77 individual transilience in the face of the covid-19 pandemic measures prohibited gatherings of more than three people, required shops to enforce a 1.5m distance, and made working from home mandatory for most organisations (DutchNews, 2020). As such, the Dutch measures were less restrictive than those implemented by the Italian government during the same period. The number of daily deaths increased until reaching a peak around April 7 (i.e., 230; WHO, n.d.; DutchNews, 2020). Afterwards, both the death and the infection rates seemed to flatten for the first time since the start of the pandemic (WHO, n.d.). As such, the severity and acuteness of the threat posed by the COVID-19 pandemic was worse and the containment measures implemented were more restrictive at T2, compared to T1. We again examined whether people perceived transilience in the face of COVID-19. Next, we tested whether higher perceived transilience is related to more individual and collective adaptation behaviours, cognitive coping, personal positive change, and well-being in the Dutch context, where people had more freedom compared to Italy. We also wanted to probe the robustness of transilience as a predictor of adaptation behaviours and well-being over time. First, we examined whether the relationships between transilience and relevant outcome variables were similar at both time points, even though the absolute levels of the variables may differ. Second, to gain some insight in causality, we tested whether transilience at T1 predicts adaptation behaviours and well-being also at T2. Method Participants and Procedure We invited a random sample of the Dutch adult population to participate in our study via Panel Inzicht, a professional online research panel in The Netherlands (https:// panelinzicht.nl). A total of 497 participants consented to participate in our longitudinal study and filled in our survey at T1, of which 364 also filled in the questionnaire at T2. We excluded a total of 62 participants (12.5%) at T1 and 32 participants (9%) at T2 based on the following criteria. First, we removed participants who did not complete the transilience scale, our main variable of interest (n = 33 at T1; n = 3 at T2). Next, we excluded participants who completed the survey in less than 3 minutes or more than 2 hours (n = 25 at T1; n = 23 at T2) as we considered their responses unlikely to be accurate (median completion time: T1 = 8.5 minutes; T2 = 11 minutes). Also, we removed duplicated IP addresses (n = 4 at T1; n = 6 at T2). Thus, a total of 435 responses were retained for the analyses at T1 (46.7% identified as men; < 1 % identified as ‘other’; Mage = 52.00; SDage = 19.00), and 332 responses were retained for T2 (46.4% identified as men; < 0.5 % identified as ‘other’; Mage = 54.00; SDage = 18.00). The final merged dataset, which we used for the longitudinal analyses, contained a total of 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw