The intent of this work was to examine the intersection of COVID-19 fear with social vulnerabilities and mental health consequences among adults living in the United States. Data are from a nationally representative sample (n ϭ 10,368) of U.S. adults surveyed online during demographic subgroups (gender, age, income, race and ethnicity, geography). The sample week of March 23, 2020. The sample was poststratification weighted to ensure a balanced representation across social and demographic subgroups (gender, age, income, race or ethnicity, geography). The sample comprised 51% female; 23% non-White; 18% Hispanic; 25% of households with children under 18 years of age; 55% unmarried; and nearly 20% unemployed, laid off, or furloughed at the time of the interview. Respondents were fearful, averaging a score of nearly 7 on a scale of 10 when asked how fearful they were of COVID-19. Preliminary analysis suggests clear spatial diffusion of COVID-19 fear. Fear appears to be concentrated in regions with the highest reported COVID-19 cases. Significant differences across several U.S. census regions are noted (p Ͻ .01). Additionally, significant bivariate relationships were found between socially vulnerable respondents (female, Asians, Hispanic, foreign-born, families with children) and fear, as well as with mental health consequences (anxiety and depressive symptoms). Depressive symptoms, on average, were high (16ϩ on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale), and more than 25% of the sample reported moderate to severe anxiety symptoms. More in-depth psychosocial research is needed using nationally representative samples that can help to inform potential mental health risks, as well as by targeting specific mental health interventions.

Background: The current study examines interrelationships between social vulnerability, individual stressors, social and psychological resources, and depressive symptomatology among US adults during the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: Using an online survey platform, a poststratified (by age, gender, race, income, and geography), representative sample (n = 10,368 adults) is used in the analysis. Results: On average, sample respondents report Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) Scale symptomatology nearly a point higher than the often used cutoff score for clinical caseness (16+); one-third of respondents had CES-D scores higher than 25. Multiple regression results show elevated levels of depressive symptomatology among the socially vulnerable (women, Hispanic, unmarried, not working). Those persons expressing heightened COVID-19 fear and moderate to high levels of food insecurity report more depressive symptoms than persons with less fear and low or no food insecurity. All three of the resource variables (mastery of fate, strength of ties, and optimism) are significant and in the negative direction. Conclusions: In a snapshot, the data provide an important point prevalence assessment of adult depressive symptoms during the current public health crisis. Results highlight the significance of vulnerability and individual stressors in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, the analysis affirms the importance of access to social and psychological resources to combat heightened fear and anxiety that persons report during the current pandemic.

Highlights Examines the intersection of distress, location (region), social vulnerability, and mental health consequences during the COVID-19 pandemic. National sample (n = 10, 368) of adults surveyed during the last week of March 2020 and post-strata weighted. Fear highest among socially vulnerable and unequally distributed across regions of the U.S. Fear, worry and social vulnerabilities are significantly associated with anxiety/depressive symptomatology, net of social vulnerabilities. Subjective assessments of distress are important factors related to mental health, even after controlling for location and group differences.

Our goal in this article is to contribute conceptually and empirically to assessments of the racial invariance hypothesis, which posits that structural disadvantage predicts violent crime in the same way for all racial and ethnic groups. Conceptually, we elucidate the scope of the racial invariance hypothesis and clarify the criteria used for evaluating it. Empirically, we use 1999–2001 averaged arrest data from California and New York to extend analyses of the invariance hypothesis within the context of the scope and definitional issues raised in our conceptual framing – most notably, by including Hispanic comparisons with blacks and whites, by examining the invariance assumption for homicide as well as the violent crime index, by using discrete as well as composite disadvantage measures, and by using census place localities as the study unit. The mixed findings we report from our comparisons (across whites, blacks, and Hispanics; offense types; type of disadvantage) suggest caution and uncertainty about the notion that structural sources of violence affect racial/ethnic groups in uniform ways. We conclude that the hypothesis should be regarded as provisional and its scope remains to be established as to whether it applies only under narrow conditions or is a principle of general applicability.

This research examines the intersection of social vulnerability, risk, and their impact on individual food insecurity odds during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data come from a national, poststratification weighted sample of U.S. adults (n = 10,368). Logistic regression analysis confirms what we hypothesizedsocially vulnerable, fearful, persons in poorer health, and those with higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms have higher food insecurity odds. Findings underscore the importance of redesigning food systems in the U.S. during health crises like the current one; alternative strategies to meet increased food needs in the face of a pandemic are discussed.