How and why do people comply with protective behaviours during COVID-19? The emerging literature employs a variable-centered approach, typically using a narrow selection of constructs within a study. This study is the first to adopt a person-centred approach to identify complex patterns of compliance, and holistically examine underlying psychological differences, integrating multiple psychology paradigms and epidemiology. 1575 participants from Australia, US, UK, and Canada indicated their behaviours, attitudes, personality, cognitive/decision-making ability, resilience, adaptability, coping, political and cultural factors, and information consumption during the pandemic’s first wave. Using Latent Profile Analysis, two broad groups were identified. The compliant group (90%) reported greater worries, and perceived protective measures as effective, whilst the non-compliant group (about 10%) perceived them as problematic. The non-compliant group were lower on agreeableness and cultural tightness-looseness, but more extraverted, and reactant. They utilised more maladaptive coping strategies, checked/trusted the news less, and used official sources less. Females showed greater compliance than males. By promoting greater appreciation of the complexity of behaviour during COVID-19, this research provides a critical platform to inform future studies, public health policy, and targeted behaviour change interventions during pandemics. The results also challenge age-related stereotypes and assumptions.

Tertiary study presents students with a number of pressures and challenges. Thus, mental resilience plays a key role in students’ well-being and performance. Resilience research has moved away from conceptualising resilience as a trait and towards studying resilience as a process by which resources protect against the negative impact of stressors to produce positive outcomes. However, there is a lack of research in the academic domain examining the mechanisms underlying this process. This study addressed this gap by examining a range of personal resilience resources and their interaction with coping responses to produce positive adaptation outcomes, in a sample of 306 undergraduate students. Firstly, individual differences in resilience were examined, whereby factor analysis resulted in self-report measures of resilience-related attributes converging onto an overarching factor. The extracted factor was then validated against markers of positive adaptation (mental well-being, university adjustment, and somatic health symptoms), and the mediating roles of coping strategies were investigated through structural equation modelling. The resilience resources factor directly predicted mental well-being and adjustment; and indirectly predicted adjustment and somatic health symptoms through support-seeking and avoidant coping, respectively. These findings have theoretical implications for how resilience is conceptualised, as well as practical implications for improving student well-being and adjustment through promoting social support and reducing disengaged and avoidant coping strategies.

Purpose Compare the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of the Australian general population during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020) with pre-pandemic data (2015–2016) and identify pandemic-related and demographic factors associated with poorer HRQL. Methods Participants were quota sampled from an online panel by four regions (defined by active COVID-19 case numbers); then by age and sex. Participants completed an online survey about their HRQL [EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and General Health Question (GHQ)], demographic characteristics, and the impact of the pandemic on daily life. HRQL scores were compared to a 2015–2016 reference sample using independent t-tests, adjusted for multiple testing. Associations between 22 pre-specified factors (pandemic-related and demographic) and 15 QLQ-C30 domains and GHQ, were assessed with multiple regressions. Results Most domains were statistically significantly worse for the 2020 sample (n = 1898) compared to the reference sample (n = 1979), except fatigue and pain. Differences were largest for the youngest group (18–29 years) for cognitive functioning, nausea, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Emotional functioning was worse for 2020 participants aged 18–59, but not for those 60 +. All models were statistically significant at p < .001; the most variance was explained for emotional functioning, QLQ-C30 global health/QOL, nausea/vomiting, GHQ, and financial difficulties. Generally, increased workload, negative COVID-19 impacts, COVID-19-related worries, and negative attitudes towards public health order compliance were associated with poorer HRQL outcomes. Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, Australians reported poorer HRQL relative to a pre-pandemic sample. Risk factors for poor HRQL outcomes included greater negative pandemic-related impacts, poorer compliance attitudes, and younger age. Trial registration ANZCTR number is: ACTRN12621001240831. Web address of your trial: https://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12621001240831.aspx. Date submitted: 26/08/2021 2:56:53 PM. Date registered: 14/09/2021 9:40:31 AM. Registered by: Margaret-Ann Tait. Principal Investigator: Madeleine King.

COVID-19 booster vaccinations have been recommended as a primary line of defence against serious illness and hospitalisation. This study identifies and characterises distinct profiles of attitudes towards vaccination, particularly the willingness to get a booster dose. A sample of 582 adults from Australia completed an online survey capturing COVID-related behaviours, beliefs and attitudes and a range of sociodemographic, psychological, political, social and cultural variables. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) identified three subgroups: Acceptant (61%), Hesitant (30%) and Resistant (9%). Compared to the Acceptant group, the Hesitant and Resistant groups were less worried about catching COVID-19, used fewer official COVID-19 information sources, checked the news less, were lower on the agreeableness personality dimension and reported more conservatism, persecutory thinking, amoral attitudes and need for chaos. The Hesitant group also reported checking the legitimacy of information sources less, scored lower on the openness to new experiences personality dimension and were more likely than the Resistant and Acceptant groups to report regaining freedoms (e.g., travel) and work requirements or external pressures as reasons to get a booster. The Resistant group were higher on reactance, held more conspiratorial beliefs and rated their culture as being less tolerant of deviance than the Hesitant and Acceptant groups. This research can inform tailored approaches to increasing booster uptake and optimal strategies for public health messaging.