Role of Media Consumption,Governmental Distrust & Psychological Vulnerability in Predicting Affective Well-being of University Students & Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19

Abstract

The present research aimed to explore the role of media consumption, governmental distrust, and psychological vulnerability in predicting the practical well-being of university students and healthcare professionals during COVID-19. Two correlational studies were conducted. Study 1 was conducted with 411 university students (206 Women; 205 men), and it was conducted during the first lockdown in Pakistan. Study 2 was conducted during the thigh-intensity phase he COVID-19, and the sample comprised 375 healthcare professionals (198 women; 177 men). Both studies showed that higher levels of media consumption, governmental distrust, and psychological vulnerability were associated with lower levels of well-being. Our path models in both studies (with students and healthcare professionals) indicate that during the pandemic, participants’ level of media consumption, trust in the government, and their personal vulnerability were negatively associated with their affective well-being. These findings have implications for individuals’ affective well-being during healthcare crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Plain Language Summary

This research paper investigates the impact of media consumption and distrust in government on psychological vulnerability and well-being during times of stress, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic. Two correlational studies were conducted to examine this relationship. Study 1 involved university students, while Study 2 focused on medical professionals. The results from both studies consistently revealed that higher levels of media consumption and governmental distrust were associated with increased psychological vulnerability and were negatively linked to the well-being of both groups. These findings carry significant implications for individuals’ emotional well-being during challenging periods, as people often rely on media for information and look to the government for support.

Keywords

COVID-19 media consumption governmental distrust psychological vulnerability affective well-being positive affective well-being (PAW)Negative Affective Well-Being (NAW)Pakistan

Introduction

In times of crises, such as the current pandemic of COVID-19, there is an unyielding toll on the well-being of people across the globe. COVID-19 happened when most adult populations had access to some form of media while governmental structures were under strict scrutiny. Due to lockdowns and social distancing in most parts of the world, people have relied heavily on social media while following their governments’ instructions to stay safe. Despite many government efforts, COVID-19 continued to spread over time with an alarming rise in the number of deaths and infections. This situation led to a rise in people’s perceptions of vulnerability and, in many cases loss of hope.

This crisis calls for exploration to test predictors of well-being, specifically, Negative Affective Well-being (NAW) and Positive Affective Well-being (PAW). Therefore, this study explored the potential factors contributing to each aspect of well-being. Affective well-being refers to the emotional components of our well-being, whereby an individual’s positive and negative affect levels indicate one’s subjective well-being (Karim et al., 2011; Satici). This hypothesized model of affective well-being refers to positive affect as the tendency to experience good feelings. In contrast, negative affective well-being is defined as the extent to which individuals exhibit negative affect (emotionality). Previous theorization shows that affective well-being manifests higher psychological distress symptoms in crises (Watson et al., 1988). Therefore, a focus on the affective well-being of individuals during COVID-19 is crucial. Pandemics pose extreme challenges to individuals’ well-being because the risk of contagion also has psychological reactions such as emotional distress, anxiety, and social disorder (Taylor, 2019). All countries try to tread “uncharted territory” during the COVID-19 pandemic (Mukhtar, 2020), but psychological reactions such as anxiety and stress under pandemic circumstances can depend on various factors. Some of these factors include risk communication to the public through multiple media sources, the extent of media consumption by individuals, the display of leadership, and the directives given by institutions. In the presence of perceived personal vulnerability, these factors may have practical outcomes for people’s lives. Depending on where we are in the world, these impacts can be different for different genders due to the gender roles one ascribes to, and the socioeconomic class one belongs to.

Press media, the Internet, TV, and social media were significant during the pandemic because they are the key communication channels between people and their governments (Dry, 2010; Fidler, 2004). According to Pieri (2019), media consumption in general and social media have become popular worldwide. Two-thirds of US adults have a Facebook account, and about half of that demographic gets their news from Facebook. Also, social media has the potential to function as a global mechanism of data gathering from the international community via tweets, blogs, and other social media sources (Pieri, 2019). Therefore, social media has a crucial role in contributing to international situation awareness on a global platform (Pieri, 2019).

Relationship Between Media Consumption and Affective Well-Being

During the 2014 to 2015 Ebola outbreak, Pieri (2019) analyzed how media outlets in the UK construed the risk of infection in the US, UK, and Europe. This research used a comparative strategy to investigate the importance of media during previous pandemics, such as the SARS outbreak and the 2009 H1N1 flu. They looked at these epidemics in the media from the vantage point of establishing the importance of media framing. Media framing is essential as it can define a problem for the public, make causal interpretations about the problem, question the political response, and even provide treatment recommendations (Pieri, 2019). It was concluded that the role of press media and the responsibility of the internet and social media sources was vital and cannot be overlooked during a pandemic (Pieri, 2019).

Adebayo et al. (2017) explored the association between the communication of health emergencies and individuals’ media consumption during the outbreak of the Zika pandemic. The study found a strong correlation between media consumption trends (measured through online searches) and the timing of leading healthcare authorities’ press announcements. The study showed that during the times of press releases, people’s consumption of social media increased. It was concluded that social media could act as a global platform in the event of an outbreak because it can aid in spreading and communicating both health information and health risks of a pandemic (Adebayo et al., 2017). Even though social media can help with the wide dissemination of information in real time, it can also contribute to negative affect, and public anxiety by emphasizing personal as well as institutional vulnerabilities.

Kilgo et al. (2019) analyzed the differences in news presentation during the Ebola crisis in 2014. They found that the increased frequency of news disseminated on forums such as Reddit increased uncertainty and fear about Ebola contagion. Social media users make quick decisions about the selective sharing of information, and the shorter time required creates panic. This way, the news posts on Reddit become more sensational and amplify anxiety and uncertainty for its readers (Kilgo et al., 2019). Similarly, Tang et al. (2018) found that most people turn to social media during infectious diseases for information. For instance, Twitter and YouTube were the most visited social media platforms for information. Interestingly, about 20 to 30% of videos need to be more accurate or contain misleading information about infectious diseases (Tang et al., 2018).

Sharma et al. (2017) have highlighted social media’s prolific use and universal importance, especially Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, and YouTube. While credible information could decrease apprehension in the population, Sharma et al. (2017) studied Facebook posts during the Zika pandemic. They found that misleading information was more popular than accurate information (Sharma et al., 2017). Fear paired with misinformation can influence the spread of disease by influencing people’s emotions and behavior (Taylor, 2019). Hence, misleading social media information may have negative associations because it fuels panic, excessive fear and stress, and a heightened sense of personal vulnerability (Taylor, 2019).

Moderate anxiety can also help people cope with health threats (Jones & Salathé, 2009). In the case of the novel influenza virus (H1N1), a study of anxiety and behavioral responses found that during the early phase of the pandemic, individuals’ high concern for coping with health threats and self-reported anxiety about the pandemic mediated the respondents’ protective behavior such as social distancing (Jones & Salathé, 2009). However, many people also react with strong negative affect, such as intense anxiety and stress that can be debilitating. Research also indicates that most people report anxiety about becoming infected in the early phases of a pandemic (Kanadiya & Sallar, 2011).

Lin et al. (2014) argued that access to health-related information is marked by individual and group differences. Communication inequalities hinder response and intervention and compromise the health system’s efforts to spread accurate information about pandemic outbreaks. Media consumption for health purposes may be indicated by online health information-seeking behaviors (OHISB) with demographic factors such as socio-economic status (SES), age, and gender as their determinants. The SES is a social stratification system based on participants’ subjective ratings of their access to educational, social, and economic resources (Navarro-Carrillo et al., 2020). Another study by Baumann et al. (2017) showed that the Internet could be a source of health literacy. However, it also provides a compensatory function for women who seek health information online as they are dissatisfied with their primary care. In addition, only male participants of higher SES conducted OHISB. At the same time, females did not show varied frequency or usage of online health-seeking information behavior based on SES (Baumann et al., 2017). Therefore, it can be speculated that differences in SES may be associated with variations in media usage.

Public institutions interact with various demographic determinants impacting citizens’ health literacy and well-being (Sorensen et aI., 2012). Therefore, public institutions aim to actively monitor media consumption and misinformation in news media reports and social media. Suppose health authorities such as the WHO and CDC limit the exposure of sensationalized news and prevent non-credible news coverage. In that case, the public may be precluded from basing their health information on rumors on social media (Taylor, 2019). Freimuth et al. (2014) argued that, when possible, audiences should be targeted in terms of who their spokespersons are. For example, young adults need more trust in spokespersons. As most young adults are social media users, they have different media sources and expect active dialog with their spokespersons. The strategy applied by government agencies should be to adapt to new forms of social media for the distribution of credible health-related information (Freimuth et al., 2014). The 24-hr news cycle unfolds events in real-time; hence media control and misleading information on that front could lead people to social unrest (Hoegh et al., 2016).

Developmental profiles of countries have also been shown to be associated with how governments in many developing countries are unprepared to control any crisis linked to the new deadly COVID-19 pandemic (Ahmad et al., 2022). Besides, some developing countries also lack the resources to focus on the emotional and psycho-social effects of the unpredictability of this pandemic (Mukhtar, 2020). A survey of 330 participants showed that a higher perceived threat could result in lower psychological capital (Anjum, 2020). In such circumstances, researchers recommend the availability of online mental health services (Mukhtar, 2020). Although, they point out that developing countries may only sometimes have such facilities.

Relationship Between Governmental Distrust and Affective Well-Being

To limit the perpetuation of the panic and the adverse effects of social media consumption, researchers deem it necessary to frame information about the pandemic through trusted official channels (Anjum, 2020). This research indicates the need to build trust through reliable sources, such as national media channels that convey the pandemic’s seriousness without the public’s overreaction or being completely dismissive (Anjum, 2020). In the Australian context, Fogarty et al. (2011) found that news messages surrounding the swine flu spread that were meant to create awareness about the infectious disease were scaring the public. Hence, reporting facts associated with the pandemic should be paired with the government’s messages for public calm and reassurance on effectively managing the situation (Fogarty et al., 2011).

Reassurances by the government can only convince the public if there is a level of trust between them; distrust of the government can act as an obstacle to public health recommendations during a crisis such as COVID-19. Freimuth et al. (2014) operationalize the term trust in the government and its spokespersons as an aggregate measure of commitment, care, and concern, which is interested in citizens’ welfare and prepared to act to protect its citizens. Their survey findings concluded that in the US, during a pandemic, only a minority found government reassurances believable and placed public trust in the management approaches to the pandemic. It was also noted that distrust of government was greater in Blacks and Hispanics based on marginalization experiences and unethical practices in medicine by the healthcare institutions as opposed to their White counterparts (Freimuth et al., 2014).

According to Breslau et al. (2008), it is crucial that the government help the public visualize the threat and frame risk communication in a way that includes coping methods, strategies, and guidance for managing stress and promoting well-being. Such a lack of trust in government institutions can negatively affect people’s well-being. Roy et al. (2020) found that despite being willing to conform to government guidelines and social distancing, people still experience high levels of anxiety, and the majority were heavily preoccupied with worries about COVID-19. The study identified increased paranoia, sleep difficulties, and mental health care needs (Roy et al., 2020).

The mass panic created by the threat of the pandemic leaves scared people to save themselves and harm others (Breslau et al., 2008) by practicing behaviors such as hoarding or panic buying resources. During the 1968 Hong Kong flu pandemic in Guangzhou, China, panic buying and hoarding pharmacy supplies led to a lack of medication and even rioting and looting food from restaurants and grocery stores (Wilson et al., 2009). In places where people have lower trust in governments, the socioeconomic divide in societies may disrupt the entire system (Lodhi, 2020).

Relationship Between Psychological Vulnerability and Affective Well-Being

Researchers have defined psychological vulnerability as a person’s perceived risk for susceptibility to undesirable outcomes such as developing psychopathology (Wright et al., 2013). Psychological vulnerability has also been defined as individuals’ likelihood of being more fragile to stress due to cognitive beliefs linked to an individual’s sense of self-worth (see, Sinclair & Wallston, 1999). Even under normal circumstances, it is very likely to feel psychologically vulnerable, but during unprecedented times such as COVID-19, the potential well-being related risks of such vulnerabilities can be massive. To the best of our knowledge, such a sense of vulnerability has not been explored in the context of pandemics.

Previous literature on psychological vulnerability and affective well-being (Karim et al., 2011; Satici, 2016) suggested a positive association between individuals’ psychological vulnerability and Negative Affective Well-being (NAW), and a negative correlation between psychological vulnerability and Positive Affective Well-being (PAW). Additional research suggests that psychological vulnerability is associated with many well-being-related adaptive constructs, such as life satisfaction (Satici, Uysal et al., 2016; Uysal, 2015). In the recent onset of COVID-19, psychological vulnerability can substantially affect our well-being because of heightened concerns for safety.

Although the research on these constructs in a single study is limited, there are instances where previous research has identified a direct and negative relationship between affective well-being and psychological vulnerability. Satici (2016) conducted a research study examining university students’ psychological vulnerability and subjective well-being. They found that Hope partially mediated the relationship between psychological vulnerability and students’ subjective well-being.

Studies have also supported that some groups, that is, people from low SES, women, those who are lonely, and the elderly are more psychologically vulnerable (see, Aben et al., 2002; Anjum & Godil, 2019; Mechanic & Tanner, 2007). Moreover, those with higher psychological vulnerability are more likely to experience negative affect (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999). In times of pandemics, such vulnerable groups have a higher likelihood of experiencing lower positive and higher adverse effects.

Relationship Between Hope and Affective Well-Being

Studies on well-being indicate that Hope is a critical psychological strength that helps people develop an optimistic outlook and have positive expectations of reaching their goals (Satici, 2016). Previous research has defined hope as “a cognitive set based on a reciprocally derived sense of successful agency and pathways” (Snyder et al., 1991, p. 571). Similarly, Snyder (2002) noted that hope is not only crucial for positive well-being, but it also serves as an essential factor for determining lower well-being. Additional research also supports that hope predicts higher levels of positive affect (Demirli et al., 2015).

Previous studies by Satici (2016), and Taysi et al. (2015) have indicated Hope as a critical mediator between the psychological vulnerability of individuals and their affective well-being. Hope has also been proposed as a mediator in other emotions-related studies (Anjum et al., 2018; Shahid et al., 2023). However, the construct of Hope has yet to be explored in the context of intense vulnerabilities such as pandemics, partially owing to the focus on crises. Therefore, the mediating role of hope would be particularly worth exploring in the studies on pandemics such as COVID-19.

The Current Research Context

In Pakistan, the actions taken by the government have not been entirely encouraging. Although screening for airline patients had started, the government’s initial response to the crisis was mishandled by authorities (Saqlain et al., 2020). Nonetheless, the national health authority (Pakistani National Institute of Health) appropriately developed and circulated health protocols to prevent COVID-19 spread. They launched multiple public awareness media campaigns to communicate accurate information to the public (Saqlain et al., 2020). Moreover, there are variations in central and local responses to the Pandemic (Akhtar et al., 2021). For instance, the central government had undermined the fight against COVID, whereas the local government of Sindh had emerged as a leader in the virus containment (Akhtar et al., 2021).

Like many developing countries in Pakistan, social media and other media outlets have been used to provide health information during COVID-19. However, there are also serious concerns that constant media consumption has negatively affected the mental health of many. Media consumption alone cannot be the only source of Negative Affective Well-being (NAW) or the lack of Positive Affective Well-being (PAW). Therefore, these studies aimed to explore factors potentially associated with the affective well-being of students and working healthcare professionals.

The current research had three goals. The first goal was to explore the relationship between Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability with PAW and NAW. The second goal was to investigate the mediating role of Hope between Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability and the outcome of PAW & NAW using path modeling in Amos. Our third goal was to replicate these findings in a second sample of working professionals. To achieve these goals, the following sets of testable hypotheses were outlined, and tested through two studies, Study 1 and Study 2.

Hypotheses

The present research had the following three primary hypotheses:

Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability will be negatively associated with Positive Affective Well-being (PAW).

Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability will be positively associated with Negative Affective Well-being (NAW).

Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability will predict PAW and NAW in path modeling with Hope as a mediator.

The analysis of both studies followed the principles of STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) initiative using the checklist for cross-sectional studies (Cuschieri, 2019; Vandenbroucke et al., 2007).

Study 1

Study 1 was conducted among university students. This study was an extension of a pilot study in which four focus groups were conducted online. Participants in these focus groups were recruited from two national universities in Karachi. They were invited to volunteer in these focus group discussions through university lists of communications departments, and student unions. Each focus group comprised seven to eight participants with 4 to 5 female and 2 to 3 male students (age range 20–27 years). These focus groups discussed students’ levels of hope, concerns about media usage, trust in the government, and emotional well-being at the onset of COVID-19 in Pakistan. The highest incidence of COVID-19 according to age stage in Pakistan has been reported in the 20 to 29 age bracket (19.9%; Ahmad et al., 2022). The sample of students was selected because the stress levels in this group might rise. This is also the reason why this study was conducted with youth. The study started after all on-campus classes were suspended and all educational institutions were closed to observe social distancing. This was the time when many students had reported emotional outbreaks. As the study was exploratory at first, four focus groups were conducted to understand the prevalence of Hope, PAW, and NAW. Three themes determining hope, PAW, and NAW emerged during these focus groups: Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability. Items for these three measures were derived from content analysis of these focus groups and committee approach using two experts and a Review Board expert in Psychology. Supplemental material, data, and scales for this article are available online at: https://osf.io/

Method

Participants

Participants were 411 college and university students (206 Women and 205 men, age = 22 years; SD = 2.64). Regarding SES, participants self-identified into three out of four SES categories, that is, Lower Middle SES (44%), Upper Middle SES (47%), and Upper SES (8.5%). None of the participants identified themselves as belonging to Lower SES. The minimum sample size required by G*Power (a-priori power analysis) was N = 269 to detect an effect of △R² = .05 in linear multiple regression models with 4/10 tested predictors, 1–β = .80. A larger sample of N = 411 was obtained. For recruitment purposes, we had 450 participants complete the survey; however, 39 surveys (9%) were substantially incomplete (5%), or they had not provided consent to participate in the study (4%). Therefore, their data were eliminated from the final data analysis. Other than 9% of the cases, all data was complete as the responses were mandatory.

Measures

In addition to the demographic variables (Age, Gender, SES, Religion, and professional status—i.e., being Student), three short measures specific to the local context were developed in addition to the previously available scales. See Table 1 for Cronbach Alpha and descriptive statistics for each scale.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Analysis, and Pearson Correlations (N = 411).

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Media Consumption	4.86	1.18	(.70)
2. Governmental Distrust	4.24	1.47	.24*	(.84)
3. Psychological Vulnerability	4.16	1.52	.31*	.20*	(.89)
4. PAW	3.65	1.32	−.34*	−.39*	-.47*	(.82)
5. NAW	3.39	1.27	.28*	.21*	.78*	−.44*	(.79)
6. Hope	3.72	1.38	−.23*	−.34	-.18*	.70	−.16	(.89)

Note. PAW = Positive Affective Well-being; NAW = Negative Affective Well-being; () =Cronbach’s α.

p < .01.

Media Consumption

Media consumption was measured using four items. Following recommendations from the literature (Dry, 2010; Fidler, 2004) and findings from our focus group, four modes of media consumption were assessed through these items, each item assessed the frequency of media consumption using different forms of media (Social Media, TV, and News Channels, Print Media, and Other Media). All items of this scale were assessed on a seven-point scale (1 = once per day; 7 = seven or more times per day; 0 = not applicable).

Governmental Distrust

Institutional Trust was measured using four items. Each item assessed the trust level in the government of Pakistan. The items of this scale were adapted and specifically contextualized based on the critical components of trust dimensions previously used during the swine flu outbreak (see Freimuth et al., 2014; Quinn et al., 2009). The scale included statements such as: “How committed do you think the government is in protecting you from COVID-19.” All statements were assessed on a seven-point scale (1 = extremely trustworthy; 7 = extremely untrustworthy).

Psychological Vulnerability

Psychological Vulnerability Scale (Sinclair & Wallston, 1999) was used to measure psychological vulnerability. The scale has six items: “I tend to set my goals too high and become frustrated trying to reach them.” To keep all scales consistent, these items were assessed on a seven-point scale (1 = highly unsuitable to me; 7 = highly suitable to me). We added one additional item to the scales based on the feedback from focus group discussions: “I feel socially fragile due to physical distancing.” Higher scores indicate greater psychological vulnerability.

I-PANAS-SF (Affective Well-Being)

Affective wellbeing was measured with I-PANAS-SF. This scale was developed by Thompson (2007) and consists of two mood scales. One scale measures Positive Affective Well-being, and the other measures Negative Affective Well-being. Respondents rate these statements on a seven-point scale (“1 = not at all, 7 = extremely”) during the past 2 weeks. The two scales were computed to represent Positive Affective Well-being (PAW) and Negative Affective Well-being (NAW).

Hope

The construct of “Hope” was measured using the Adults State Hope Scale, which was initially developed by Snyder et al. (1996). The scale assessed students’ levels of hope, including items including “If I should find myself in a jam, I could think of many ways to get out of it; At present, I am energetically pursuing my goals” (seven-point Likert scale; 1 = Definitely false; 7 = Definitely true). Higher aggregate scores indicate greater levels of hope among participants.

Procedure

After receiving the ethical review of the materials and measures for the survey, the study was launched among students. Participants from different National and Provincial Universities of Karachi were reached through university lists, communications departments, student unions, and clubs. A cross-sectional survey was developed using an online questionnaire. This survey was conducted between March 2020 and April 2020. All participants were university students, and their participation was voluntary. After providing informed consent, participants completed all the measures described below. In addition to university-wide mailing lists, multiple private and public sector universities’ online platforms were used for local, and national-level outreach to students. In order to minimize selection biases, invitations to participate in the survey were not circulated in the author’s programs and departments.

Results

IBM-SPSS 26 and inbuilt IBM-SPSS AMOS 26 software was used for analyzing the data. All statistical analyses reported in this section were conducted with a sample of 411 students. Before exploring the key hypotheses of the study, the reliability and inter-correlations of all variables: Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, Psychological Vulnerability, Positive Affective Well-being (PAW), and Negative Affective Well-being (NAW) were analyzed. Table 1 presents the mean scores (M), standard deviations (SD), Pearson Correlation coefficients (r), and Cronbach’s Alpha (α) of all the measured variables. All variables were found reliable and hence were acceptable for data analyses. Further analyses were done to test our research hypotheses and some post-hoc explorations.

To test Hypothesis 1, that participants’ Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability will be negatively associated with PAW, a linear regression model with multiple predictors supported this hypothesis. The results showed that Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability negatively and significantly predict PAW. Higher scores on Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability were associated with lower levels of PAW. Moreover, an exploratory regression analysis provided additional information that Psychological Vulnerability, Governmental Distrust, and Media Consumption were significant predictors of PAW among students. See Table 2 for details.

Table 2.

Predicting PAW from Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability (Study 1).

			CI_95% for b			t	Collinearity statistics
Predictor	b	SE	Lower	Upper	β		Tolerance	VIF
Media Consumption	−.18	0.049	−0.28	−0.08	−.16	−3.69**	0.82	1.20
Governmental Distrust	−.23	0.037	−0.30	−0.15	−.25	−6.02**	0.92	1.08
Psychological Vulnerability	−.33	0.038	−0.41	−0.25	−.38	−8.78**	0.84	1.18

Note. R ² = .34, Adjusted R² = .34, F (3, 407) = 71.25.

p < .001.

Hypothesis 2 that Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability will be positively associated with NAW was also tested through multiple linear regressions using NAW as an outcome variable. The results showed that only Psychological Vulnerability positively and significantly predicts NAW. Higher levels of Psychological Vulnerability were associated with greater NAW. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was only partially supported. The exploratory regression analysis provided additional information on the analysis. This analysis showed that only the prediction for Psychological Vulnerability was significant, whereas coefficients for Governmental Distrust and Media Consumption were statistically non-significant. See Table 3 for details.

Table 3.

Predicting NAW from Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability (Study 1).

			CI_95% for b			t	Collinearity statistics
Predictor	b	SE	Lower	Upper	β		Tolerance	VIF
Media Consumption	.00	0.03	−0.06	0.07	.00	0.074	0.82	1.20
Governmental Distrust	.03	0.03	−0.02	0.08	.03	1.193	0.92	1.08
Psychological Vulnerability	.69	0.03	0.64	0.74	.83	27.91**	0.84	1.18

Note. R ² = .70, Adjusted R² = .70, F (3, 407) = 313.14.

p < .001.

The third hypothesis of the study was that Media Consumption, Institutional Vulnerability, and Psychological Vulnerability would predict both Positive Affective Well-being and Negative Affective well-being among students in a standardized path model where PAW and NAW was uncorrelated. To test the mediational role of Hope in the first path model, an alternate model was built using the IBM SPSSAMOS 26 (for Model 1 for the standardized solution, see Figure 1). The path analysis was conducted using the covariance matrix and maximum likelihood estimations. Hope was found to mediate two pathways: partial mediation between Media Consumption and PAW (direct effect = −0.10*, indirect effect = −0.00), and the pathway between Governmental Distrust and PAW (direct effect = −0.07*, indirect effect = −0.16). Furthermore, there was no significant mediational association of Hope with Psychological Vulnerability (direct effect = 0.07, indirect effect = 0.00).; full mediation between Governmental Distrust and PW. Furthermore, there was no significant mediational association of Hope with Psychological Vulnerability. The results showed a satisfactory fit for the model, as illustrated by the following fit indices: X²(2) = 3.49, p = .17, normed X²/df = 1.74, GFI = 0.998, CFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.995, RMR = 0.01, RMSEA = 0.03, indicating an adequate fit for the hypothesized model (see Structural Equation Modeling Guidelines by Hooper et al., 2008). Media consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability negatively and significantly predict PAW. Furthermore, Psychological Vulnerability, on the other hand, directly and significantly predicts NAW such that when the students feel higher levels of Psychological Vulnerability, they experience higher levels of NAW.

Figure 1.

The role of Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability in predicting Positive Affective Well-being (PAW) and Negative Affective Well-being (NAW) among students (N = 411).

Discussion Study 1

The aim of Study 1 was to test the three hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 were fully supported by the data collected among university students. Higher Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability among students were associated with lower Positive Affective well-being and higher Negative Affective well-being. This indicates that the onset of the pandemic can be associated with adverse outcomes for the affective well-being of students. This finding has implications for educational institutes so that greater attention can be paid to the well-being of students. Hypothesis 3 gained only partial support because Hope served as a mediator between two pathways: partial mediation between Media consumption and PAW, and complete mediation between Governmental Distrust and PAW. This indicates that hope has a significant part to play in the positive well-being of participants, but this is undermined if students consume higher levels of media. They think that their government could be more trustworthy. In Study 1, Hope did not mediate the pathways between psychological vulnerability and PAW. Lastly, Negative Affective Well-being was only associated with Psychological Vulnerability in the path model, which can be attributed to a strong association between the two constructs.

Study 2

Study 2 was designed to test the research hypotheses in a different sample and to confirm and replicate the results of Study 1. To this end, we created Study 2, which was aimed at samples beyond the traditional sample of students, that is, working healthcare professionals, including doctors and nursing staff. This study adds more weight because it emphasizes the working healthcare professionals’ everyday struggle in the resource-stressed nation. Working healthcare professionals, particularly people with a medical background, struggled to avail vaccinations and mobilize public health services to contain Covid-19. As working from home was not an option for many professionals in Pakistan, and testing kits were unavailable until much later (Saqlain et al., 2020), the perceived vulnerability was likely to be much higher among this population. Many private hospitals and companies have also refused to join the fight against COVID-19 and provide needed services to their workers (The Express Tribune, 2020). In this regard, healthcare personnel in the country were particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 patients while not having protective gear. The Pakistan Healthcare Association (PMA) expressed its disapproval of politicians wearing masks unavailable to frontline healthcare workers (Khan, 2020). Since working healthcare professionals were the most exposed sample and represented a bigger pool of participants, Study 2 focused on this sample.

Method

Participants

Participants in Study 2 were 375 working healthcare professionals (198 Women and 177; age = 33 years; SD = 10.71). Regarding SES, participants self-identified into three categories, that is, Lower Middle SES (51.6%), Middle SES (44.4%), and Upper SES (4%). Participants from different professions working in public and private organizations and universities participated in this study. The minimum sample size required by G*Power analysis was N = 269 to detect an effect of △R² = .05 in linear multiple regression models with 4/10 tested predictors to gain 80% strength. A larger sample of N = 375 was obtained. For recruitment purposes, we had aimed for 400 participants. In total, 396 participants filled out the survey; however, 21 surveys (approximately 5%) were substantially incomplete or did not consent to participate in the study; data for these cases were eliminated from the final data analysis and presentation of results.

Measures

Study 2 used the same measures as Study 1. See Table 4 for Cronbach Alpha and descriptive statistics for each scale.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Analysis, and Pearson Correlations (N = 375).

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Media Consumption	4.75	1.29	(.72)
2. Governmental Distrust	4.56	1.31	.24*	(.82)
3. Psychological Vulnerability	3.67	1.52	.23*	.23*	(.91)
4. PAW	3.80	1.39	−.32*	−.43*	−.44*	(.81)
5. NAW	3.61	1.40	.24*	.23*	.91*	−.41*	(.85)
6. Hope	3.84	1.55	−.13*	−.32	−.16*	.74*	−.11	(.92)

Note. PAW = Positive Affective Well-being; NAW = Negative Affective Well-being; () = Cronbach’s α.

p < .01.

Procedure

All participants were reached through university lists, communications departments, marketing departments, and Human Resources of various organizations. An online survey was developed and distributed cross-sectionally through public hospitals and healthcare clinics. This survey was conducted during the second half of 2020. Participation in Study 2 was voluntary, and all participants completed an online survey after providing informed consent. The survey included the same scales as Study 1. The provincial outreach programs for working healthcare professionals were engaged to have a higher participation turnout. Additional email invitations were sent to potential participants through the universities’ alumni networks and social and marketing clubs of various professional organizations. To avoid biases in the recruitment process, the authors did not participate in sending direct invitations to the working healthcare professionals.

Results

All statistical analyses reported in this section were conducted with a sample of 375 working healthcare professionals. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s Alpha (α), and intercorrelations between scales are summarized in Table 4. Further analyses were done to test our primary and secondary research hypotheses.

Results of Hypothesis 1 in Study 2 data showed that Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability negatively and significantly predict PAW. Higher scores on Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability were associated with lower PAW scores. An exploratory regression analysis provided additional information that Psychological Vulnerability, Governmental Distrust, and Media Consumption were significant predictors of PAW among working healthcare professionals. See Table 5 for details.

Table 5.

Predicting PAW from Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability (Study 2).

			CI_95% for b			t	Collinearity statistics
Predictor	b	SE	Lower	Upper	β		Tolerance	VIF
Media Consumption	−.20	0.05	−0.30	−0.11	−.19	−4.20**	0.88	1.13
Governmental Distrust	−.31	0.05	−0.41	−0.22	−.29	−6.69**	0.92	1.08
Psychological Vulnerability	−.32	0.04	−0.41	−0.24	−.35	−7.81**	0.89	1.12

Note. R ² = .35, Adjusted R² = .34, F (3, 370) = 65.85.

p < .001.

Hypothesis 2, that Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability will be positively associated with NAW was also tested through linear regression using NAW as an outcome variable. The results showed that only Psychological Vulnerability positively and significantly predicts NAW. Higher levels of Psychological Vulnerability were associated with greater NAW. Therefore, hypothesis 2 was only partially supported because only the prediction for Psychological Vulnerability was significant, whereas standardized coefficients for Governmental Distrust and Media Consumption were statistically non-significant. See Table 6 for details.

Table 6.

Predicting NAW from Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability (Study 2).

			CI_95% for b			t	Collinearity statistics
Predictor	b	SE	Lower	Upper	β		Tolerance	VIF
Media Consumption	.03	0.02	−0.02	0.07	.02	1.09	0.88	1.13
Governmental Distrust	.01	0.02	−0.03	0.06	.01	0.48	0.92	1.08
Psychological Vulnerability	.84	0.02	0.80	0.88	.91	41.26**	0.89	1.12

Note. R ² = .84, Adjusted R² = .84, F (3, 407) = 649.82.

p < .001.

The study’s third hypothesis was tested through Hope’s mediational role in the first path model (for Model 1 standardized solution, see Figure 2). Hope was found to mediate two pathways: a partial mediation between Media Consumption and PAW (direct effect = 0.17*, indirect effect = −0.04), and full mediation pathway between Governmental Distrust and PW (direct effect = 0.11*, indirect effect = −0.20). There was no significant mediational association of Hope with Psychological Vulnerability (direct effect = 0.05, indirect effect = 0.00). The results showed a satisfactory fit for the model, the fit indices illustrated this: X²(2) = 2.78, p = .43, normed X²/df = 0.92, GFI = 0.998, CFI = 0.999, NFI = 0.998, TLI = 0.999, RMR = 0.01, RMSEA = 0.00, indicating adequate fit for the hypothesized model. Media consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability negatively and significantly predict PAW. Furthermore, Psychological Vulnerability directly and significantly predicts NAW.

Figure 2.

We also compared the models from Study 1 and Study 2 by running t-tests on each pair of the corresponding path coefficients from Study 1 and Study 2. None of the pairs of path coefficients were significantly different from the other. Indicating the similarity of the coefficient sizes (magnitude of coefficients) and not in fit indices. For all the common six pairs of path coefficients, the t-tests yielded non-significant differences (p > .05), indicating no significant variation in the relationships between the paths across the models. The absolute values of the calculated t-values for each pair of paths ranged from 0.61 to 1.04 suggesting no significant differences in the relationships between variables across the models. These results indicate that the paths examined exhibit consistent relationships regardless of the specific model under consideration.

Discussion Study 2

The primary purpose of the second study (Study 2) was to test the research’s three hypotheses and reproduce the findings of Study 1. Similar to the findings of Study 1, data from working healthcare professionals showed support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. Both hypotheses were fully supported by the data collected among working healthcare and other professionals showing that higher levels of Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability among working professionals were associated with lower Positive Affective well-being (PAW) and higher Negative Affective well-being (NAW). These findings indicate that in the context of COVID-19, working healthcare professionals were experiencing higher levels of negative affective well-being and lower levels of positive affective well-being. Hence, their affective well-being was negatively associated with higher media consumption, vulnerability, and governmental distrust. In this sample of working healthcare professionals, Hypothesis 3, once again, gained only partial support, that is, Hope served as a mediator between two pathways: partial mediation between Media consumption and PAW, and between Governmental Distrust and PAW. In essence, these findings indicate that hope is essential to the positive affective well-being of working healthcare professionals. Moreover, hope is strongly associated with media consumption and a lack of trust in governmental institutions. These findings suggest that during COVID-19, the lack of emphasis on hope can lower positive affect levels among working healthcare professionals. Like Study 1, Study 2 also establishes that Hope did not mediate the pathways between Psychological Vulnerability and PAW. Another essential replication was that Negative Affective well-being was only strongly associated with Psychological Vulnerability in the path model, meaning that working healthcare professionals with higher levels of psychological vulnerability are more prone to feel negative affect during COVID-19. Overall, Study 2 indicates broader generalizability and consequences for affective well-being during COVID-19.

General Discussion

Across studies (Study 1 with students and Study 2 with healthcare professionals), the role of Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability was explored, and the generalizability of psychological responses for Positive and Negative Affective well-being (PAW, NAW) was tested. Based on the integration of previous literature, we empirically tested the three critical predictors of the affective well-being of students and working healthcare professionals, that is, Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerabilities. To this end, two studies were conducted. Study 1 was conducted among students, and Study 2 was conducted among working healthcare professionals who continued to work during the pandemic. More specifically, we examined how participants’ Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, and Psychological Vulnerability contribute to explaining PAW and NAW. Both studies showed similar findings, that is, with increasing levels of each indicator, the PAW of students reduces, and NAW increases.

Study 1 and Study 2 showed that each predictor contributed differently in explaining PAW and NAW, that is, how Psychological Vulnerability had a much stronger association than Governmental Distrust and media consumption. This association was particularly pronounced among working healthcare professionals, possibly because they had to continue working during the most unpredictable pandemic. The findings regarding Psychological Vulnerability’s negative association with PAW and NAW are supported by previous research (Satici, 2016). Furthermore, our findings are consistent with previous studies examining the relationship between psychological vulnerability and negative affect. For example, Sinclair and Wallston (1999) demonstrated that vulnerability was associated with negative affect as well as depressive symptoms among participants.

Results of both studies on the path model showed that Psychological Vulnerability was a more substantial and direct predictor of PAW and NAW. Furthermore, Media Consumption and Governmental Distrust were associated with lower levels of PAW; they did not contribute to explaining NAW. These findings were consistent among the student sample and the sample of working healthcare professionals. Our crucial assumption about the mediational role of Hope was only partially supported. In both studies, Hope partially mediated the relationship between Media consumption and PAW, and between Governmental Distrust and PAW. This indicates that the negative effect of Media Consumption and Governmental Distrust would be eroding Hope about the situation, which in turn predicts PAW. These findings signify the need to promote Hope to achieve positive affective well-being among people. Moreover, t-tests comparisons between the paths of the two models showed that these findings were consistent in both studies.

Previous research among university students indicates that Hope can partially mediate between Psychological Vulnerability and well-being (Satici, 2016). However, in both studies, Hope was not mediating the relationship between vulnerability and PAW. These findings could be due to the heightened Negative Affect due to the heightened vulnerability of participants in the COVID-19 crisis. The more substantial prevalence of Psychological Vulnerability in Study 2 confirms this speculation because working healthcare professionals had to work in a highly vulnerable situation when no personal protection equipment was available to them. Psychological Vulnerability among both samples was very high, which can be associated with lower Positive Affective well-being. These findings support that Psychological Vulnerability is a powerful personal belief system that may directly influence both the positive as well as negative well-being of participants.

The findings of both studies suggest that affective well-being is sensitive to different personal, social, and institutional vulnerabilities. There is a heightened need to focus on each vulnerability to help our students and working healthcare professionals. This focus can help them buffer the negative consequences of COVID-19. Creating hope among students and working healthcare professionals by providing more credible media content and trustworthy statements by government officials can be a principal protective factor when there is a need for more fundamental physical and psychological health support systems due to COVID-19.

This research was conducted during a strict lockdown in Pakistan, encompassing students and working healthcare professionals. The insights gleaned from this study hold particular relevance for individuals hailing from developing nations, who are more prone to healthcare crises and experience psychological uncertainty in the face of the COVID-19 situation. These findings underscore the importance of fostering hope among vulnerable groups, especially those at a heightened risk of experiencing negative emotional well-being.

Additionally, the outcomes of this investigation shed light on the necessity of reevaluating urban vulnerabilities and mental health. In numerous cities across the global south, issues related to well-being are disproportionately prevalent in impoverished communities (Aben et al., 2002; Anjum et al., 2018). Such challenges assume even greater significance in diverse cities like Karachi, where the majority of the working class cannot afford to miss a day of work. Here, the interconnectedness between work, housing, and health is intimately intertwined with poverty and vulnerability. Therefore, future research should examine the vulnerabilities associated with socioeconomic status and gender, offering specific recommendations tailored to the needs of these more marginalized groups (Navarro-Carrillo et al., 2020).

