70 chapter 3 has shown that people report higher degrees of personal positive change (thus doing more than ‘bouncing back’) after facing serious personal adversities, including chronic health issues like cancer (posttraumatic growth; Carver & Antoni, 2004; Helgeson & Tomich, 2006) and childhood abuse (Hartley et al., 2016; Woodward & Joseph, 2003). Instead, we aim to test whether people perceived transilience during the emergency caused by COVID-19, when the risks were very acute and serious. Moreover, we aim to test to what extent higher transilience predicts a wide range of adaptive behaviours relevant in the face of COVID-19, including individual behaviours (i.e., actions aiming to protect people themselves, such as washing hands regularly), collective behaviours (i.e., actions aiming to protect and support others, such as educating others to take measures to limit the spread of COVID-19), and employing cognitive strategies to manage the emotions associated with the threat, such as making the best out of the situation (cognitive coping; Carver et al., 1989). Next, we aim to test whether higher transilience is related to better mental health, including subjective well-being and personal positive change derived from the confrontation with the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., being better able to handle difficulties; Carver & Antoni, 2004). Contextual and Situational Differences in the COVID-19 Pandemic Interestingly, different countries were affected differently by the spread of COVID-19 and implemented different policies and measures to deal with the threat (Capano et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2020). Italy, for instance, was at the forefront of the COVID-19 outbreak in Europe and experienced one of the highest infection rates in the world during its initial stages (Bezzini et al., 2021). The virus had devastating consequences on people’s health, overwhelming the national healthcare system, and resulting in thousands of deaths (WHO, n.d.). The situation in Italy was characterised by high levels of uncertainty and fear, as the virus was new and little was known about how to treat it (Bezzini et al., 2021). To address the emergency, the Italian government implemented strict lockdown measures, which prohibited personal mobility and most economic activities (see Masotti et al., 2022). In contrast to Italy, The Netherlands experienced a less severe impact of the pandemic and at a later stage in time (WHO, n.d.). Notably, by the time the virus began spreading in the Netherlands, more knowledge about the nature and the treatment of the COVID-19 disease was available based on the experiences of countries like Italy (Bastoni et al., 2021). Therefore, the Dutch national healthcare system faced somewhat less pressure, and there was a lower level of uncertainty about how to deal with the disease. The Dutch government implemented measures that allowed for some personal freedom of movement; besides, non-essential economic activities could continue under the so-called “intelligent lockdown” (Masotti et al., 2022), which was far less strict than the Italian lockdown. As the infection and death rates in The Netherlands increased over time, some additional measures were introduced, such as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw