Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Feb 12:00332941231156813. doi: 10.1177/00332941231156813

Fear of COVID-19 and Fear of Earthquake: Multiple Distressing Events and Well-Being in Croatia

Zvjezdana Prizmić-Larsen 1, Maja Tadić Vujčić 2,✉, Ljiljana Kaliterna Lipovčan 2
PMCID: PMC9925866  PMID: 36775658

Abstract

People in Croatia have recently experienced two major earthquakes in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic, which are possible sources of increased fear. In order to capture and understand the effects of the simultaneously occurring threatening events, the aims of this study were threefold. First, we aimed to examine the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Croatian version of the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S). Second, bearing in mind that there is a lack of instruments for measuring fear of earthquakes, the study aimed to develop and examine the psychometric properties the Fear of Earthquake Scale (FES), as a version of FCV-19S, modified for the earthquake experience. Finally, the study aimed to examine differences in well-being indicators (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect) between four groups of participants who either had/did not have COVID-19 disease or had experienced/did not have experienced earthquake. The study was conducted among 1136 participants adults who took part in the fourth year of the Croatian longitudinal study on well-being. Among them, N = 665 participants experienced earthquake and responded to additional questions regarding that experience. The analyses demonstrated valid psychometric properties and one-factorial structure of FCV-19S and FES scales. The findings showed that people who went through earthquake experience (vs. those without earthquake experience and COVID-19 infection) reported higher negative affect and lower positive affect, indicating that people in Croatia seem to have been more fearful of earthquakes than COVID-19 pandemic. Findings suggest the long-term negative effects of earthquake on fear and well-being in comparison to COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: Fear of Covid-19, fear of earthquake, life satisfaction, affective well-being

Introduction

Pandemic of COVID-19 undoubtedly changed the lives of many people around the globe causing many deaths and serious illnesses and affecting everyday life and work, as well as countries’ economies, health care, and overall functioning, which resulted in many people feeling insecure and fearful. In addition to these health emergencies, some countries experienced other major threatening events, such as natural disasters (Shi & Hall, 2020). One example is Croatia, which experienced two major earthquakes in the midst of COVID-19 pandemic. A few days after declaring partial lock-down because of COVID-19 pandemic (March 19th, 2020), Croatia was hit by the first earthquakes of 5.5 magnitude on Richter scale (March 22nd, 2020), with an epicenter 7 km of the capital of Zagreb city center. The second earthquake happened a few months later (December 29th, 2020), with 6.2 magnitude on Richter scale with the epicenter 3 km from Petrinja city, and some 50 km from the capital of Zagreb, which was reportedly the strongest earthquake to hit Croatia in more than 140 years. The earthquakes had many aftershocks and devastating material damages near the epicenters, and one child casualty.

Effects of different types of disasters and major threats have been extensively studied and have been shown to have a strong negative impact on individual and social well-being (Frijters et al., 2021; Raphael & Ma, 2011). These distressing experiences are also accompanied with physiological reactions like lack of sleep, heart rate increase, breathing problems (Kowalski & Kalayjian, 2001). For example, in a recent study on US data, Frijters et al. (2021) found that people who experienced a disaster had lower overall well-being, fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions compared to people who did not experience a disaster.

Earthquakes are particular type of natural disaster that occur unexpectedly and unpredictably, and, depending on their severity, can directly threaten people’s lives and safety; thus, people often experience wide range of negative emotions and psychological distress, sometimes even long time after it happened, especially people who live in the affected areas (Sumer et al., 2005). For instance, Oishi et al. (2017) found that people expressed lower life satisfaction after experiencing an earthquake (vs. before the earthquake), regardless of their sociodemographic status or personality traits. Kowalski and Kalayjian (2001) reported that survivors of devastating earthquake in Turkey experienced increased anxiety and high levels of fear. Başoğlu et al. (2002) found that posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms were very common among earthquake survivors, particularly for those who experienced high levels of fear (Grimm et al., 2012; Kannis-Dymand et al., 2015; Rowney et al., 2014). Moreover, a study among survivors of Turkey’s earthquake by Salcioglu et al. (2018) found that the strongest predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder were fear of future earthquakes and reduced sense of control over life.

However, experiences of simultaneous multiple major distressing events, as was the case in Croatia with two major earthquakes during COVID-19 pandemic, have not been studied as extensively. These circumstances involve managing unpredictable and unsafe situations, and potential harm, which can trigger high fear, particularly when such circumstances are prolonged and when life-threatening events happen simultaneously. Hence, it is important to investigate the associations between distressing events, fear, and well-being to understand their impact on the affected population.

Assessing the Fear of Distressing Events

To adequately capture and understand the effects of the simultaneous occurring threatening events first step is to develop concise and valid instruments to assess these issues. The instruments that assess psychological responses to COVID-19 have been developed and validated in many countries (Iversen et al., 2021; Sawicki et al., 2022). The most widely used instrument is the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S; Ahoursu et al., 2020) designed to assess the fear and anxiety related to COVID-19. The original FCV-19S developed by Ahoursu et al. (2020) has shown one-factor structure with items capturing emotional and somatic response to fear.

Bearing in mind that response to pandemic differs between countries, many studies examined the psychometric characteristics of the scale in different national samples. In terms of the FCV-19S factor structure, some studies support the originally found one-factor structure, such as in Bangladesh (Sakib et al., 2020), Turkey (Satici et al., 2021), Saudi Arabia (Alyami et al., 2021), Italy (Soraci et al., 2020), whilst other suggest two-factor structure model, such as in Israel (Tzur Bitan et al., 2020), Russia and Belarus (Reznik et al., 2021), Japan (Midorikawa et al., 2021), or second-order general factor structure with two separate first-order factors, such as in Ecuador (Moreta-Herrera et al., 2021), Norway (Iversen et al., 2021), Japan’s adolescents (Masuyama et al., 2020), and Peru (Huarcaya-Victoria et al., 2022). The latest study on the structure of FCV-19S among 48 countries (including Croatia) showed one-factor structure that is comparable across different cultures, genders, and educational levels (Sawicki et al., 2022).

Many studies examining the psychological effects of earthquake confirmed that the most common reported emotional response was fear, for example after earthquakes in Italy (Prati et al., 2012), New Zealand (O’Toole, 2017), Armenia (Khachadourian et al., 2016). However, there are no widely used instruments to assess psychological reactions, such as fear and anxiety, to earthquakes so there is a need to develop psychometrically valid instrument.

The Present Study

In order to capture and understand the effects of the simultaneously occurring threatening events, the aims of this study were threefold. First, we aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Croatian version of the FCV-19S and to test weather confirmatory analysis would demonstrate one-factor structure as it was reported in Sawicki et al. (2022) on the larger Croatian sample. We also aimed to investigate the concurrent validity of the scale by exploring relationships between fear of COVID-19, and well-being indicators, health, and coping. We hypothesized that the FCV-19S scores would be positively associated with negative affect, and negatively with positive affect, life satisfaction, good health, and coping efficacy. Moreover, we tested whether FCV-19S scores discriminate between groups who differ in personal experience with COVID-19, as well as between groups with different socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, marital status, education, income).

Second, bearing in mind that there is a lack of instruments for measuring fear of earthquakes, the study aimed to develop the Fear of Earthquake Scale (FES), constructed using the FCV-19S as building point that was modified for the earthquake experience. As the FCV-19S items covered somatic and emotional fear reactions, it was suitable for assessing the fear of earthquake, as both reactions were reported among earthquake survivors (Kowalski & Kalayjian, 2001). Moreover, the study also aimed to examine the psychometric properties and the factor structure of the FES among Croatian citizens who had direct experience of the earthquake, and to investigate the concurrent validity of this scale by exploring the associations between FES scores and well-being, health, coping, socio-demographic variables, as well as with severity of the earthquake experience and consequent damage.

Finally, the third aim of the study was to compare groups distinguished by (not) having personal experience of COVID-19 infection and earthquake. More concretely, we aimed to examine the differences in well-being indicators (life satisfaction, positive and negative affect) between four groups of participants who either had/did not have COVID-19 disease or had experienced/did not have experienced earthquake. Bearing in mind that going through the COVID-19 disease was short term event for most of the people, we hypothesized that people who had direct experience of COVID-19 infection and who did not experienced earthquake would have better well-being than people who experienced both distressing events. Additionally, we explored the differences in FSC-19S and FES scores between the same four groups to better understand the impact of these two different events on fear.

Method

Participants

The participants in the study represented a convenience sample of adult Internet users who took part in the fourth year of the Croatian longitudinal study on well-being.1 The data was collected in 2021 with a total of N = 1136 participants who responded to questions on their well-being and questions relating to experience with COVID-19. Among them, N = 665 participants experienced earthquake and additional questions regarding that experience. Descriptive statistics of socio-demographic characteristics (age, gender, education level, marital status, and income) of the whole sample and of participants who experienced earthquakes are detailed in Table 1. It should be mentioned that N = 56 participants answered questions about earthquake although they did not experience it. Their data were used to check the concurrent validity of the FES.

Table 1.

Descriptive Summary of Socio-Demographic Characteristics for Whole Sample N = 1136 and Subsample of Participants Who Experienced Earthquake N = 665.

N = 1136 N = 665
N % N %
Gender
 Female 898 79 541 81
 Male 238 21 124 19
Education levela
 High school 302 27 148 22
 Bachelor degree 633 56 383 58
 Post-graduate degree 198 17 132 20
Marital status
 Married or in relationship 903 80 531 80
 Other 233 20 134 20
Income (in Eurob)a
 <267 62 6 33 5
 268–667 392 34 222 36
 668–1600 499 44 303 49
 >1601 105 10 67 11
Age M (SD) 43.4 (12.36) 43.1 (12.38)
Range 22–82 years 22–82 years
Open in a new tab

aTotal N is lower due to missing data.

bIncome = average monthly income per person: conversion HRK in Euro on 30.11.2021 (7.5 HRK = 1 Euro).

Instruments

Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S)

The FCV-19S is seven-item scale developed by Ahorsu et al. (2020) to assess the fear of COVID-19. Participants rated each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 as “strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree”). The average score was calculated and higher scores indicated greater fear of COVID-19. Original scale was translated using a back-translation procedure.

Fear of Earthquake Scale

The Fear of earthquake scale (FES) scale was constructed to assess the level of fear of earthquake. We adapted original items from FCV-19S (Ahorsu et al., 2020) in the way that fear of COVID-19 was replaced with fear of earthquake. The scale consisted of seven items that participants rated on 5-point Likert scale (1 as “strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree”). Sample items were “I am most afraid of earthquake” and “My heart races or palpitates when I think about earthquake.” The average score was calculated, and higher scores indicated greater fear of earthquake.

Life Satisfaction

The Life satisfaction scale consisted of a single-item question “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?” which participants rated on the 11-point scale (0 as “extremely dissatisfied” to 10 as “extremely satisfied”). The one-item measure was acquired from European Social Survey Well-being module (Huppert et al., 2009).

Scale of Positive and Negative Experience

Affective well-being was assessed with the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE) (Diener et al., 2010). It consisted of 12 items designed to assess positive affect (SPANE-P; 6 items: positive, good, pleasant, happy, joyful, and contented), and negative affect (SPANE-N; 6 items: negative, bad, unpleasant, sad, afraid, and angry). We adapted the original SPANE’s 5-point to 7-point Likert scale rating format to make a uniform format used in previous research (Prizmic-Larsen et al., 2020). Participants had to rate how often they felt a certain way during the last month (1 as “never” to 7 as “always”). The average score was calculated separately for two subscales and higher score indicated higher experience of positive and negative affect, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha was .94 for the SPANE-P and .89 for the SPANE-N.

Perceived Health

Self-reported health was measured by single-item question:” How would you rate your health?” Participants rated their health on the 5-point scale (1 as “poor” to 5 as “excellent”).

Coping Self-Efficacy

Coping self-efficacy (CES) refers to judgment about own ability to effectively cope with life challenges (Hua & Howell, 2022). In measuring self-efficacy in coping, we used Sumer et al., (2005) 4-item scale where participants had to assess their ability to effectively cope with COVID-19 pandemic and earthquake experiences, separately. For the purpose of this study, we reworded the items to assess CES for COVID-19 and CES for earthquake experience, as well as modified the response scale to 5-point (1 as “strongly disagree” to 5 as “strongly agree”). The reworded items were: “I believe that I will overcome the difficulties of this COVID-19 pandemic/earthquake experience”; “I am able to successfully handle this COVID-19 pandemic/earthquake experience”; “I’m able to think about the COVID-19 pandemic/earthquake and what I lost more comfortably”; “I believe that my daily life has been normalized.” Cronbach’s alpha was .80 for CES for COVID-19, and .88 for CES for earthquake experience.

Events (COVID-19 and Earthquake) Specific Questions

To assess the level of threat by COVID-19 experience we asked two questions: “Have you been infected by COVID-19?”; “Did you suffer loss of close person due to COVID-19 infection?”. Answers were given in yes/no format.

The level of threat caused by earthquake we examined with a question: “Did you have material damage caused by earthquake?”, as there were (luckily) very few human casualties during earthquakes in Croatia. Answers were given in yes/no format.

Socio-Demographic Variables

The participants’ age, gender, education level, marital status and average monthly income were obtained and are presented in the Table 1.

Procedure

Participants who took part in this study have been in previous follow-up research on well-being in Croatia started in 2017 (Prizmić-Larsen et al., 2020). They were contacted by e-mail if they were interested in continuation of the study, which was completed from August till December 2021. The ones who decided to be included, filled up the on-line survey, which consisted of a battery of questionnaires on well-being and life events with specific questions concerning the COVID-19 pandemic and experience of earthquake. Participants were reminded that their participation was voluntary and anonymous, and that the data would be used for the scientific purposes.

Data Analyses

Descriptive analysis and statistics were performed to examine the distribution of measured variables and socio-demographic variables. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify structural validity of FCV-19S scale. The following fit indices with thresholds for acceptable fit of the model were used: Comparative fit index (CFI) > .95, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) > .90, Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .08; Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) < .08 and Chi-squared (χ2) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). To test the construct validity of FES exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the scale was performed. The reliability of the FCV-19S and FES scales were evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha. To examine concurrent validity, the Pearson’s correlation coefficients were used to explore relationships between FCV-19S and FES scores with different variables (well-being, coping self-efficacy, health). T-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined differences in FSV-19S, and separately in FES scores, in socio-demographic variables (i.e., gender, marital status, age group: younger and older with the cut point of 50 years old, education and income level) and specific COVID-19 and earthquake questions. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to explore between groups (weather they experienced COVID-19 infection and earthquake) differences in well-being variables (i.e., life satisfaction, positive and negative affect) controlling for socio-demographic variables (i.e., gender, age, marital status, education, income). Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to explore between groups differences in FSV-19S and FES, separately, controlling for socio-demographic variables. Paired t-test was used to test differences between scores in FSV-19S and FES.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics 27 while CFA was performed with Mplus 8 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2017).

Results

Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S)

Descriptive Results

Descriptive statistics for items of FCV-19S are presented in Table 2. The items’ mean scores ranged from M = 1.16 (item 6) to M = 2.43 (item 1). The items 3, 6 and 7 were right-skewed, which was also reported in Sawicki et al. (2022). Distribution of the total scale score was close to normal distribution with skewness = 1.4 and kurtosis = 2.4.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics for Items of FCV-19S (N = 1136).

Items M SD Min-Max Skewness Kurtosis
1. I am most afraid of COVID-19. 2.43 1.18 1–5 .44 −.66
2. It makes me uncomfortable to think about COVID-19. 2.14 1.23 1–5 .75 −.56
3. My hands become clammy when I think about COVID-19. 1.22 .63 1–5 3.28 11.74
4. I am afraid of losing my life because of COVID-19. 1.51 .89 1–5 1.89 3.19
5. When I watch news and stories about COVID-19 on social media, I become nervous or anxious. 2.29 1.24 1–5 .65 −.62
6. I cannot sleep because I’m worrying about getting COVID-19. 1.16 .51 1–5 3.82 16.29
7. My heart races or palpitates when I think about getting COVID- 19. 1.24 .67 1–5 3.36 12.03
Total FCV-19S average score 1.71 .67 1–5 1.44 2.46
Open in a new tab

Note. FCV-19S: Fear of COVID-19 scale.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Reliability

To examine the factor structure of the FCV-19S in our sample, we tested different models using a simple single-factor structure as the initial model (M1). In this study, Cronbach’s alpha for the 7-item FCV-19S was .83, which is in line with previous findings. More concretely, a recent study by Sawicki et al., (2022) showed that Cronbach’s alpha for the 7-item FCV-19S ranged between .82 and .91 among 48 studied countries’ samples. In Croatian sample, Cronbach’s alpha was .88.

We further tested the alternative one-factor model with six correlated pairs of residuals (M2) in line with the recent findings from Sawicki et al., (2022), who tested the factor structure of the FCV-19S among 14,558 participants from 48 countries. Furthermore, we tested a two-factor model with emotional and somatic factors (M3); an alternative two-factor model with three correlated pairs of residuals (M4); and finally, a second order general factor with two separate first-order factors (M5).

The initial simple single-factor structure model (M1) provided poor fit for the data (Table 3). The study by Sawicki et al. (2022) showed the best fit for the modified single-factor structure model of the FCV-19S with 6 correlated pairs of residuals, i.e., between residuals of items 1 and 2; 1 and 4; 2 and 5, which refer to emotional aspects of fear of COVID-19), and between items 3 and 6; 3 and 7, and 6 and 7, which reflect somatic aspects of fear of COVID-19. In this study we wanted to check whether these modifications would improve the fit of the single-factor model, and as can be seen in the Table 3, this model demonstrated the best fit to the data, confirming the findings by Sawicki et al. (2022).

Table 3.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of FCV-19S.

Models χ2(df) CFI TLI RMSEA (90%CI) SRMR
M1: One-factor model 591.87(14)** 0.84 0.76 0.19 (0.18–0.20) 0.08
M2: Alternative one-factor model with 6 correlated pairs of residuals 55.18 (8)** 0.99 0.97 0.07 (0.06–0.09) 0.02
M3: Two-factor model (emotional and somatic factors) 248.86(13)** 0.94 0.90 0.13 (0.11–0.14) 0.05
M4: Alternative two-factor model with 3 correlated pairs of residuals 72.47(10)** 0.98 0.96 0.07 (0.06–0.09) 0.03
M5: Second order factor 1397.3(15)** 0.62 0.45 0.29 (0.27–0.30) 0.57
Open in a new tab

Note. FCV-19S: Fear of COVID-19 scale; **p < .001; CFI: Comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis Index; RMSEA: Root mean square error of approximation; SRMR: Standardized root mean square residual.

Given that these specific correlations between pairs of errors imply the potential two-factor structure (emotional and somatic aspects of fear of COVID-19), which was found in some studies (Iversen et al., 2021), we examined the fit of the two-factor model (emotional and somatic factors) (M3). This model showed an improved fit compared to the initial single-factor model, but still was unsatisfactory. Modification of the two-factor structure model (M4) with three correlated pairs of residuals indicated by the modification indices, i.e., between residuals of items 2 and 4; 1 and 4; 2 and 5, and 6 and 7, provided substantially better fit, but not better than the modified one-factor model with 6 correlated pairs of residuals (M2). Finally, bearing in mind the high correlations between the emotional and somatic aspects of fear of COVID-19 on both theoretical and empirical level, we wanted to check the fit of the model with second order general factor with two separate first-order factors (M5). However, this model showed the worst fit to the data. In the overall, these findings suggest that the modified one-factor model with 6 correlated pairs of residuals that reflect emotional and somatic aspect of fear of COVID-19 is best-fitted to the data. Figure 1

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The modified one-factor model with six correlated pairs of residuals of the FVS-19S tested in confirmatory factor analysis (M2).

Concurrent Validity and the Associations With Other Variables

The FCV-19S scores correlated significantly with other constructs (Table 4). Among well-being variables, FCV-19S scores were associated with lower life satisfaction, less experience of positive affect and more experience of negative affect. People who perceived their health as poor tend to have higher fear of COVID-19, as well as people who had lower coping self-efficacy. Association with life satisfaction was relatively the lowest (r = −.18) and with coping self-efficacy the largest (r = −.41).

Table 4.

Correlations Between FCV-19S, Well-Being Variables, Perceived Health and Coping Self-Efficacy (N = 1136).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. FCV-19S —
2. Life satisfaction −.18** —
3. SPANE-P −.21** −.72** —
4. SPANE-N .25** −.56** −.74** —
5. Health −.28** .35** .41** −.32** —
6. CSE −.41** .38** .40** −.36** .32** —
Open in a new tab

Note. **p < .001; FCV-19S: Fear of COVID-19 scale SPANE-P: Positive affect; SPANE-N: Negative affect; CSE: Coping self-efficacy.

Regarding the socio-demographic variables, women feared of COVID-19 more than man, t(1134) = 4.47, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 4.65. Participants with the least education feared of COVID-19 the most, F (2,1130) = 3.98, p < .02, η2 = .01, while participants in their 50s and older feared more than younger participants, t(1134) = 3.69, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 4.66. No differences in FCV-19S scores were found concerning participants’ marital status (t(1134) = .89, ns) or participants’ income level (F(3,1054) = 2.84, ns).

Participants who suffered the loss of close one from COVID-19 infection (N = 121) feared COVID-19 more than participants who did not experience the loss, t(1134) = 4.39, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 4.65, but no differences were found between groups of participants who had (N = 269) or did not have COVID-19 infection (t(1134) = .97, ns).

Fear of Earthquake Scale

Descriptive Results

Descriptive statistics for items of FES were presented in Table 5. The item’s mean scores ranged between M = 1.65 (item 3) and M = 3.32 (item 1). Distribution of the total scale scores was close to normal distribution with skewness = .77 and kurtosis = −.12.

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics and Factor Loadings for FES (N = 665).

Items M SD Min-Max Skewness Kurtosis Factor Loadingsa
1. I am most afraid of earthquake. 3.32 1.30 1–5 −.24 −1.08 .81
2. It makes me uncomfortable to think about earthquake. 3.15 1.44 1–5 −.18 −1.29 .77
3. My hands become clammy when I think about earthquake. 1.65 1.11 1–5 1.71 1.92 .77
4. I am afraid of losing my life because of earthquake. 1.90 1.15 1–5 1.23 .68 .75
5. When I watch news and stories about earthquake on social media, I become nervous or anxious. 2.53 1.37 1–5 .39 −1.11 .75
6. I cannot sleep because I’m worrying about earthquake. 1.70 1.08 1–5 1.46 1.08 .75
7. My heart races or palpitates when I think about earthquake. 1.68 1.13 1–5 1.63 1.64 .74
Total FES average score 2.28 .98 1–5 .77 −.12 n/a
Open in a new tab

Note. FES: Fear of earthquake scale.

aPrincipal axis factor analysis.

EFA and Reliability

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO), test of sampling adequacy, was .87 indicating that data were suited for EFA. The principal axis factor (PAF) analysis revealed one-factor solution, with an eigenvalue of 4.08 that explained 58% of the variance in the FES scores. No other factors had eigenvalues > 1.0 and on scree plot it was clear bend suggesting there was only one factor. The factor loadings were high, all above .74, and were presented in Table 5. Cronbach’s alpha for the 7-item FES was .90.

Concurrent Validity and the Associations With Other Variables

The FES scores correlated significantly with other constructs although the effect sizes were relatively low (Table 6). Among well-being variables, FES score showed the strongest association with negative affect (r = .20). People who had higher fear of earthquake tend to report more negative affect, less positive affect, lower life satisfaction and poorer subjective health. Reported lower coping self-efficacy was associated with higher fear of earthquake which was also the strongest association (r = −.28) among the variables.

Table 6.

Correlations Between Fear of Earthquake Scale, Well-Being Variables, Perceived Health and Coping Self-Efficacy (N = 665).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. FES —
2. Life satisfaction −.15** —
3. SPANE-P −.12** .72** —
4. SPANE-N .20** −.55** −.72** —
5. Health −.16** .37** .43** −.32** —
6. CSE −.28** .40** .38** −.32** .33** —
Open in a new tab

Note. **p < .001; FES: Fear of earthquake scale; SPANE-P: Positive affect; SPANE-N: Negative affect; CSE: Coping self-efficacy.

Concerning the socio-demographic variables, women feared earthquake more than man, t(663) = 6.32, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 6.68. Participants with the least education feared earthquake the most, F (2, 660) = 3.47, p < .03, η2 = .01, as well as participants with the lowest income level F (2, 660) = 4.21, p < .01, η2 = .02. No differences in FES were found concerning participants’ age group (t(663) = .85, ns) or marital status (t(663) = .50, ns). Participants who suffered the material damage due to earthquake (N = 223) feared of earthquake more than those who did not, t(663) = 3.51, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 6.81. Additionally, participants who experienced earthquake feared of it more than those who did not, t(719) = 3.07, p < .002, Cohen’s d = 1.00.

FCV-S19, FES and Well-Being Comparisons

To examine the differences in well-being by groups, classified on the basis of COVID-19 infection and experience of earthquake, MANCOVA was used, with socio-demographic variables as covariates. There were four groups of participants: (1) ones who experienced both COVID-19 infection and earthquake (N = 154); (2) those who did not have COVID-19 infection but had earthquake experience (N = 469); (3) had COVID-19 infection and did not experienced earthquake (N = 102); and (4) did not experience either of events (N = 330). The descriptive statistics of well-being variables for each group are presented in Table 7.

Table 7.

Descriptive Statistics for Well-Being Variables of Groups Defined by COVID-19 Infection and Earthquake Experiences (N = 1136).

Groups N Life Satisfaction Positive Affect * Negative Affect ** FCV-19S FES***
M (SD) M (SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD)
1. Yes COVID/Yes earthquake 154 7.3 (1.92) 5.1(1.07) 3.2(1.06) 1.7 (.69) 2.2 (.96)
2. No COVID/Yes earthquake 469 7.0 (2.20) 4.9(1.14) 3.4(1.09) 1.7 (.66) 2.3 (.98)
3. Yes COVID/No earthquake 102 7.2 (2.10) 5.1(1.25) 3.1(1.19) 1.6 (.66) 1.9 (.74)a
4. No COVID/No earthquake 330 7.1 (2.05) 5.1(1.08) 3.1(1.07) 1.7 (.64) 1.8 (.58)b
Open in a new tab

Note. * 2 < 4, p < .03; **2 > 4, p < .01; 2 > 3 p < .03; ***2 > 4, p < .04.

aN = 13.

bN = 39.

MANCOVA results showed a significant multivariate main effect for groups, F (9, 3138) = 2.03, p < .03, η2 = .01 controlling for socio-demographic variables. Univariate tests revealed that this effect was significant for the positive affect (F (3,1046) = 2.91, p < .03, η2 = .01) and negative affect (F (3,1046) = 5.51, p < .001, η2 = .02), but not for life satisfaction. Subsequent analyses of the means showed that people with no experience of COVID-19 infection nor earthquake reported more positive affect than those who had only earthquake experience (p < .03). People who had only earthquake experience reported more negative affect than those with no experience with either events (p < .01), as well as those with only COVID-19 infection (p < .03).

The differences in FCV-19S and FES between same groups were examined by two separate ANCOVAs controlling for socio-demographic variables. Groups did not differ in scores on FCV-19S (F (3,1046) = 1.34, ns). Second ANCOVA results showed a significant main effect for groups, F (3, 666) = 2.86, p < .04, η2 = .01 controlling for socio-demographic variables. Subsequent analyses of the means showed that people with no experience of COVID-19 infection nor earthquake reported less fear of earthquake than those who had only earthquake experience (p < .04). It should be pointed out, that N of the two groups (3) and (4) were rather small as FES scale was not completed by all participants, but only by those who experienced earthquake, which could affect the analyses.

Within the sample of participants who experienced earthquake (N = 665) paired t-test analysis between FVC-19S and FES scores showed that participants were significantly more afraid of earthquake (M = 2.3, SD = .98) than COVID-19 (M = 1.7, SD = .67; t(664) = 16.14, p < 0.001). The association between scores on FCV-19S and FES was r(665) = .50 showing that people with higher fear of COVID-19 tended to report higher fear of earthquake.

Discussion

COVID-19 pandemic and earthquake are distressing events, especially if someone experience them simultaneously, as happened in Croatia in 2020. Both events are associated with relatively high perception of danger, threat, or harm that can trigger fear. In order to investigate the levels of fear reactions to these events and circumstances, in this study, we aimed to test the validity of widely used measure of fear of COVID-19 and to develop a valid measure of fear of earthquake. In addition, we also aimed to compare subjective well-being as well as fear of two distressing events among the groups of people differing by their direct experience of events, i.e., among those who had/not had COVID-19 infection and had experienced/did not have experienced earthquake. Finally, we compared two types of fear to assess which event is perceived as more fearful, fear of COVID-19 or fear of earthquake.

First, the results of our study revealed that the Croatian version of the FCV-19S scale was psychometrically valid and reliable, and that the one-factor model with 6 correlated pairs of residuals, reflecting emotional (items 1, 2, 4, 5) and somatic (items 3, 6, 7) aspects of fear of COVID-19 provided the best fit to the data. The uncorrelated one-factor solution as well as the two-factor solution showed less optimal fit in comparison. This confirmed the cross-national findings by Sawicki et al. (2022) and further highlighted the two highly associated emotional and somatic aspects of fear of COVID-19.

The findings revealed significantly lower average fear of COVID-19 infection (M = 1.71, SD = 0.67) compared to reports found by Sawicki et al. (2022) in Croatia (M = 2.19, SD = 1.01; t(1373) = 9.11, p < .001, d = .65). This could be explained in part, by the timing of the data collection. Sawicki et al. (2022) collected the data in the period between 24th April and 20th November 2020, which was relatively early in the pandemic onset, when there were substantially less empirically based and clear information about the virus and its risks, no vaccines yet, and the restrictions were much stronger than in the period of our data collection (August- December 2021). Although we cannot directly compare these two samples, our findings are in line with the exiting literature (Cerda & García, 2021; Elsharkawy & Abdelaziz, 2021) that gaining knowledge about the potential threat, gaining options for personal control and protection, as well as adaptation to pandemic circumstances might reduce the fear of the novel virus with time, at least to some degree. Indeed, in a cross-sectional study, Park et al. (2021) found that the lower perceived risk of COVID-19 was associated with the less anxiety and fear about this disease. Although we did not explore perceived risk of COVID-19 we can assume that at the second half of 2021, when people were vaccinated (63% in our sample) they perceived lower risk of COVID-19 infection and its consequences and therefore expressed lower levels of fear.

The FCV-19S scores showed good concurrent validity when associated with other constructs. Higher levels of fear of COVID-19 were associated with lower life satisfaction and poorer perceived health, which is in line with other studies (Gundogan, 2021; Iversen et al., 2021; Soraci et al., 2020). Also, higher levels of fear were associated with more frequent negative and less frequent positive affect, as well as with lower levels of perceived ability to cope effectively with COVID-19. The FCV-19S scores discriminated well between people who suffered loss of close person due to COVID-19 infection and those who did not, with former reporting higher fear.

In exploring the relationships between socio-demographic variables and FCV-19S, our findings were in line with the existing literature by showing higher fear of COVID-19 among women (vs. men) (Midorikawa et al., 2021; Reznik et al., 2020; Sakib et al., 2020; Sawicki et al., 2022). Some authors explain these gender differences in emotional reactivity, with women having stronger subjective and physiological responses to negative emotional situations in general (Nolen-Hoeksema, 2001; Schienle et al., 2005).

Regarding the age differences, mixed results in relation to FCV-19S were reported in the literature (Midorikawa et al., 2021; Sakib et al., 2020). In our sample adults in their 50s and older expressed higher levels of fear of COVID-19 than younger, which is in line with some other studies (Midorikawa et al., 2021; Tsipropoulou et al., 2020). The fact that older adults in general have poorer health and therefore could be more vulnerable to COVID-19 infection was constantly emphasized in media and by medical professionals, so that it is not surprising that their fear of COVID-19 was higher compared to younger adults. Differences by level of education showed that among the least educated people the fear of COVID-19 was relatively the highest, which was also found in other countries (Tsipropoulou et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020).

The fear of earthquake was important to investigate as people’s emotional responses and mental health during such distressing event were accentuated. FES was constructed on the bases of the FCV-19S that had relevant items representing different aspects of response to fear. It included both emotional fear responses such as an uncomfortable thinking about earthquake, and somatic fear responses such as a heart racing when thinking about earthquake. The findings of our study implied one-factor structure of the FES with good reliability coefficient. In general, the results showed that adaptation of the FCV-19S scale to earthquake (FES) was both theoretically and empirically valid.

The FES scores correlated in meaningful way with other constructs indicating good concurrent validity. Fear of earthquake was most strongly positively related to negative affect. It was negatively correlated with life satisfaction, positive affect, perceived health, and ability to effectively cope with earthquake experience. Since this was new constructed scale, there were no existing studies on associations with other variables, but research on fear of earthquake and various psychological outcomes found their associations in the same direction (Sumer et al., 2005; Başoğlu et al., 2004). Also, the FES score discriminated well between people who suffer the material damage due to earthquake compared to those who did not, with former reporting higher fear.

Concerning socio-demographic variables, among the people who lived through earthquakes, women experienced more fear of earthquake as compared to man. Other research confirmed gender differences in distress, with women experiencing greater distress than men after earthquake (Karanci et al., 1999; Sumer et al., 2005). People with lowest income and the least level of education feared the earthquake the most compared to others, and similar findings were reported in other studies (Başoğlu et al., 2002; Sumer et al., 2005). In the study on predictors of psychological distress following the earthquake in Turkey Sumer et al. (2005) found that level of education was negatively associated with general distress and positively with personal resources variables. They pointed out that higher education might be one of the resources in coping with the impact of earthquake. Since level of education is associated with socio-economic status, authors argued that people in Turkey with higher education might live in better buildings and thus have been less affected by earthquake. That might be the case in Croatia too, i.e., that people with lowest income had higher fear as they might not live in stronger built homes.

Finally, our findings suggested that experience of earthquake has more negative effect on well-being indicators than COVID-19 infection. Specifically, comparison between groups depending on event experiences, i.e., COVID-19 infection and earthquake, showed that the lowest well-being, in terms of higher negative affect and lower positive affect, had a group only with earthquake experience compared to a group without traumatic events. Moreover, a group with just earthquake experience reported more negative affect than a group with only COVID-19 infection.

It might be that after having COVID-19 disease people felt that they got immunity to fight possible another infection. At the same time, when earthquakes happened people lived in constant threat of reoccurrence of aftershocks, which might elevate negative and reduce positive affect. Its’ unpredictable future occurrence could continuously feel as a threat for safety and it could evoke fear (Kannis-Dymand et al., 2015). Salcioglu et al. (2018) found that survivors who experienced intense fear during the earthquake, also experienced higher levels of anticipatory fear of earthquake in the long term. Long-term effects of earthquakes induced fear and anxiety were demonstrated also in other research on earthquakes (Başoğlu et al., 2002, 2004; Bergiannaki et al., 2003; Piccardi et al., 2017; Rowney et al., 2014).

Additionally, having COVID-19 infection was a short-term threat, and despite the possibility of getting infected by new variant of virus, people might feel familiar with previous symptoms of infection. Threat of earthquake, on the other side, was constant and still persists as there were two major earthquakes in one year in the same area and there are still many aftershocks, the last one happened in February 2022 (3.2 magnitude on Richter scale). It is not surprising, therefore, that people were more fearful of earthquake than of COVID-19 infection.

When comparing the fear of earthquake between groups depending on traumatic events experiences, we found that the highest fear reported people who went through earthquake compared with people without COVID-19 infection or earthquake experience, while there were no differences in fear of COVID-19 between the groups. One of the possible explanations lie also in different degree of control over the events. The characteristic of the earthquake is that it is unexpected in occurrence, as well as in the range and magnitude; thus, a person is not in control of the event (Başoğlu et al., 2002; Karanci et al., 1999). On the other side, people feel some degree of control over the pandemic and COVID-19 infection, by utilizing recommended measures such as wearing masks, social distancing and/or vaccination.

Limitations

There were limitations to the present study, so findings should be interpreted with caution. Sample was not randomly selected from a Croatian population and men were underrepresented so our findings should not be generalized to all population and gender groups. It also relied on self-reported data with known shortcomings. The study design was cross-sectional and thus does not allow the causal inferences.

Despite these limitations this study was significant as it confirmed the validity of FCV-19S on large sample of Croatian population. Another strength of the study was in developing scale to assess the fear in response to earthquakes. The specific situation in Croatia which population experienced earthquake at the same time as COVID-19 pandemic started, allowed us to investigate the fear of two distressing events happened simultaneously and compared them with other relevant variables such are socio-demographic characteristics and subjective well-being indicators.

Conclusion

To conclude, present study confirmed one-factor structure of Fear of COVID-19 scale on large sample of Croatian people, which was in accordance with the findings from Sawicki et al. (2022). To assess the fear in response to the earthquake, we constructed the Fear of earthquake scale on the bases of Fear of COVID-19 scale, and analyses indicated one-factor structure. Total scores on both scales correlated in meaningful way with other variables and the findings regarding FCV-19S followed those reported in the literature. Lower affective well-being was reported among people who went through the earthquakes compared to those without earthquakes experience and COVID-19 infection, or those just with COVID-19 infection. Also, results indicated that people who experienced earthquake have been more fearful of earthquake than COVID-19 pandemic.

Author Biographies

Zvjezdana Prizmić Larsen works as a research scientist at the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the Washington University in St. Louis, USA. Much of her research and many of her publications have been in the area of shift work and its effects on health and worker satisfaction as well as in mood, mood regulation and well-being. She still collaborates with colleagues from the Ivo Pilar Institute for Social Sciences in Zagreb, Croatia.

Maja Tadić Vujčić, is a Senior Research Associate, Ph.D. in Work and organizational psychology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands(2014). M.A. Psychology (2005), Department of Psychology, Centre for Croatian studies, University of Zagreb, Croatia.

Ljiljana Kaliterna Lipovčan is Scientific Advisor at the Ivo Pilar Institute of Social Sciences in Zagreb, Croatia. She received her Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Zagreb. Her research interests include subjective indicators of quality of life, well-being and longitudinal methodology. She has published two monographs, 96 research papers/book chapters, and co-edited four proceedings. She is a member of National Council for Science, Higher Education and Technology of the Republic of Croatia.

​

Notes

1.

“Croatian longitudinal study on well-being” (CRO-WELL) is a longitudinal project financed by Croatian Science Foundation 2016-2019 (Grant agreement IP-2014-09-4398), in which three waves of surveys were conducted with the same respondents. The fourth wave of the survey was conducted in 2021.

Footnotes

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: The data of this study represent the fourth wave of the Croatian longitudinal study on well-being (CRO-WELL), which was funded by the Hrvatska Zaklada za Znanost 2016–2019 (Grant agreement IP-2014-09-4398). The fourth wave of the CRO-WELL survey was conducted in 2021, and this final wave was funded by an internal Institute of social sciences Ivo Pilar grant.

ORCID iD

Maja Tadić Vujčić https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6934-726X

References

  1. Ahorsu D. K., Lin C. Y., Imani V., Saffari M., Griffiths M. D., Pakpour A. H. (2020). The fear of COVID-19 scale: Development and initial validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(3), 1537–1545. 10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alyami M., Henning M., Krägeloh C. U., Alyami H. (2021). Psychometric Evaluation of the Arabic Version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale. International journal of mental health and addiction, 19(6), 2219–2232. 10.1007/s11469-020-00316-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Başoğlu M., Kiliç C., Salcioğlu E., Livanou M. (2004). Prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder and comorbid depression in earthquake survivors in Turkey: An epidemiological study. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17(2), 133–141. 10.1023/B:JOTS.0000022619.31615.e8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Başoğlu M., Salcioğlu E., Livanou M. (2002). Traumatic stress responses in earthquake survivors in Turkey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(4), 269–276. 10.1023/A:1016241826589 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergiannaki J. D., Psarros C., Varsou E., Paparrigopoulos T., Soldatos C. R. (2003). Protracted acute stress reaction following an earthquake. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 107(1), 18–24. 10.1034/j.1600-0447.2003.01467.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cerda A. A., García L. Y. (2021). Factors explaining the fear of being infected with COVID-19. Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy, 25(2), 506–512. 10.1111/hex.13274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Diener E., Wirtz D., Tov W., Kim-Prieto C., Choi D.-w., Oishi S., Biswas-Diener R. (2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. 10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Elsharkawy N. B., Abdelaziz E. M. (2021). Levels of fear and uncertainty regarding the spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) among university students. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 57(3), 1356–1364. 10.1111/ppc.12698 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Frijters P., Johnston D. W., Knott R., Torgler B. (2021). Resilience to disaster: Evidence from daily wellbeing data. Institute of Labor Economics (IZA). IZA Discussion Papers 14220. [Google Scholar]
  10. Grimm A., Hulse L., Preiss M., Schmidt S. (2012). Post- and peritraumatic stress in disaster survivors: An explorative study about the influence of individual and event characteristics across different types of disasters. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 3(1), 7382. 10.3402/ejpt.v3i0.7382 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Gundogan S. (2021). The mediator role of the fear of covid-19 in the relationship between psychological resilience and life satisfaction. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 40(12), 6291–6299. 10.1007/s12144-021-01525-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hu L. T., Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. 10.1080/10705519909540118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hua J., Howell J. L. (2022). Coping self-efficacy influences health information avoidance. Journal of Health Psychology, 27(3), 713–725. 10.1177/1359105320965664 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Huarcaya-Victoria J., Villarreal-Zegarra D., Podestà A., Luna-Cuadros M. A. (2022). Psychometric properties of a Spanish version of the fear of COVID-19 scale in general population of Lima, Peru. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(1), 249–262. 10.1007/s11469-020-00354-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Huppert F. A., Marks N., Clark A., Siegrist J., Stutzer A., Vittersø J., Wahrendorf M. (2009). Measuring well-being across Europe: Description of the ESS well-being module and preliminary findings. Social Indicators Research, 91(3), 301–315. 10.1007/s11205-008-9346-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Iversen M. M., Norekvål T. M., Oterhals K., Fadnes L. T., Mæland S., Pakpour A. H., Breivik K. (2021). Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the fear of COVID-19 scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(3), 1446–1464. Advance online publication. 10.1007/s11469-020-00454-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Kannis-Dymand L., Dorahy M. J., Crake R., Gibbon P., Luckey R. (2015). An exploration of reported cognitions during an earthquake and its aftershocks: Differences across affected communities and associations with psychological distress. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 203(4), 279–286. 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Karanci N. A., Alkan N., Aksit B., Sucuoglu H., Balta E. (1999). Gender differences in psychological distress, coping, social support and related variables following the 1995 Dinal (Turkey) earthquake. North American Journal of Psychology, 1(2), 189–204. [Google Scholar]
  19. Khachadourian V., Armenian H., Demirchyan A., Melkonian A., Hovanesian A. (2016). A post-earthquake psychopathological investigation in Armenia: Methodology, summary of findings, and follow-up. Disasters, 40(3), 518–533. 10.1111/disa.12166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kowalski K. M., Kalayjian A. (2001). Responding to mass emotional trauma: A mental health outreach program for Turkey earthquake victims. Safety Science, 39(1–2), 71–81. 10.1016/S0925-7535(01)00027-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Masuyama A., Shinkawa H., Kubo T. (2020). Validation and psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the fear of COVID-19 scale among adolescents. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(1), 387–397. 10.1007/s11469-020-00368-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Midorikawa H., Aiba M., Lebowitz A., Taguchi T., Shiratori Y., Ogawa T., Takahashi A., Takahashi S., Nemoto K., Arai T., Tachikawa H. (2021). Confirming validity of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale in Japanese with a nationwide large-scale sample. PLoS One, 16(2), Article e0246840. 10.1371/journal.pone.0246840 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Moreta-Herrera R., López-Calle C., Caycho-Rodríguez T., Cabezas Guerra C., Gallegos M., Cervigni M., Martino P., Barés I., Calandra M. (2021). Is it possible to find a bifactor structure in the fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S)? Psychometric evidence in an Ecuadorian sample. Death Studies, 46(9), 2226–2236. 10.1080/07481187.2021.1914240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Muthén L. K., Muthén B. O. (1998-2017). Mplus user’s guide (8 ed.). Muthén & Muthén. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nolen-Hoeksema S. (2001). Gender differences in depression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 173–176. 10.1111/1467-8721.00142 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Oishi S., Yagi A., Komiya A., Kohlbacher F., Kusumi T., Ishii K. (2017). Does a major earthquake change job preferences and human values? European Journal of Personality, 31(3), 258–265. 10.1002/per.2102 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. O’Toole V. M. (2017). ‘‘Fear would well up and it was just a luxury that you just didn’t have time for’’: Teachers’ emotion regulation strategies at school during the February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake. Social Psychology of Education, 20(3), 513–542. 10.1007/s11218-017-9383-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Park T., Ju I., Ohs J. E., Hinsley A. (2021). Optimistic bias and preventive behavioral engagement in the context of COVID-19. Research in Social & Administrative Pharmacy: RSAP, 17(1), 1859–1866. 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.06.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Piccardi L., Palmiero M., Nori R., Baralla F., Cordellieri P., D’Amico S., Giannini A. M. (2017). Persistence of traumatic symptoms after seven years: Evidence from young individuals exposed to the L’Aquila earthquake. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 22(6), 487–500. 10.1080/15325024.2017.1328243 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Prati G., Catufi V., Pietrantoni L. (2012). Emotional and behavioural reactions to tremors of the Umbria-Marche earthquake. Disasters, 36(3), 439–451. 10.1111/j.1467-7717.2011.01264.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Prizmić-Larsen Z., Kaliterna-Lipovčan L., Larsen R., Brkljačić T., Brajša-Žganec A. (2020). The role of flourishing in relationship between positive and negative life events and affective well-being. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(5), 1413–1431. 10.1007/s11482-019-09743-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Raphael B., Ma H. (2011). Mass catastrophe and disaster psychiatry. Molecular Psychiatry, 16(3), 247–251. 10.1038/mp.2010.68 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Reznik A., Gritsenko V., Konstantinov V., Khamenka N., Isralowitz R. (2021). COVID-19 fear in Eastern Europe: Validation of the fear of COVID-19 scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(5), 1903–1908. 10.1007/s11469-020-00283-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Rowney C., Farvid P., Sibley C. G. (2014). I laugh and say I have ‘earthquake brain!’”: Resident responses to the September 2010 Christchurch earthquake. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 43(2), 4–13. [Google Scholar]
  35. Sakib N., Bhuiyan A., Hossain S., Al Mamun F., Hosen I., Abdullah A. H., Sarker M. A., Mohiuddin M. S., Rayhan I., Hossain M., Sikder M. T., Gozal D., Muhit M., Islam S., Griffiths M. D., Pakpour A. H., Mamun M. A. (2020). Psychometric validation of the bangla fear of COVID-19 scale: Confirmatory factor analysis and rasch analysis. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(5), 2623–2634. 10.1007/s11469-020-00289-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Salcioglu E., Ozden S., Ari F. (2018). The role of relocation patterns and psychosocial stressors in posttraumatic stress disorder and depression among earthquake survivors. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 206(1), 19–26. 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000627 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Satici B., Gocet-Tekin E., Deniz M. E., Satici S. A. (2021). Adaptation of the fear of COVID-19 scale: Its association with psychological distress and life satisfaction in Turkey. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(6), 1980–1988. 10.1007/s11469-020-00294-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Sawicki A. J., Żemojtel-Piotrowska M., Balcerowska J. M., Sawicka M. J., Piotrowski J., Sedikides C., Jonason P. K., Maltby J., Adamovic M., Agada A. M. D., Ahmed O., Al-Shawaf L., Appiah S. C. Y., Ardi R., Babakr Z. H., Bălţătescu S., Bonato M., Cowden R. G., Chobthamkit P., Zand S. (2022). The fear of COVID-19 scale: Its structure and measurement invariance across 48 countries. Psychological Assessment, 34(3), 294–310. 10.1037/pas0001102 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Schienle A., Schäfer A., Stark R., Walter B., Vaitl D. (2005). Gender differences in the processing of disgust- and fear-inducing pictures: An fMRI study. Neuroreport, 16(3), 277–280. 10.1097/00001756-200502280-00015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Shi W., Hall B. J. (2020). What can we do for people exposed to multiple traumatic events during the coronavirus pandemic? Asian Journal of Psychiatry, 51(10), 102065. 10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102065 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Soraci P., Ferrari A., Abbiati F. A., Del Fante E., De Pace R., Urso A., Griffiths M. D. (2020). Validation and psychometric evaluation of the Italian version of the fear of COVID-19 scale. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(4), 1913–1922. 10.1007/s11469-020-00277-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Sumer N., Karanci A. N., Berument S. K., Gunes H. (2005). Personal resources, coping self-efficacy, and quake exposure as predictors of psychological distress following the 1999 earthquake in Turkey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18(4), 331–342. 10.1002/jts.20032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tsipropoulou V., Nikopoulou V. A., Holeva V., Nasika Z., Diakogiannis I., Sakka S., Kostikidou S., Varvara C., Spyridopoulou E., Parlapani E. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Greek version of FCV-19S. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 19(6), 2279–2288. 10.1007/s11469-020-00319-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Tzur Bitan D., Grossman-Giron A., Bloch Y., Mayer Y., Shiffman N., Mendlovic S. (2020). Fear of COVID-19 scale: Psychometric characteristics, reliability and validity in the Israeli population. Psychiatry Research, 289(113100). 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang C., Pan R., Wan X., Tan Y., Xu L., Ho C. S., Ho R. C. (2020). Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) Epidemic among the general population in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1729. 10.3390/ijerph17051729 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Psychological Reports are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES