Content uploaded by John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta on Jul 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/10693971211026806
Cross-Cultural Research
1 –23
© 2021 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10693971211026806
journals.sagepub.com/home/ccr
Article
Distress and Resilience
in Days of COVID-19:
International Study
of Samples from
Israel, Brazil, and the
Philippines
Shaul Kimhi1, Yohanan Eshel2,
Bruria Adini3, John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta4,
Benedict G. Antazo5, Alelie Briones-Diato6,
Maurício Reinert7,
Juliano Domingues da Silva7,
Fabiane Cortez Verdu7,
and Hadas Marciano1,2
Abstract
We compared three types of resilience (individual, community, and national
resilience), two indicators of distress (sense of danger and distress symptoms)
and wellbeing, among samples from Israel, Brazil, and the Philippines, during
the “first-wave” of COVID-19 pandemic. Though significant differences
were found among the samples regarding all variables, similarities were also
1Tel-Hai College, Upper Galilee, Israel
2University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel
3Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
4De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
5Jose Rizal University, Mandaluyong, National Capital Region, Philippines
6Cavite State University, General Trias, Philippines
7State University of Maringá—UEM—Business School, Maringa, Brazil
Corresponding Author:
Hadas Marciano, The Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, Ergonomics
and Human Factors Unit, University of Haifa, 99 Aba Khoushy Avenue Mount Carmel, Haifa,
Israel, Zip code: 3498838.
Email: hmarcia1@univ.haifa.ac.il
1026806CCRXXX10.1177/10693971211026806Cross-Cultural ResearchKimhi et al.
research-article2021
2 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
emerged. Individual resilience and wellbeing negatively predicted distress
symptoms in each sample, and women of all samples reported higher
level of distress-symptoms compared with men. The differences between
the samples are presented and discussed. Understanding the similarities
and the differences, between these cultures, may help developing efficient
countermeasures tailored to each country. This knowledge may promote
efficient health policy to foster people’s ability to cope with the hardship and
to prevent future psychological and health implications.
Keywords
cross-cultural comparisons, COVID-19, sense of danger, distress symptoms,
resilience, wellbeing
Introduction
COVID-19, which erupted in China in 2019, is an infectious disease caused
by a newly discovered strain of coronavirus. This pandemic is rapidly spread-
ing worldwide leading to constantly growing numbers of morbidity and mor-
tality in some countries, while in others there has been a decline in newly
confirmed cases (Anderson et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). It has led to
severe global disruptions, such as closing schools and academic institutions,
partial or total closure on the population enforced by governments, reduced
travel, ensuing unemployment and economic difficulties, and a worldwide
stock markets decline (Anzai et al., 2020).
For the vast majority of people, whether infected by COVID-19 or not, the
epidemic is posing a major threat in many life domains, such as health, eco-
nomic status, lifestyle, recreation, and more. This threat is expressed by
increased psychological tension, concerns, and anxiety, which may have
severe psychological and health implications. Furthermore, the ambiguity
about the lingering disruption to individual and public life may also elevate
psychological distress (Qiu et al., 2020). The ongoing intensive discussion
about the pandemic by the mass media and politicians, and grim forecasts of
its potential disastrous future outcomes, further enhance these negative emo-
tions (Sorokowski et al., 2020). In the present study, the impact of COVID-19
pandemic on the general public in three different countries was assessed by
two major distress indicators: sense of danger and distress symptoms. The
study is based on samples from Brazil (N = 581), the Philippines (N = 401),
and Israel (N = 605), who have responded to the same questionnaire. The
study examines the associations between modes of resilience, wellbeing,
demographic characteristics, and the two distress indicators.
Kimhi et al. 3
Indicators for COVID-19 Effect: Sense of Danger and Distress
Symptoms
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) have claimed that perceived post adversity dis-
tress and assessment of stress-resistant resources reflect cognitive apprais-
als. A sense of danger strongly influences reaction to adversities (Scott et al.,
2013). For example, low sense of danger has been associated with a
higher postwar recovery and life satisfaction, and fewer distress symptoms
(Kimhi et al., 2010).
Highly threatening and painful events, such as COVID-19 pandemic,
undermine people’s basic sense of security, and increase distress symptoms.
These symptoms include continuous emotional and behavioral problems
(Soffer-Dudek, 2016) like depression, anxiety, and grief (Hadi et al., 2006).
In line with the previous discussion, the level of individual distress symptoms
in the context of COVID-19 pandemic constitutes the predicted variable in
our study. Both sense of danger and distress symptoms were reported as good
indicators for the psychological effect of COVID-19 pandemic (Kimhi et al.,
2020).
Resilience
The original concept of resilience comes from the physics of materials and
is defined as the maximum energy that can be absorbed within the elastic
limit, without creating a permanent distortion (Roylance, 2001). Social sci-
entists have borrowed the concept to describe people’s ability to properly
adapt to stress and adversity. The American Psychological Association
defines resilience as a process of bouncing back from difficult experiences
and adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or sig-
nificant sources of stress (APA.org, 2012). Masten (2018) defines resil-
ience as “the potential of the manifested capacity of a dynamic system to
adapt successfully to disturbances that threaten the function, survival, or
development of the system” (p. 187). Overall, researchers seem to agree
that the concept of resilience is useful in discussing people’s ability to with-
stand stress and adversity (Bonanno, 2004; Luthar et al., 2000; Suedfeld,
2015) but is a complex multifaceted concept whose measurement arouses a
rich debate (e.g., Bonanno et al., 2015).
Modes of resilience: Individual, community, and national. Three major modes of
resilience have been studied empirically: individual, community, and
national. (a) individual resilience (IR): Cacioppo et al. (2011) define IR as
“the capacity to foster, engage in, and sustain positive relationships and to
4 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
endure and recover from life stressors and social isolation” (p. 44). Hjemdal
et al. (2011) report that IR contributes significantly and negatively to the
prediction of depression, anxiety, stress, and obsessive-compulsive symp-
toms. An earlier study regarding COVID-19 pandemic has indicated that the
best predictors of sense of danger and distress symptoms (controlling each
other) were individual resilience and well-being (Kimhi et al., 2020). (b)
Community resilience (CR): According to Bonanno et al. (2015) CR expresses
the interaction between individuals and their community and refers to the
success of the community in providing for the needs of its members and the
extent to which individuals are helped by their community. A recent literature
review show that CR is associated with increased local capacity, social sup-
port, and resources, and with decreased risks, miscommunication, and trau-
mas (Patel et al., 2017). (c) National resilience (NR): NR is a broad concept
addressing issues of social sustainability and strength in several diverse
realms: trust in the integrity of the government, the parliament, and other
national institutions; belief in social solidarity; and patriotism (Kimhi &
Eshel, 2019).
Based on the above findings, we hypothesized the following:
A. The three modes of resilience would significantly and negatively pre-
dict sense of danger and distress symptoms, across the three countries.
B. Individual resilience and well-being would be the best predictors of the
sense of danger and distress symptoms across the three countries.
C. The differences between the three samples regarding the study vari-
ables would be examined as an open research question since this issue
has hardly been investigated.
Materials and Methods
Samples and Sampling
The current study is based on three independent samples from three coun-
tries, Brazil, the Philippines, and Israel.
Brazil: The sample included 581 Brazilians (Females = 402). A snowball
sampling was used, with the aid of an online link (SurveyMonkey) which
described the research objectives, and included invitation to fill out the ques-
tionnaire. Participants were requested to invite other potential participants by
sharing the link with their social networks. All data were gathered anony-
mously, following ethics guidelines from CONEP (Brazilian National Board
of Research Ethics, res. 510/2016-CNS). Data collection took place on May
14–24, 2020.
Kimhi et al. 5
The Philippines: The sample included 401 Filipinos (Females = 254,
Males = 146, 1 did not report gender). Like the Brazilian method, a snowball
sampling was used, with the aid of an online link (Google form). All data
were gathered anonymously, following the ethics approval of the university
administrator of the Cavite State University-General Trias Campus. Data col-
lection took place between April 7 and May 20, 2020.
Israel: The sample included 605 Jews (Females = 299) derived from a
large pool of an internet survey company. All data were gathered anony-
mously, following approval of the IRB of Tel Aviv University. Data collec-
tion took place on April 10–14, 2020.
All participants signed an informed consent form before filling out the
questionnaires. Participants from the three samples are characterized by a
wide range of demographic attributes (Table 1).
Table 1. Distribution of Demographic Attributes of the Present Sample.
Variable scale Country M SD
Age Israel 42.40 15.63
Brazil 39.45 13.31
Philippine 30.36 11.14
Gender Israel Man 49%
Brazil Man 31%
Philippine Man 36%
Family income
(scale 1–5)
Israel 2.51 1.18
Brazil 3.10 1.18
Philippine 3.29 1.04
Education
(scale 1–5)
Israel 3.28 0.98
Brazil 3.84 1.08
Philippine 3.80 0.78
Political attitudes (scale 1–5) Israel 2.45 0.87
Brazil 2.86 0.97
Philippine 2.70 0.71
Size of community (Israel and the
Philippines: scale 1–5; Brazil:
scale 1-9)
Israel 4.13 0.95
Brazil 6.00 2.43
Philippine 4.45 2.29
Number of children (scale 1–5) Israel 1.64 1.50
Brazil 1.98 1.03
Philippine 1.57 0.95
Economic difficulties (scale 1–5) Israel 2.88 1.26
Brazil 2.62 1.23
Philippine 2.62 1.01
6 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
Instruments
Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients of the six research scales (Table 2)
across the three samples were high (all were above .80, except for the sense
of danger in Brazil which was .75).
Sense of danger. A seven-item sense of danger scale was employed, based on
Solomon and Prager’s (1992) scale referring to a lingering sense of danger in
the context of security threats. However, the term “security” was modified to
“COVID-19 pandemic threat” in all relevant questions (e.g., “To what extent
are you concerned about the increase of COVID-19 global crisis?”). Further-
more, one item was added to the scale: “To what extent are you worried that
Table 2. Alpha Cronbach and Pearson Correlations among the Research Variables
across the Three Participant Countries.
Alpha
Cronbach 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Sense of danger
Israel .83 .353*** −.188*** −.164*** −.061 .029 .194***
Brazil .75 .440*** −.240*** −.228*** −.195 −.325*** .028*
Philippine .90 .305*** −.040 −.082 −.172*** −.129*** .136**
2. Distress symptoms
Israel .88 −.382*** −.502*** −.183*** −.160*** .184***
Brazil .88 −.498*** −.544*** −.257*** −.355*** .226***
Philippine .90 −.401*** −.510*** −.270*** −.333*** .184***
3. Individual resilience
Israel .87 .409*** .281*** .168*** .011
Brazil .85 .428*** .305*** .221*** −.118**
Philippine .90 .507*** .364*** .371*** −.006
4. Well-being
Israel .83 .344*** .271*** −.214***
Brazil .84 .250*** .274*** −.250***
Philippine .85 .407*** .399*** −.268***
5. Community resilience
Israel .92 .497*** −.116**
Brazil .87 .458*** −.069
Philippine .91 .649*** −.022
6. National resilience
Israel .91 −.074
Brazil .86 .004
Philippine .95 .091
Note. Shaded cells indicate a different correlation pattern between the three countries.
*p < .015. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Kimhi et al. 7
we will not be able to overcome COVID-19 crisis before many citizens in our
country have died from this disease”? Responses were rated on a Likert scale
ranging from 1 (=not at all) to 5 (=very much).
Distress symptoms. The level of individual distress symptoms was determined
by nine items taken from the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI, Derogatis &
Savitz, 2000) about anxiety and depression. This inventory was scored on a
Likert scale ranging from 1 (=not suffering at all) to 5 (=suffering very much).
For example, “How much do you suffer from feelings of a sudden fear with
no reason?.” Due to ethical considerations, the item concerning suicidal
thoughts was not included in the study.
Individual resilience. IR was measured by the 10-item Connor-Davidson scale
(CD-RISC 10, Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007) portraying individual feelings
of ability and power in the face of difficulties (Alarcón et al., 2020). This
scale was rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (=not true at all) to 5
(=generally true).
Community resilience. Perceived CR was determined by a short version of the
CCRAM scale (CCRAM10; Leykin et al., 2013). The ratings for its 10 items
ranged from 1 (=do not agree at all), to 5 (=totally agree). An example of an
item: “I can depend on people in my town to come to my assistance in a
crisis.”
National resilience. A short version of the NR Scale was employed (Kimhi &
Eshel, 2019). This 13-item tool pertained to trust in national leadership, patri-
otism, and trust in major national institutions. (e.g., “I love my country and I
am proud of it”). In the current study, we added three items regarding COVID-
19 crisis (e.g., “I have full faith in the ability of my country’s health system
to care for the population in the current Coronavirus crisis”). The 6-point
response scale ranged from 1 (=very strongly disagree) to 6 (=very strongly
agree).
Well-being. The present measure of well-being was based on the Recovery
from War Scale (Kimhi & Shamai, 2004; Kimhi & Eshel, 2009). This 9-item
self-report scale described perceived individual strengths in the domains of
work, health, recreation, wider social contacts, achievements, family rela-
tions, daily functioning, relations with friends, and general assessment of
one’s life. The 6-point response scale ranged from 1 (=not good at all) to 6
(=very good).
8 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
Demographic variables. Seven demographic attributes were collected: Age;
Gender; Religiosity: one item with a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (=secular)
to 4 (=ultra-orthodox); Family income level: one item reporting the family
income relative to the average income in each country with scale ranged from
1 (=much above average) to 5 (=much below average); Education: one item
with a 5-point response scale ranged from 1 (=elementary school) to 5 (=mas-
ter degree and above); Political attitudes: one item with a 5-point scale
ranged from 1 (=extreme left) to 5 (=extreme right); The size of the commu-
nity: one item with different scales across the countries: in Israel and the
Philippines a 5-point scale ranged from 1 (=up to 1,000 residents) to 5
(=50,000 and above); in Brazil a 9-point scale ranged from 1 (=up to 500 resi-
dents) to 9 (=1,000,000 and above); The number of children: one item with a
5-point scale ranged from 1 (=no children) to 5 (=four children and more);
Economic difficulties: one item “Are you or your family experiencing finan-
cial difficulties due to COVID-19 crisis (such as unemployment, downsizing
business operations, and others).” The scale ranged from 1 (=not at all) to 5
(=very much).
Results
First we computed Pearson correlations among the research variables, across
the three countries (Table 2). Results indicated that the significance of cor-
relations was not entirely consistent across the three countries, as detailed
below: (a) Sense of danger was significantly and negatively correlated with
IR and well-being in Israel and Brazil but not in the Philippines. (b) The cor-
relation between sense of danger and CR was significantly negative in the
Philippines but not in Israel and Brazil. (c) The correlation between sense of
danger and NR was significantly negative in Brazil and the Philippines but
not in Israel. (d) The correlation between IR and economic difficulties was
significantly negative in Brazil, but not in the other two samples. (e) Still,
overall, the correlations among the research variables across the three coun-
tries tended to show similarity regarding direction of the correlations, as well
as their significance. Specifically, none of the correlations was found to show
different directions across the three countries.
Next, since our study is a cross-cultural one, and to examine whether our
subjects understood similarly the meaning of the scales, we have performed
comparisons of equivalence of invariance (Milfont & Fischer, 2010) regard-
ing the five measurement tools. Result indicated that NR did not achieve
per-country model fit, CR did not achieve baseline invariance, and distress
symptoms only reached baseline invariance (see Table 3).
General Linear Models (GLMs) along with Least Significance Differences
(LSD) post hoc analyses were employed to examine the differences between
Kimhi et al. 9
the three samples concerning the following variables: Sense of danger and
distress symptoms (our distress indicators of the psychological effect of
COVID-19 pandemic); individual, community, and NR; well-being, and
economic difficulties due to the pandemic crisis (Table 4). Results indicated
significant differences among the three samples regarding all these seven
examined variables.
Prediction of COVID-19 Effects
Three path analyses were employed to examine a model in which four psy-
chological variables (individual, community, NR, and well-being) and four
demographic variables (age, gender, economic difficulties, and family
income) predicted sense of danger and distress symptoms, in each of the three
samples (Figure 1). Table 5 presents the impact of the eight predicting vari-
ables, controlled for each other, on the two predicted variables, controlled for
Table 3. Equivalence of Invariance of Measurement Tools across Three
Countries.
Measurement Model fit Invariance
National
resilience
Did not achieve per-country
model fit. See notes.
Community
resilience
Configural: CFI: .953 TLI:
.933 RMSEA: .086
Non-invariant
Metric: —
Scalar: —
Individual
resilience
Configural: CFI: .964 TLI:
.949 RMSEA: .064
Metric invariance achieved
Metric: CFI: .956 TLI:
.949 RMSEA: .064
Scalar: CFI: .881 TLI: .880
RMSEA: .086
Well-being Configural: CFI: .965 TLI:
.948 RMSEA: .069
Metric invariance achieved
Metric: CFI: .956 TLI:
.948 RMSEA: .078
Scalar: CFI: .801 TLI: .801
RMSEA: .135
Distress
symptoms
Configural: CFI: .974 TLI:
.955 RMSEA: .078
Only baseline invariance was
achieved. Care should be
made in making inferences.
Metric: CFI: .959 TLI:
.946 RMSEA: .086
Scalar: —
10 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
each other. IR and well-being were the best significant predictors of distress
symptoms across the three countries and the best predictors of sense of dan-
ger in Israel and Brazil (but not in the Philippines). The higher the IR and
well-being, the lower sense of danger and distress symptoms. Overall, the
role of IR and well-being as predictors of distress was similar across the three
countries. CR did not significantly predict distress symptoms in all samples,
and did not significantly predict sense of danger in Israel and Brazil, yet it
significantly negatively predicted sense of danger in the Philippines.
Table 4. General Linear Models (GLMs) and Post Hoc LSD, Examined Differences
among the Three Countries.
M SD F p ηp
2
Sense of danger (1–5)
Israel 2.95a0.79 312.73 <.0001 .283
Brazil 3.71b0.66
Philippine 4.00c0.61
Distress symptoms (1–5)
Israel 2.21a0.83 53.09 <.0001 .63
Philippine 2.37b0.78
Brazil 2.70c0.89
Individual resilience (1–5)
Brazil 3.48a0.61 53.62 <.0001 .63
Israel 3.54a0.64
Philippine 3.88b0.58
Community resilience (1–5)
Israel 3.00a0.68 51.94 <.0001 .62
Brazil 3.33b0.80
Philippine 3.43b0.64
National resilience (1–6)
Brazil 2.37a0.59 621.69 <.0001 .44
Israel 3.48b0.90
Philippine 3.97c0.87
Well-being (1–6)
Brazil 4.10a0.83 49.11 <.0001 .58
Philippine 4.17a0.78
Israel 4.58b0.70
Economic difficulties (1–5)
Philippine 2.62a1.00 9.05 <.0001 .11
Brazil 2.62a1.28
Israel 2.88b1.26
a,b,cIndicates significant post hoc LSD.
Kimhi et al. 11
NR significantly negatively predicted both distress indictors in Brazil, only
distress symptoms in the Philippines, and none of the two in Israel. Age sig-
nificantly negatively predicted both distress indicators in Israel and the
Philippines but not in Brazil: Older people reported lower levels of sense of
danger and distress symptoms. Compared with men the women of all three
samples reported a higher level of distress symptoms. However, similar pat-
terns of results for the sense of danger variable were found only for the
Filipino and Israeli, but not for the Brazilian sample. Note, however, that the
distribution of men and women was not even in the Brazilian and the
Philippine samples. Economic difficulties due to the pandemic crisis signifi-
cantly and positively predicted both distress indicators in the Philippines and
Israel, but only distress symptoms in Brazil. Average family income signifi-
cantly negatively predicted sense of danger in Israel and Brazil but not in the
Philippines. Surprisingly, it also significantly positively predicted distress
symptoms in the Philippines. Overall, the nine predictors explained 20% of
Figure 1. General model of path analysis of psychological and demographic
variables predicting sense of danger and distress symptoms.
12 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
the variance (Brazil) or 14% (the Philippines and Israel) of sense of danger
variable, as well as 41% (Brazil), 33% (the Philippines), and 30% (Israel) of
the distress symptoms variation.
Discussion
COVID-19 pandemic has taken millions of lives worldwide, placed millions
of people in great danger, and has dramatically increased mental health
Table 5. Standardized Estimates of Path Analyses for Three Models Predicting a
Sense of Danger and Distress Symptoms.
Predictors Country Sense of danger Distress symptoms
Individual
resilience
Israel −.18*** −.19***
Brazil −.16*** −.25***
Philippines .01 −.15***
Community
resilience
Israel −.04 .03
Brazil −.03 .06
Philippines −.14* .09
National
resilience
Israel .08 .03
Brazil −.30*** −.20***
Philippines −.07 −.20***
Well-being Israel −.13*** −.37***
Brazil −.11* −.31***
Philippines −.01 −.31***
Age Israel −.14*** −.09**
Brazil .07 −.08
Philippines −.18*** −.11*
Gender Israel .10** .13***
Brazil .03 .07*
Philippines .17*** .13*
Economic
difficulties
Israel .08*.12***
Brazil −.03 .12*
Philippines .09 .14**
Average family
income
Israel −.06* .04
Brazil −.15*** −.05
Philippines .09 .14*
Explained
variance (R2)
Israel .15 .29
Brazil .20 .40
Philippines .13 .30
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Bold values are the significant effects.
Kimhi et al. 13
concerns (Fiorillo & Gorwood, 2020; United Nations, 2020; World Health
Organization [WHO], 2020a). In great adversities like this pandemic, it is
imperative to understand the factors that could protect people from its psy-
chological consequences across different cultural contexts. Understanding
the similarities, as well as the differences, between different cultures, may
help to develop efficient countermeasures, tailored to each culture, and may
help in guiding efficient health policy to foster people’s ability to cope with
the hardship in each culture.
We explored the predictors of sense of danger and distress symptoms
across three countries under the assumption that individual, community, and
national resilience would significantly and negatively predict both distress
indicators in all three countries. We further predicted that IR and well-being
would be the strongest predictors of the distress indicators. Furthermore, we
aimed at identifying any difference in terms of the studied variables across
the three countries.
The path analyses partially confirmed our first hypothesis: two out of
three modes of resilience significantly and negatively predicted the dis-
tress indicators in most cases. Consistent with extant literature, IR signifi-
cantly negatively predicted distress symptoms in all three countries (Kimhi
et al., 2020; Hjemdal et al., 2011). However, IR significantly and nega-
tively predicted sense of danger in Israel and Brazil but not in the
Philippines. Yet, and not in line with our first hypothesis, CR did not pre-
dict distress symptoms in all three countries and it significantly and nega-
tively predicted sense of danger only in the Philippines. Since the
Philippines is characterized by a highly collectivistic culture (Aruta et al.,
2019; Roxas et al., 2019), Filipinos’ safety and well-being may be more
closely associated with socially-oriented constructs such as CR. Although
Israel and Brazil may also be considered collectivistic cultures, we believe
that East Asians, like Filipinos, have greater levels of collectivism which
might explain these differences (Aruta et al., 2019; Roxas et al., 2019).
Moreover, NR did not significantly predict any of the distress indictors in
Israel, result which was also not in line with our first prediction.
Importantly, lately Israel has suffered two concurrent major crises, the
global coronavirus crisis co-occurred with a major political crisis, which
started about a year before the pandemic eruption. During the months
between April 2019 and March 2020, three rounds of elections were held
without a clear-cut result. Note that the third round of elections was held
at the beginning of the pandemic in Israel, and relatively short time before
the current data was gathered. We assume that, at that stage of the pan-
demic, NR in Israel was more affected by the political crisis than by the
pandemic itself, and thus did not correlate with the distress indicators. As
14 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
predicted, NR was significantly and negatively associated with distress
symptoms in Brazil and the Philippines, confirming previous studies
(Kimhi & Eshel, 2019). Conversely, NR predicted sense of danger only in
Brazil. possible explanation for this finding concerns the unique political
circumstances in Brazil. Brazil has been going through a political crisis
since 2013, characterized by political polarization and anti-establishment
sentiments, creating distrust in institutions and government, and dividing
the population. In addition, the Brazilian Federal Government response to
COVID-19 has been problematic (The Lancet, 2020), increasing division
and misinformation, and making it more difficult to create the synergy
necessary to fight the pandemic (King & Da Fonseca, 2021). This divi-
sion may suggest that those who distrust the government feel more threat-
ened by the pandemic while those that trust the government feel safer.
Additional research comparing different cultures is needed to examine the
role of NR and coping with large scale pandemic, such as COVID-19.
Partially confirming our second hypothesis, we found that IR and well-
being were the best predictors of distress symptoms in all countries, and
served as good predictors of the sense of danger in Israel and Brazil, but not
in the Philippines. In line with recent findings, participants with higher levels
of IR experienced lower anxiety and depression (Barzilay et al., 2020). This
may suggest that IR and well-being may serve as protective factors against
distress and sense of danger in times of great adversities like COVID-19
crisis.
We found that younger participants reported higher levels of distress and
sense of danger in Israel and the Philippines but not in Brazil. Compared to
males, females in all countries reported greater levels of both distress indica-
tors. Similar results were recently reported in Italy (Forte et al., 2020).
Economic difficulties positively predicted distress in all three countries but
only predicted sense of danger in Israel. The overall pattern of findings sug-
gests that individuals from different cultural backgrounds may respond dif-
ferently to the threat posed by COVID-19 pandemic, yet, certain demographic
characteristics, such as being female, younger, and economically disadvan-
taged, may serve as risk factors and their link to distress indicators may be
more general.
Cross-Country Differences
The participants in the three countries significantly differed in terms of the
following variables: sense of danger, distress symptoms, IR, well-being, CR,
NR, and economic difficulties. In terms of the psychological effects of
COVID-19 crisis, results suggested that participants from the Philippines and
Kimhi et al. 15
Brazil experienced more severe psychological impacts in comparison with
the Israeli participants. Our results showed that among the three countries,
Filipinos experienced the highest level of sense of danger, followed by
Brazilians, while Israelis reported the lowest level. Furthermore, Brazilians
have reported the highest distress symptoms followed by Filipinos while
Israelis showed the lowest level.
Consistent with recent research, COVID-19 outbreak has resulted in men-
tal health concerns including depression, anxiety, trauma, stress, insomnia,
and excessive fear across the globe (Torales et al., 2020). The cognitive
appraisal theory proposed that the impact of threats may be based both on
objective characteristics (severity of exposure to threats and economic
impact) and people’s subjective interpretation of the event (Lazarus &
Folkman, 1984). Thus the above findings may be explained by the fact that,
compared to Israel, Brazil and the Philippines had a greater number of
COVID-19 cases at the study time. According to WHO (2020b), Israel had
110,000 confirmed cases, 885 deaths, and zero new cases per day (Israel
population is 9.1 million), the Philippines had 213,000 confirmed cases, more
than 3,400 deaths, and more than 3,500 new cases per day (the Philippine
population is 106.7 million), and Brazil, had 330,000 confirmed cases, 21,000
deaths, and 20,000 new cases per day (the Brazilian population is 209.5 mil-
lion). The greater numbers of confirmed cases, and in particular the greater
percentage of the new cases per day in the Philippines and Brazil may be due,
in part, to their more limited economic capacity. Developing countries, like
the Philippines and Brazil, may have less capacity and fewer resources to
respond to the challenges raised by the pandemic, leading to greater conse-
quences to people’s mental health (Mamun & Ullah, 2020). Drawing from
the cognitive appraisal theory, we also note that the subjective interpretation
of the threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) may explain, in part, the sense of
danger and distress differences across the three countries, confirming previ-
ous research (Kimhi et al., 2018).
Other notable variation across the three countries were the differences in
terms of IR and well-being. While Israel and Brazil have comparable levels
of IR and well-being, the Philippines tend to have significantly higher rat-
ings. Based on a global index of sustainable well-being, the Philippines has
consistently ranked as one of the top countries in terms of happiness and
well-being (The Happy Planet Index, 2016). However, there is a possibility
that some of our findings may reflect the modes of expression typical of each
culture and not the condition of the participants, therefore further research is
needed.
Nevertheless, one should take into consideration that COVID-19 damage
in the three countries was different: In Brazil and the Philippines, the process
16 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
is far from successful. In the context of COVID-19, the Philippines and
Brazil have not been managing the crisis well as indicated by record-high
COVID-19 cases and deaths and by huge economic losses. Israel, on the
other hand, have been more effective in terms of COVID management.
There are significant differences across the three countries in NR. Israelis
reported the highest levels of NR, followed by Filipinos, and then by
Brazilians. Given that NR involves people’s perception of their respective
country’s capacity to withstand adversities and keep its social fabric intact
(Kimhi & Eshel, 2019; Kimhi et al., 2020), preventing information from the
public in the Philippines and Brazil (WHO, 2020b) may have led their citi-
zens to lower perceptions of NR. Furthermore, CR ratings by participants in
Brazil appeared significantly lower than those in Israel and the Philippines.
The lower perception of CR in Brazil may be due to the high political polar-
ization and anti-establishment sentiments which may have depleted trust in
public institutions, not only at the national but also at the community level,
resulting in lower levels of CR (King & Da Fonseca, 2021). An alternative
explanation to this cross-cultural diversity may be based on the many differ-
ences between the types of communities in the three countries studied, for
example, a large metropolitan city such as Manila may significantly differ
from a small city in Israel. An additional explanation for the difference is the
difference in religion among the countries. For example, two recent studies
that have been conducted in Israel pointed to the striking difference in
national resilience between Jews and Arab (which most of them are Christians
or Muslims) citizens of Israel (Kimhi et al., 2020; Marciano et al., 2020).
Compared to Israel, higher levels of both distress indicators, and lower
levels of NR in the two other countries may indicate the impact of the lower
economic capacity of both other countries, leading to lower capabilities and
preparedness in times of great adversities. Previous research has indicated
that the impact of disasters and adversities tends to be more amplified in
developing countries due to lack of resources for response and preparedness
(Dasgupta et al., 2009). The findings of the present research suggest that this
may also apply to the psychological consequences of COVID-19 crisis.
Lastly, our findings revealed that, compared to the Philippines and Brazil,
Israelis reported a significantly higher level of economic difficulties. This
finding is unexpected given that countries like Brazil and the Philippines,
that have average income considerably lower than Israel, might have been
expected to report greater economic struggles. The impact of the closure of
the economy due to the lockdowns may directly be felt and observed by
people from more developed countries such as Israel, due to greater changes
in their economic performance. In contrast, people from developing coun-
tries like Brazil and the Philippines may have experienced the lockdown
Kimhi et al. 17
impact to a lesser extent, considering their long-term exposure to economic
difficulties.
Limitations and Future Research
The limitations of the present research offer opportunities for future studies.
First, the participants in Brazil and the Philippines were recruited using
snowball sampling. Hence, we cannot claim that the samples were represen-
tative of each country. Future studies may replicate the research using more
representative samples, controlling for the relative distributions in the popu-
lation of demographic variables such as gender, age, economic status, and
others. In addition, international comparisons may be broadened to include
more countries and wider cultural groups. Second, the associations among
the variables were measured by correlations and did not allow the inference
of causality. Third, the data were collected at different stages of the lockdown
in each country. Future research may measure distress and sense of danger
across different points of time during the crisis. Fourth, while IR and WB
attained metric level invariance, distress (configural only), NR, and CR did
not achieve invariance. Accordingly, the results for these two scales should
be taken with caution and further research is required as to the cross-cultural
comparison concerning them. Nonetheless, the present study may be consid-
ered as pioneering research, since it is the first known research that has
offered insights into how the three modes of resilience, well-being, and
demographic variables predict distress indicators across countries during
COVID-19 crisis.
Conclusion and Implications: Policy Lessons and Conclusions
Our findings offer several important implications for health policies during
COVID-19 pandemic and other forms of adversity. First, policies that aim to
alleviate the deleterious psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic
should consider the cultural nuances that exist in every country. However, the
findings of the present study indicate that while the impact of individual,
community, and national resilience on distress indicators may differ across
cultures (and possibly this finding may also apply to different cultural groups
within each country), there are numerous similarities that contribute to the
overall understanding of the impacts of COVID-19 on societies at large.
Second, our findings show that people’s perception of the capacity of the
local community and the larger society and its institutions significantly con-
tributes to protecting people from psychological distress. Therefore, local
and national governments should consider strengthening their capabilities to
18 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
respond to adversities. Public perception of public institutions as capable of
managing the impact of adversities such as COVID-19 crisis is likely to
increase people’s sense of safety, as well as their psychological stability, thus
protecting them from future psychological and health effects of the distress
symptoms. Third, beyond the differentiation among the countries, more gen-
eral effects of several demographic variables emerged. In agreement with
former studies (Kimhi et al., 2020), we found that females and younger peo-
ple are more prone to psychological distress in times of adversity. Thus, care-
givers, as well as decision-makers, should be aware of this tendency and take
it into account in designing effective policies for response mechanisms.
Finally, our findings suggest that people who face financial difficulties due to
the pandemic experience greater psychological distress. Therefore, it is sug-
gested that providing financial aid to citizens who are most economically
affected by COVID-19 crisis may not only serve as economic protection but
also as a psychological safety net to prevent future psychological as well as
physical deterioration.
Ethical Approval
Ethical approval for this research was waived by the authors institute/s IRB: (a)
Brazil: CONEP (Brazilian National Board of Research Ethics, res. 510/2016-CNS);
(b) The Philippines: Ethical approval of the university administrator of the Cavite
State University-General Trias Campus; (c) Israel: Approval of the IRB of Tel Aviv
University.
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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
ORCID iD
Maurício Reinert https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0263-9484
References
Alarcón, R., Cerezo, M. V., Hevilla, S., & Blanca, M. J. (2020). Psychometric prop-
erties of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale in women with breast cancer.
International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 20(1), 81–89.
Kimhi et al. 19
Anderson, R. M., Heesterbeek, H., Klinkenberg, D., & Hollingsworth, T. D. (2020).
How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-
19 epidemic? The Lancet, 395(10228), 931–934.
Anzai, A., Kobayashi, T., Linton, N. M., Kinoshita, R., Hayashi, K., Suzuki, A.,
Yang, Y., Jung, S. M., Miyama, T., Akhmetzhanov, A. R., & Nishiura, H. (2020).
Assessing the impact of reduced travel on exportation dynamics of novel corona-
virus infection (COVID-19). Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(2), 601.
APA.org. (2012). The road to resilience. Retrieved June 2020, from https://www.apa.
org/helpcenter/road-resilience.aspx
Aruta, J. J. B. R., Barretto, I. D. E., Shin, Y., & Jang, A. (2019). The experience of
power in teacher–student relationships in collectivistic context. Psychological
Studies, 64(3), 316–331. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-019-00523-0
Barzilay, R., Moore, T. M., Greenberg, D. M., DiDomenico, G. E., Brown, L. A.,
White, L. K., Gur, R. C., & Gur, R. E. (2020). Resilience, COVID-19-related
stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic in a large population enriched
for healthcare providers. Translational Psychiatry, 10(1), 1–8.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underesti-
mated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American
Psychologist, 59(1), 20.
Bonanno, G. A., Romero, S. S., & Klein, S. I. (2015). The temporal elements of
psychological resilience: An integrative framework for the study of individuals,
families, and communities. Psychological Inquiry, 26(2), 139–169.
Cacioppo, J. T., Reis, H. T., & Zautra, A. J. (2011). Social resilience. American
Psychologist, 66(1), 43–51.
Campbell-Sills, L., & Stein, M. B. (2007). Psychometric analysis and refinement of
the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item mea-
sure of resilience. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 1019–1028.
Dasgupta, S., Laplante, B., Murray, S., & Wheeler, D. (2009). Climate change and the
future impacts of storm surge disasters in developing countries (Technical report,
CGD working paper 182). Center for Global Development. http://www.cgdev.
org/content/publications/detail/1422836
Derogatis, L. R., & Savitz, K. L. (2000). The SCL-90-R and Brief Symptom Inventory
(BSI) in primary care. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), Handbook of psychological assess-
ment in primary care settings (pp. 297–334). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Fiorillo, A., & Gorwood, P. (2020). The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on
mental health and implications for clinical practice. European Psychiatry, 63(1),
32. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2020.35
Forte, G., Favieri, F., Tambelli, R., & Casagrande, M. (2020). The enemy which
sealed the world: Effects of COVID-19 diffusion on the psychological state of
the Italian population. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 9(6), 1802.
Hadi, F., Llabre, M. M., & Spitzer, S. (2006). Gulf War-related trauma and psycho-
logical distress of Kuwaiti children and their mothers. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 19, 653–662.
20 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
Hjemdal, O., Vogel, P. A., Solem, S., Hagen, K., & Stiles, T. C. (2011). The relation-
ship between resilience and levels of anxiety, depression, and obsessive–compul-
sive symptoms in adolescents. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 18(4),
314–321.
Kimhi S., & Eshel Y. (2009). Individual and public resilience and coping with long
term outcomes of war. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 14, 70–89.
Kimhi, S., & Eshel, Y. (2019). Measuring national resilience: A new short version of
the scale (NR-13). Journal of Community Psychology, 47(3), 517–528.
Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Marciano, H., & Adini, B. (2020). Distress and resilience in
the days of COVID-19: Comparing two ethnicities. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(11), 3956.
Kimhi, S., Eshel, Y., Zysberg, L., & Hantman, S. (2010). Postwar winners and losers
in the long run: Determinants of war related stress symptoms and posttraumatic
growth. Community Mental Health Journal, 46(1), 10–19.
Kimhi, S., Parmak, M., Boon, H., Kalliolpi, S., Groh, A., & Ryan, S. (2018).
Community and national resilience and quality of life: A preliminary cross-cul-
tural study. American International Journal of Social Science, 7(1), 1–11.
Kimhi, S., & Shamai, M. (2004). Community resilience and the impact of stress:
Adult response to Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon. Journal of Community
Psychology, 32(4), 439–451.
King, A. P., & Da Fonseca, E. M. (2021). COVID-19 in Brazil: Presidential denialism
and the subnational government’s. In S. L. Greer, E. J. King, A. Peralta, & E. M.
Da Fonseca (Eds.), Coronavirus politics: The comparative politics and policy of
COVID-19. University of Michigan Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Coping and adaptation. In W. D. Gentry (Ed.),
The handbook of behavioral medicine (p. 282325). Guilford Press.
Leykin, D., Lahad, M., Cohen, O., Goldberg, A., & Aharonson-Daniel, L. (2013).
Conjoint community resiliency assessment measure-28/10 items (CCRAM28 &
CCRAM10): A self-report tool for assessing community resilience. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 52(3–4), 313–323.
Luthar, S. S., Cicchette, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical
evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71(3), 543–562.
Mamun, M. A., & Ullah, I. (2020). COVID-19 suicides in Pakistan, dying off not
COVID-19 fear but poverty? The forthcoming economic challenges for a cross-
cultural study. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 87, 163–166.
Marciano, H., Kimhi, S., & Eshel, Y. (2020). Predictors of individual, community
and national resiliencies of Israeli Jews and Arabs. International Journal of
Psychology, 55(4), 553–561.
Masten, A. S. (2018). Resilience theory and research on children and families: Past,
present, and promise. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 10(1), 12–31.
Milfont, T. L., & Fischer, R. (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups:
Applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological
Research, 3(1), 111–130.
Kimhi et al. 21
Patel, S. S., Rogers, M. B., Amlôt, R., & Rubin, G. J. (2017). What do we mean by
‘community resilience’? A systematic literature review of how it is defined in the
literature. PLoS Currents, 9, 1–48.
Qiu, J., Shen, B., Zhao, M., Wang, Z., Xie, B., & Xu, Y. (2020). A nationwide sur-
vey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic:
Implications and policy recommendations. General Psychiatry, 33(2), e100213.
Roxas, M. M., David, A. P., & Aruta, J. J. B. R. (2019). Compassion, forgiveness
and subjective well-being among Filipino counseling professionals. International
Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 41(2), 272–283. https://doi.org
/10.1007/s10447-019-09374-w
Roylance, D. (2001). Stress–strain curves. MIT Press.
Scott, S. B., Poulin, M. J., & Silver, R. C. (2013). A lifespan perspective on terrorism:
Age differences in trajectories of response to 9/11. Developmental Psychology,
49(5), 986–998.
Soffer-Dudek, N. (2016). Sleep-related experiences longitudinally predict eleva-
tion in psychopathological distress in young adult Israelis exposed to terrorism.
Personality and Individual Differences, 100, 131–139.
Solomon, Z., & Prager, E. (1992). Elderly Israeli holocaust survivors during the
Persian Gulf War: A study of psychological distress. The American Journal of
Psychiatry, 149, 1707–1710.
Sorokowski, P., Groyecka, A., Kowal, M., Sorokowska, A., Białek, M., Lebuda, I.,
Dobrowolska, M., Zdybek, P., & Karwowski, M. (2020). Information about pan-
demic increases negative attitudes toward foreign groups: A case of COVID-19
outbreak. Sustainability, 12, 4912.
Suedfeld, P. (2015). Indomitabillity, resilience, and posttraumatic growth. In D.
Ajdukovic, S. Kimhi, & M. Lahad (Eds.), Resiliency: Enhancing coping with
crisis and terrorism (pp. 1–18). IOS Press, The NATO Science for Peace and
Security Programme.
The Happy Planet Index. (2016). A global index of sustainable well-being. https://
static1.squarespace.com/static/5735c421e321402778ee0ce9/t/57e0052d440243
730fdf03f3/1474299185121/Briefing+paper+-+HPI+2016.pdf
The Lancet. (2020). COVID-19 in Brazil: “So what?” The Lancet (London, England),
395(10235), 1461.
Torales, J., O’Higgins, M., Castaldelli-Maia, J. M., & Ventriglio, A. (2020). The
outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health.
International Journal of Social Psychiatry. Advance online publication. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0020764020915212
United Nations. (2020). Launch of the policy brief on COVID-19 and mental health.
https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/mental-health-services-are-essential-part-all-
government-responses-covid-19
Wang, C. J., Ng, C. Y., & Brook, R. H. (2020). Response to COVID-19 in Taiwan:
Big data analytics, new technology, and proactive testing. JAMA, 323(14),
1341–1342.
22 Cross-Cultural Research 00(0)
World Health Organization (WHO). (2020a). Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-
19): Situation report, 122.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2020b). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIkKud8-zE6wIVAcE-
WBR14igCUEAAYASAAEgKzv_D_BwE
Author Biographies
Shaul Kimhi Ph.D. is the head of the Stress and Resilience Research Center,
Psychology Department, Tel Hai Academic College, Israel. His main areas of research
are: individual, community and national resilience; coping with stress; political psy-
chology (including behavior analysis of political leaders), the psychology of terror-
ism, and army psychology.
Yohanan Eshel Ph.D. is a professor emeritus who lectured in the departments of
psychology of Haifa University and Tel Hai College in Israel. His research fields
included educational integration of different Israeli demographic sections, alterna-
tive methods of education, and personality psychology. In the last decade he devel-
oped a deep interest in individual and public resilience in times of distress and their
antecedents.
Bruria Adini PhD, is the head of the Department of Emergency & Disaster
Management in the Tel Aviv University. She is involved in field and academic activi-
ties targeted at preparedness and response to varied disasters. She is a board member
of Local Authorities Confronting Disasters and Emergencies (LACDE, the Israeli
National Council for Trauma and Emergency Medicine, and was formerly a member
of WADEM’s board. She researches various aspects of emergency management,
including evaluating capacities, perceived risks, resilience and utilization of social
media in emergencies.
John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta is an assistant professorial lecturer in De La Salle
University, Manila, Philippines. He also has a private practice in counseling and psy-
chotherapy. His research interests include, the role of culture on mental health, and
application of psychological principles towards environmental sustainability.
Benedict G. Antazo received his MA in counseling from De La Salle University, and
is currently pursuing his PhD in educational psychology at the same institution. At
present, he is a part-time professor at the department of psychology of Jose Rizal
University. His research interests include general mental health, mental health stigma
and attitudes, and psychometrics.
Alelie Briones-Diato is a doctoral student in Education Psychology at the De La Salle
University- Manila. She is a Licensed Professional Teacher and teaches Professional
Education subjects at the Cavite State University- General Trias City campus. Her
research area focuses on teachers’ motivation and commitment, and school perfor-
mance assessment system.
Kimhi et al. 23
Maurício Reinert is an associate professor at the Business School at the State
University of Maringá – Brazil. He is a senior researcher at the Graduate Program in
Business Administration at the same university. His research interests include
Economic Sociology and Sociology of Morality, researching on the socio-economic
impacts of cultural and institutional diversity.
Juliano Domingues da Silva is an adjunct professor at the Business School at the
State University of Maringá – Brazil. He is a researcher at the Graduate Program in
Business Administration at the same university. His research interests include Service-
dominant Logic and Theory of Reciprocity, researching on the socio-economic
impacts of service innovation and intra-organizational networks.
Fabiane Cortez Verdu is an associate professor at the Business School at the State
University of Maringá – Brazil. She is a senior researcher at the Graduate Program in
Business Administration at the same university. Her research interests include
International Business and Internationalization of Higher Education.
Hadas Marciano Ph.D. is an organizational and cognitive psychologist, a senior
researcher at the Institute of Information Processing and Decision Making, Ergonomic
& Human Factors Unit, University of Haifa, Israel, and at the Stress and Resilience
Research Center at Tel Hai Academic College, Israel. She also serves as a lecturer at
the Psychology Department, Tel Hai academic College. Her research interests are
human resilience (international, community, and individual resilience), as well as
human factors aspects of human behavior, and more specifically driver behavior.