Furthermore, the findings pertaining to gender differences constitute a crucial and additional contribution to this study. These insights hold implications for communities and governments alike. For instance, when formulating policies or disseminating social services and formal planning, governments and communities often assume that all segments of the population have similar needs and coping mechanisms during crises. However, this research challenges such assumptions by revealing that females face a heightened vulnerability and negative affect, necessitating more robust mitigation efforts. Consequently, it is imperative for governments, social networks, community activists, and media platforms to devote greater attention to addressing the disproportionate needs of women and implementing equitable solutions.

Limitations

The present study had several caveats that can be a focus of future research on this topic. The first limitation is regarding the relatively homogeneous samples of our studies because both samples had an over-representation of the middle class, and participants from the lower and upper classes were missing. This is a limiting factor in the generalizability of our research findings. While both studies have important implications, their findings cannot be generalized to all other populations. To mitigate this limitation, future research should include participants from lower socioeconomic status and other more vulnerable groups, that is, participants from informal settlements, cross-cultural samples, and front-line workers, to make their results more generalizable.

The second limitation of this research is based on the method. Both studies used a cross-sectional survey method and correlational research design. However, it was necessary to have the survey so that more people could participate. This use of a self-report measure and lack of experimental or longitudinal design leaves room for more conclusive studies. Future studies with multimethod testing of the present studies would be more desirable. Moreover, a survey method and a cross-sectional design make it challenging for causational claims about the present research findings. Another limitation of the study was that the study had no baseline data because of the nature of the pandemic. Building the study based on participants’ qualitative responses might have added to the face validity of this work, but collecting data at two points might have given rich comparisons. However, such an option was unavailable at the time of our research due to much uncertainty about the continued spread of COVID-19 in the country, especially in the province of Sindh. Therefore, it is hard to comment on the extent to which media consumption, trust in the government, and psychological vulnerability-related influences varied as COVID-19 continue to spread.

Conclusion

In the ongoing COVID-19 crises, the findings from Study 1 and Study 2 highlight the importance of Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust, Psychological Vulnerability, and Hope in enhancing understanding of both Positive and Negative Affective Well-being of university students and working healthcare professionals. The present research recommends that to ensure the positive well-being of university students and working healthcare professionals, their psychological vulnerability should be considered as it is a single significant predictor of both positive and negative well-being among the two samples. We also must prioritize providing hope to our youth by building trust in the government and reducing media consumption. Last but not least, media outlets and governments should consider the disproportionate vulnerabilities of people when they implement policies and protocols for managing crises such as COVID-19.

Research Data

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241240201 – Role of Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust & Psychological Vulnerability in Predicting Affective Well-being of University Students & Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19

sj-docx-1-sgo-10.1177_21582440241240201 for Role of Media Consumption, Governmental Distrust & Psychological Vulnerability in Predicting Affective Well-being of University Students & Healthcare Professionals during COVID-19 by Gulnaz Anjum and Mudassar Aziz in SAGE Open

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the Department of Psychology (PSI), University of Oslo (UiO), for writing this paper. We would also like to acknowledge feedback from anonymous reviewers that has significantly improved our paper.

Author Contributions

GA was the lead author who conceptualized this project, prepared the manuscript, and wrote the first draft of the paper. She revised the manuscript and finalized the revision. MA was the second author who helped with the first and the second draft of the manuscript and participated in the revision and finalization of the revision. Both authors worked equally on data collection and data analysis and approved the revision and proofs of the manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: GA received financial support from the Department of Psychology (PSI), University of Oslo (UiO), for writing this paper. The funding was provided by Tildeling av kvalifiseringsstipend 2022, and Mobility grant PSI 2022, sub-project number: 102603241.

Ethics Approval

Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the local university in Pakistan.

ORCID iD

Gulnaz Anjum

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online at:

Significance

In the ongoing COVID-19 crisis, the well-being of university students and healthcare professionals around the globe is at stake. In Pakistan, the death rate due to COVID-19 is highest among people of these two groups, so it was vital to work with these samples. Two studies were conducted to answer critical questions about students and healthcare professionals in the field of education and medicine during the ongoing lockdown in Karachi: 1) How do Media Consumption, Governmental Distress, and Psychological Vulnerability impact the Affective Well-being of Students and healthcare professionals; and 2) Does Hope Mediate relationship between these predictors and affective wellbeing of participants. The present studies recommend that to ensure the positive well-being of university students and healthcare professionals; their psychological vulnerability should be considered as it is a significant predictor of both positive and negative well-being among students. We also highlight the need to prioritize providing hope through building trust in the government and media. Moreover, this research recommends that media outlets and governments consider people’s disproportionate vulnerabilities when implementing policies and protocols for managing healthcare crises like COVID-19.

Data Availability Statement

Data will be provided upon request by researchers.

References

Aben

Denollet

Lousberg

Verhey

Wojciechowski

Honig

(2002). Personality and vulnerability to depression in stroke patients: A 1-year prospective follow-up study. Stroke, 33(10), 2391–2395. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.str.0000029826.41672.2e

Adebayo

Neumark

Gesser-Edelsburg

Abu Ahmad

Levine

(2017). Zika pandemic online trends, incidence and health risk communication: A time trend study. BMJ Global Health, 2(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2017-000296

Ahmad

A. M.

Shahzad

Masood

Umar

Abbasi

Hafeez

(2022). COVID-19 seroprevalence in Pakistan: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 12(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055381

Anjum

Godil

(2019). Fear of achievement among young women in Urban Pakistan: A phenomenological analysis of fear of achievement (FOA). Cogent Social Sciences, 5(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1666620

Anjum

Kidd

D. C.

Aziz

(2018). Hope in times of terrorism: action-expressions speak louder than passive-sorrows. Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28(1), 1–17.

Akhtar

Afridi

Akhtar

Ahmad

Ali

Khalid

Awan

S. M.

Jahangiri

Khader

Y. S.

(2021). Pakistan’s response to COVID-19: Overcoming national and international hypes to fight the pandemic. JMIR Public Health Surveill, 7(5), e28517. https://doi.org/10.2196/28517

Baumann

Czerwinski

Reifegerste

(2017). Gender-specific determinants and patterns of online health information seeking: Results from a representative German Health Survey. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 19(4), e92. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.6668

Breslau

Peterson

E. L.

Schultz

L. R.

(2008). A second look at prior trauma and the posttraumatic stress disorder effects of subsequent trauma: A prospective epidemiological study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(4), 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.65.4.431

Cuschieri

(2019). The STROBE guidelines. Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia, 13(Suppl 1), S31–s34. https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18

10.

Demirli

Türkmen

Arık

R. S.

(2015). Investigation of dispositional and state hope levels’ relations with student subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 120, 601–613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0607-9

11.

Dry

(2010). New rules for health? Epidemics and the international health regulations. In Dry

Leach

(Eds.), Epidemics: Science, governance and social justice (pp. 23–42). Earthscan.

12.

Fidler

(2004). SARS, governance and the globalization of disease. Palgrave Macmillan.

13.

Fogarty

A. S.

Holland

Imison

Blood

R. W.

Chapman

Holding

(2011). Communicating uncertainty–how Australian television reported H1N1 risk in 2009: A content analysis. BMC Public Health, 11(1), 181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-181

14.

Freimuth

V. S.

Musa

Hilyard

Quinn

S. C.

Kim

(2014). Trust during the early stages of the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Journal of Health Communication, 19(3), 321–339. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.811323

15.

Hoegh

Ferreira

M. A. R.

Leman

(2016). Spatiotemporal model fusion: Multiscale modelling of civil unrest. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series C, Applied Statistics, 65(4), 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12138

16.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.

17.

Jones

J. H.

Salathé

(2009). Early assessment of anxiety and behavioral response to novel swine-origin influenza A(H1N1). PLoS One, 4(12), e8032. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0008032

18.

Kanadiya

M. K.

Sallar

A. M.

(2011). Preventive behaviors, beliefs, and anxieties in relation to the swine flu outbreak among college students aged 18–24 years. Journal of Public Health, 19(2), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-010-0373-3

19.

Karim

Weisz

Rehman

S. U.

(2011). International positive and negative affect schedule short-form (I-PANAS-SF): Testing for factorial invariance across cultures. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 2016–2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.046

20.

Khan

M. I.

(2020, April 10). Coronavirus: Why Pakistan's doctors are so angry. BBC News, Islamabad. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-52243901

21.

Kilgo

D. K.

Yoo

Johnson

T. J.

(2019). Spreading Ebola panic: Newspaper and social media coverage of the 2014 Ebola health crisis. Health Communication, 34(8), 811–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1437524

22.

Lin

Jung

McCloud

R. F.

Viswanath

(2014). Media Use and communication inequalities in a public health emergency: A case study of 2009–2010 pandemic influenza a virus subtype H1N1. Public Health Reports, 129(6_suppl4), 49–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/00333549141296s408

23.

Lodhi

(2020). The trust crisis. Dawn Pakistan. https://www.dawn.com/news/1595671

24.

Lyubomirsky

Lepper

H. S.

(1999). A measure of subjective happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research, 46(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006824100041

25.

Mechanic

Tanner

(2007). Vulnerable people, groups, and populations: societal view. Health Affairs, 26(5), 1220–1230. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.26.5.1220

26.

Mukhtar

(2020). Mental Health and psychosocial aspects of Coronavirus outbreak in Pakistan: Psychological intervention for public mental health crisis. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 102069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102069

27.

Navarro-Carrillo

Alonso-Ferres

Moya

Valor-Segura

(2020). Socioeconomic status and psychological well-being: Revisiting the role of subjective socioeconomic status. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01303

28.

Pieri

(2019). Media framing and the threat of global pandemics: The Ebola crisis in UK media and policy response. Sociological Research Online, 24(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780418811966

29.

Quinn

S. C.

Kumar

Freimuth

V. S.

Kidwell

Musa

(2009). Public willingness to take a vaccine or drug under emergency use authorization during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, 7(3), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.1089/bsp.2009.0041

30.

Roy

Tripathy

Kar

S. K.

Sharma

Verma

S. K.

Kaushal

(2020). Study of knowledge, attitude, anxiety & perceived mental healthcare need in Indian population during COVID-19 pandemic. Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51, 102083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102083

31.

Saqlain

Munir

M. M.

Ahmed

Tahir

A. H.

Kamran

(2020). Is Pakistan prepared to tackle the coronavirus epidemic? Drugs & Therapy Perspectives, 36(5), 213–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40267-020-00721-1

32.

Satici

S. A.

(2016). Psychological vulnerability, resilience, and subjective well-being: The mediating role of hope. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.057

33.

Satici

S. A.

Uysal

Yilmaz

M. F.

Deniz

M. E.

(2016). Social safeness and psychological vulnerability in Turkish youth: The mediating role of life satisfaction. Current Psychology, 35(1), 22–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9359-1

34.

Shahid

Anjum

Aziz

(2023). Relationship between passion pathways and religious activism: Why the threat to religious identity predicts peaceful activism or extremism Sage Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231201246

35.

Sharma

Yadav

Ferdinand

K. C.

(2017). Zika virus pandemic-analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. American Journal of Infection Control, 45(3), 301–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2016.08.022

36.

Sinclair

V. G.

Wallston

K. A.

(1999). The development and validation of the Psychological Vulnerability Scale. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 23, 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018770926615

37.

Snyder

C. R.

(2002). TARGET ARTICLE: Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 249–275.

38.

Snyder

C. R.

Harris

Anderson

J. R.

Holleran

S. A.

Irving

L. M.

Sigmon

S. T.

Yoshinobu

Gibb

Langelle

Harney

(1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570

39.

Snyder

C. R.

Sympson

S. C.

Ybasco

F. C.

Borders

T. F.

Babyak

M. A.

Higgins

R. L.

(1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.2.321

40.

Sørensen

Van Den Broucke

Fullam

Doyle

Pelikan

Slonska

Brand

(2012). Health literacy and public health: A systematic review and integration of definitions and models. BMC Public Health, 12(1), 80. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-80

41.

Tang

Bie

Park

S. E.

Zhi

(2018). Social media and outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases: A systematic review of literature. American Journal of Infection Control, 46(9), 962–972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.02.010

42.

Taylor

(2019). The psychology of pandemics: Preparing for the next global outbreak of Infectious Disease. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

43.

Taysi

Curun

Orcan

(2015). Hope, anger, and depression as mediators for forgiveness and social behavior in Turkish children. The Journal of Psychology, 149(4), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2014.881313

44.

The express Tribune. (2020, July). Fighting the endless battle against Covid-19. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2256592/fighting-the-endless-battle-against-covid-19

45.

Thompson

E. R.

(2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106297301

46.

Uysal

(2015). Social Competence and psychological vulnerability: The mediating role of flourishing. Psychological Reports, 117(2), 554–565. https://doi.org/10.2466/21.PR0.117c18z2

47.

Vandenbroucke

J. P.

von Elm

Altman

D. G.

Gøtzsche

P. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Pocock

S. J.

Poole

Schlesselman

J. J.

Egger

(2007). Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(8), W163–W194. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1

48.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Tellegen

(1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063

49.

Wilson

J. M.

Iannarone

Wang

(2009). Media reporting of the emergence of the 1968 influenza pandemic in Hong Kong: Implications for modern-day situational awareness. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 3, S148–S153. https://doi.org/10.1097/dmp.0b013e3181abd603

50.

Wright

M. O. D.

Masten

A. S.

Narayan

A. J.

(2013). Resilience processes in development: Four waves of research on positive adaptation in the context of adversity. In Goldstein

Brooks

R. B.

(Eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children (pp. 15–37). Springer US.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB