The present study uses a qualitative approach to understand the impact of COVID-19 on family life. Australian parents of children aged 0-18 years were recruited via social media between April 8 and April 28, 2020, when Australians were experiencing social distancing/isolation measures for the first time. As part of a larger survey, participants were asked to respond via an open-ended question about how COVID-19 had impacted their family. A total of 2,130 parents were included and represented a diverse range of family backgrounds. Inductive template thematic analysis was used to understand patterns of meaning across the texts. Six themes were derived from the data, including "Boredom, depression and suicide: A spectrum of emotion," "Families are missing the things that keep them healthy," "Changing family relationships: The push pull of intimacy," "The unprecedented demands of parenthood," "The unequal burden of COVID-19," and "Holding on to positivity." Overall, the findings demonstrated a breadth of responses. Messages around loss and challenge were predominant, with many families reporting mental health difficulties and strained family relationships. However, not all families were negatively impacted by the restrictions, with some families reporting positive benefits and meaning, including opportunities for strengthening relationships, finding new hobbies, and developing positive characteristics such as appreciation, gratitude, and tolerance.

Objective: Climate change and related issues associated with the interaction of humans with the environment are of great importance in today's context. More and more research is focusing on understanding what can be done to prevent and reverse the effects of environmental problems through individual behaviours. Within psychology, there is a lack of synthesis of what drives pro-environmental behaviours in various paradigms and how they can be changed. The current study focuses on the application of protection motivation theory to predicting and changing pro-environmental behaviours using a systematic mapping approach. Methods: A systematic screening of 132 databases was performed, resulting in the identification of 22 relevant studies with the total N = 12,827. Results: Investigation of the included research revealed a number of gaps in knowledge including: lack of experimental evidence with successful manipulations of protection motivation theory constructs; non-inclusion of all the aspects of the theory into studies; the absence of examination of the intention-behaviour relationship; the lack of consistency in operationalisation of protection motivation theory constructs; a focus on predominantly western high income societies, and the lack of uniformity in the definition of pro-environmental behaviours. Conclusion: Future research should consider employing experimental designs with proper manipulation checks and longitudinal focus, as well as consistent definitions and operationalisations of relevant concepts, and exploring these constructs across different countries. K E Y W O R D S conservation psychology, environmental psychology, pro-environmental behaviour, protection motivation theory, systematic mapping review

Research consistently shows that right‐wing ideological adherents are more likely to deny climate change. However, less is known about how right‐wing ideological subtypes are uniquely related to climate change denial, as well as what explains these relationships. This study examines whether threat to the socioeconomic system in the form of climate change mitigation policies, referred to as Climate Change Mitigation Threat (CCMT), mediates the relationships between Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) subtypes and four forms of climate change denial (existence denial, human cause denial, impact denial and climate science denial). U.S. participants (N = 334; Mage = 34.70, SD = 5.98) were recruited via Amazon MTurk. When shared variance in the predictors was accounted for, we found that: (a) Conventionalism (RWA‐C) positively predicted all forms of climate change denial; (b) Dominance (SDO‐D) positively predicted existence denial; (c) Anti‐Egalitarianism (SDO‐E) positively predicted both human cause and impact denial; and (d) Aggression (RWA‐A) negatively predicted existence denial. All significant direct relationships were partially mediated by CCMT, except for the direct paths between SDO‐D and existence denial, and RWA‐A and existence denial. These findings suggest that right‐wing adherents who conform to societal norms and prefer unequal social systems may deny climate change partly due to a perception that mitigation strategies proposed to combat climate change threaten the existing socioeconomic system.

Objective The success of COVID-19 vaccination programs relies on community attitudes, yet little is known about parents' views. We aimed to explore the reasons behind Australian parents' vaccine intentions for themselves and for their children. Method This mixed methods study relates to Wave 13 (January 2021) of a longitudinal study of Australian parents' experiences during COVID-19 and contained 1094 participants (83% mothers). We used multinomial logistic regression to understand demographic predictors of vaccine intention, and a descriptive template thematic analysis to analyse open-ended questions about parents' reasons for vaccine intentions for themselves and their children. Results 64% of Australian parents intend on vaccination, 26% are unsure and 9% intend to decline; 48% intend to vaccinate their children, 38% are unsure, and 14% intend to decline. Relative to those intending to vaccinate, parents unsure (OR = -0.63, 95% CI: 0.46, −0.84, p = .002) or not intending (OR = -0.41, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.67 p < .001) to vaccinate were more likely to have lower trust in doctors. Similar predictors emerged for parents who did not intend to vaccinate their children (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.70, p < .001). Qualitative data indicated that many parents had not made a firm decision, including a lack of alignment between intentions and reasons. For example, parents who said ‘yes’ to vaccination, often then expressed hesitance and a focus on risks in their written response. Reasons for hesitancy for themselves included concerns about testing, side effects, and long-term outcomes. Similar themes were present for children, but parents expressed a strong desire to protect their children, and an eagerness for health information. Conclusion Based on prior research and the themes identified here, a multipronged campaign that includes education/promotion, good access to vaccines and role models, is likely to support parents to make informed decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Trauma in early childhood has been shown to adversely affect children's social, emotional, and physical development. Children living in out-of-home care (OoHC) have better outcomes when care providers are present for children, physically, psychologically, and emotionally. Unfortunately, the high turnover of out-of-home carers, due to vicarious trauma (frequently resulting in burnout and exhaustion) can result in a child's trauma being re-enacted during their placement in OoHC. Organisation-wide therapeutic care models (encompassing the whole organisation, from the CEO to all workers including administration staff) that are trauma-informed have been developed to respond to the complex issues of abuse and neglect experienced by children who have been placed in OoHC. These models incorporate a range of therapeutic techniques, and provide an overarching approach and common language that is employed across all levels of the organisation. The aim of this study was to investigate the current empirical evidence for organisation-wide, trauma-informed therapeutic care models in OoHC. A systematic review searching leading databases was conducted for evidence of organisation-wide, trauma-informed, out-of-home care studies, between 2002 and 2017. Seven articles were identified covering three organisational models. Three of the articles assessed the Attachment Regulation and Competency framework (ARC), one study assessed the Children and Residential Experiences programme (CARE), and three studies assessed The Sanctuary Model. Risk of bias was high in six of the seven studies. Only limited information was provided on the effectiveness of the models identified through this systematic review, although the evidence did suggest that trauma-informed care models may have significantly positive outcomes for children in OoHC. Future research should focus on evaluating components of trauma-informed care models and assessing the efficacy of the various organisational care models currently available.