults and adults) the exposure to COVID-19 predicted only interpersonal aggression (β= 0.058 and β= 0.074, ps<.05, respectively), indicating that young adults and adults that have experienced direct and indirect association to COVID-19 showed a greater tendency to engage in verbal aggression. Differently, the exposure to COVID-19 predicted anxiety problems (β =.105, p<.001), only in young adults, suggesting a pronounced tendency of the youngest to feel nervous, worry, and concern during the quarantine. Overall, the results of the present study highlighted the importance to analyze individual functioning during an isolation period by using a person-oriented approach. Findings evidenced the existence of three different profiles (Resilient, Vulnerable, and Moderate) and subsequent path analysis showed especially for the vulnerable profile and young adults greater maladaptive consequence of the quarantine. The practical implications will be discussed.
Facing the Pandemic in Italy: Personality Profiles and their associations with adaptive and maladaptive outcomes
Remondi C;
2021-01-01
Abstract
In February 2020, Italy became the first and most affected country in Europe by COVID-19 and, in response to the ongoing public health emergency, the Italian government implemented strong restrictions (isolation and social distancing) to protect people’s health. Although the COVID- 19 preventive measures guaranteed protection in terms of contagious’ spread and sustainability of national health services (Anderson et al., 2020), different studies have shown the negative impacts of long-term isolation on individuals’ physical and psychological well-being (e.g., Phiri et al., 2021). For instance, in Italy, there has been an increase in the anxiety, depression, and sleep disorders symptoms during quarantine, compared to the period before the quarantine (e.g., Cellini et al., 2020), especially for young adults (e.g., Di Giuseppe et al., 2020). However, the extent to which individual characteristics were associated with adaptive and maladaptive outcomes during quarantine in Italy remains largely unexplored. Following a social-cognitive perspective in which individual dispositions and beliefs act in concert to predict human functioning, we focused on the following constructs in relation to both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: (a) three broad individual dispositions, namely, positivity (i.e., a dispositional tendency to view one’s self, life, and future under a positive outlook; Caprara et al., 2012), irritability (i.e., a tendency to react impulsively and rudely at the slightest provocation; Caprara et al., 1985), and hostile rumination (the tendency to harbor, over time, feelings of hostility); (b) self-efficacy beliefs in the perceived capability in expressing of positive emotions (e.g., joy) and in regulating negative ones (e.g., anger). The study was conducted through an online survey from May 2020 to June 2020 and included 1,229 participants living in Italy, divided into two groups: 703 young adults, aged 18-35 (M age = 27.05, SD = 4.07, 31.4% males) and 526 adults aged 36-60 years old (M age = 48.57, SD = 6.93, 35,3% males). Participants used well-validated scales to report their dispositional positivity (Caprara et al., 2012), irritability (Caprara et al., 1985), hostile rumination (Caprara, 1986), and their self-efficacy beliefs in the emotion domain (Caprara & Gerbino, 2001). Participants also indicated how often, during the quarantine from March 2020 to June 2020, they engaged in prosocial behaviors (Pastorelli et al., 1997), interpersonal aggression (Caprara & Pastorelli, 1993), depression (Radloff, 1977), and anxiety (Spielberger et al., 1983). Using a person-oriented approach, a Latent Profile Analysis (LPA; Nylund, Asparouhov, & Muthén, 2007) based on both broad dispositions and self-efficacy beliefs showed that a 3-class solution was the best one to fit the data. Three personality profiles were identified: (i) Resilient (23% of the sample) characterized by high levels of positivity, self-efficacy in positive emotion and anger regulation, and lower levels of irritability and hostile rumination; (ii) Vulnerable (17% of the sample) characterized by low levels of positivity, self-efficacy in positive emotion and anger regulation and high levels of irritability and hostile rumination; (c) Moderate (60% of the sample) that showed average levels in all the variables. The three profiles resulted invariant across the two age groups (young adults vs adults), meaning that young adults and adults have a similar configuration within the profile. However, the vulnerable profile among the young adults showed lower levels of positivity and emotional self-efficacy beliefs, and higher levels of hostile rumination, compared to the same profile among adults, indicating a emotional-related dysregulation among the youngest. Finally, we tested the identified profile in relation to both adaptive and maladaptive outcomes in a multi-group path analysis by age group. The results showed that young adults and adults with a resilient profile showed a positive association with prosocial behavior (β=0.115 and β=0.159, ps<.001, respectively), and negative association with interpersonal aggression (β= -0.151 and β= -0.212, ps<.001, respectively), depression (β= -0.178 and β= -0.218, ps<.001, respectively), and anxiety (β= -0.169, and β= -0.213, ps<.001, respectively). Differently, young adults and adults with the vulnerable profile showed a negative association with prosocial behavior (β=0.084 and β=0.077, ps<.05, respectively), and positive association with interpersonal aggression (β=0.325 and β=0.229, ps<.001, respectively), depression (β=0.362 and β=0.224, ps<.001, respectively), and anxiety (β=0.399 and β=0.204, ps<.001, respectively). Moreover, age group differences were found for the vulnerable profile. In particular, young adults belonging to a vulnerable profile showed a greater association especially with interpersonal aggression, depression and anxiety problems, as compared to adults belonging to the same profile. Regarding the covariate effects of gender (0=male 1=female), no age group difference emerged. For both, young adults and adults, gender resulted statistically significant in predicting prosociality (β= 0.159 and β= 0.159, ps<.001, respectively), interpersonal aggression (β= -0.088 and β= -0.115, ps<.001, respectively), depression (β= 0.129 and β= 0.148, ps<.001, respectively), anxiety (β= 0.131 and β= 0.154, ps<.001, respectively). These results indicated that during the quarantine young adults and adults’ women showed a greater tendency to engage in prosocial behaviors, and to experience depression and anxiety problems, while young adults and adults’ men showed a greater tendency to engage in interpersonal aggression. Regarding the covariate effect of exposure to COVID-19 (0=no exposure 1=exposure), in both age groups (young adults and adults) the exposure to COVID-19 predicted only interpersonal aggression (β= 0.058 and β= 0.074, ps<.05, respectively), indicating that young adults and adults that have experienced direct and indirect association to COVID-19 showed a greater tendency to engage in verbal aggression. Differently, the exposure to COVID-19 predicted anxiety problems (β =.105, p<.001), only in young adults, suggesting a pronounced tendency of the youngest to feel nervous, worry, and concern during the quarantine. Overall, the results of the present study highlighted the importance to analyze individual functioning during an isolation period by using a person-oriented approach. Findings evidenced the existence of three different profiles (Resilient, Vulnerable, and Moderate) and subsequent path analysis showed especially for the vulnerable profile and young adults greater maladaptive consequence of the quarantine. The practical implications will be discussed.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
