The Dynamics of Aggression and Anxiety during Disasters (a Case Study of Three Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Russia)

Authors: Burkova, Valentina N.; Butovskaya, Marina L.; Alexey M. Ermakov; Nikolay Yu. Simakov; Julija N. Fedenok; Azat B. Galimkhanov; Alexey V. Emelyanov; Olga V. Kalinichenko; Natalia V. Rymarenko; Victoriya I. Spodina; Raushaniia I. Zinurova
Journal: Social Evolution & History. Volume 24, Number 2 / September 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.30884/seh/2025.02.02

Valentina N. Burkova ¹, Marina L. Butovskaya ^{1, 2, 3}, Alexey M. Ermakov ⁴, Nikolay Yu. Simakov ⁵, Julija N. Fedenok ¹,

Azat B. Galimkhanov ⁶, Alexey V. Emelyanov ⁷, Olga V. Kalinichenko ⁸, Natalia V. Rymarenko ⁹, Victoriya I. Spodina ¹⁰, 

Raushaniia I. Zinurova ¹¹

¹ Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

² International Center of Anthropology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia;

³ Russian State University for the Humanities, Moscow, Russia

⁴ Don State Technical University, Rostov-on-Don, Russia

⁵ MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia

⁶ Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education, Ufa University of Science and Technology, Ufa, Russia

⁷ Strategic Partnership and Entrepreneurship Development, Tambov State University named after G. R. Der-
zhavin, Tambov, Russia

⁸ School of Education, Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia

⁹ Medical Academy named after S. I. Georgievsky, V. I. Ver-nadsky Crimean Federal University, Simferopol, Russia

¹⁰ Ob-Ugric Institute of Applied Researches and Development, Khanty-Mansiysk, Russia

¹¹ Institute of Innovation Management, Kazan National Research Technological University, Kazan, Republic of Tatarstan, Russia

ABSTRACT

Over two years have passed since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, and by now enough data have been accumulated on its psychological effects and mental health disorders in different countries. In this study, we present self-reported data collected from 7,450 participants during the three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia from May 2020 to July 2021. These data have been compared with the pre-pandemic data on 480 participants. The study aimed to trace the dynamics of aggressive and anxious behavior during the three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in comparison to the data from the pre-pandemic period. Three questionnaires were used to measure behavior in this study, namely: the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), and the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI). Sex differences in aggression and anxiety levels were demonstrated. The reduction in anxiety levels during COVID-19 waves may indicate that people had generally adapted to the stressful situation. All four scales show the highest level of aggression before the pandemic compared to any of the three waves. It is important to emphasize the discovered association between all types of aggression and anxiety, as individuals with high anxiety levels also scored higher on aggression scales, especially on the anger scale.

Keywords: COVID-19, aggression, anxiety, stress, Russia, adaptation.

INTRODUCTION

During disasters of any kind (economic, political, medical, etc.), there is a global disruption and restructuring of the usual way of life for millions of people; horizontal and vertical connections are often interrupted or completely stopped, which inevitably leads to stress for people. Because of ‘life stress,’ millions of people suffer from malaise, sleep disturbance, fatigue, withdrawal or anxiety; stress symptoms of emotional distress appear (such as excessive aggression, hyperactivity, nightmares, and enuresis), people suffer from alcoholism and drug addiction as they try to get rid of stress; thousands commit or attempt suicide (Levi 1981). Common responses to mass disasters include fear, aggression, stigma, explanations and actions based on information deficits (Strong 1990). Uncertainty about the situation and the inability to cope with it make people more vulnerable to stress caused by disasters and at high risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder after various negative events.

Extreme situations are divided into short-term ones, where response programs are activated and in effect, and which are always ‘ready’ in a person, and long-term ones, which require an adaptive restructuring of human functional systems (Kitaev-Smyk 2001). With prolonged stress, the onset of stress is erased with a limited number of visible manifestations of adaptive processes (Popkin et al. 1978). If superficial reserves are not enough to respond to extreme environmental demands, and the rate of mobilization of deep reserves is insufficient to compensate, then the individual may die with completely unused deep adaptive reserves. For example, many people who died from starvation during the Leningrad siege (1941–1942) had abundant fat deposits in their subcutaneous tissue. Their deaths were largely caused by the psychological experiences of hunger and fear (Kitaev-Smyk 2001).

The epidemic carries not only the risk of death from infection, but also unbearable psychological pressure. Loneliness leads to a decrease in cognitive abilities, affects anxiety levels, and increases the likelihood of developing symptoms of depression, which in some cases, leads to serious physiological changes (Victor et al. 2000; Coyle and Dugan 2012). Being in a situation of isolation for a long time makes people feel vulnerable, causing several cognitive, behavioral, and physiological reactions of a defensive type: lonely people tend to be less trusting and more anxious and aggressive (Cacioppo and Hawkley 2009). The fear of infection leads to internal conflict and discomfort; other people are perceived as a potential threat. People who are intolerant of uncertainty tend to engage in risky and impulsive behaviors, such as aggression, motivated by the desire to eliminate the distress caused by uncertainty (Sadeh and Bredemeier 2019; Celik et al. 2021).

Previous experience in researching psychological health during various epidemics (such as SARS, MERS, and Ebola) has shown that increased anxiety is associated, first of all, with a threat to health and people's desire to protect themselves and their loved ones (Brooks et al. 2020). With the long course of a pandemic (including quarantine), we are dealing with prolonged stress, which, in turn, can lead to immune system dysregulation and increased susceptibility to viral infections (Cohen et al. 2012), as well as to psychological distress and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (Cohen et al. 2012; Berta et al. 2020), depression and higher levels of stress (Mak et al. 2009), insomnia, irritability and low mood (Halsøy et al. 2021), nervousness, fear, sadness and guilt (Reynolds et al. 2008). A review of studies in ten countries that have experienced atypical pneumonia, Ebola fever, the H1N1 influenza pandemics, MERS, and equine influenza has shown the presence of negative psychological factors related to quarantine and has also shown that the psychological impact can be both large-scale and very long-lasting (Brooks et al. 2020).

To this moment research literature has focused on cases of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression following disasters, while other aspects of mental health have rarely been studied. The cognitive action theory of PTSD suggests that PTSD causes cognitive bias in the processing of threatening information. Therefore, mild evidence of a threat activates threat-response structures that bias individuals to interpret ambiguous evidence as threatening (Zhen et al. 2022). Major natural disasters can be extremely stressful for populations (especially children and youth) and have mental health consequences similar to those of war. For example, depending on the severity of the disaster in a particular region, PTSD rates range from 14% to 95 % in various communities affected by Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua and in an earthquake-affected region in Armenia (Catani et al. 2008). In meta-analysis of studies on children and adolescents worldwide, Alisic et al. (2014) found that 15.9 % of those exposed to traumatic events developed PTSD, with 9.7 % of youth exposed to nonin-terpersonal trauma, such as accidents and natural disasters, developing the condition. Review studies estimated that the rates of moderate post-traumatic stress symptoms during the acute post-disaster period could be as high as 50 % and 30 % at 1 year or later (Pfefferbaum et al. 2019).

Studies show that individuals who have experienced major disasterы (e.g., an earthquake, war) report a variety of psychological problems, including PTSD. In addition to psychological difficulties such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD, there is also a risk of escalating aggressive behaviour during times of disaster. Many empirical studies have found a correlation between traumatic experiences and aggressive behaviors (Celik et al. 2021; Zhen et al. 2022). Traumatic experiences can reduce individuals' sense of intimacy and trust in others, making it difficult for them to get along with others and inducing more interpersonal conflicts and aggression. Any form of aggression may also be further exacerbated, since the individuals' capacity to manage stress deteriorates in traumatic conditions (Celik et al. 2021). During a pandemic, the constrained conditions of quarantine and restrictions, economic problems, fear of infection, isolation, and social distancing can prevent victims from leaving an aggressive environment.

Previous studies have suggested that traumatized individuals may show increased aggressive behaviors (Nel and Righarts 2008). Several types of negative reactions (including anxiety and aggression) can be associated with exposure to natural disasters. Anger is an important aspect of affect and a prominent feature of post-traumatic mental health (Cowlishaw et al. 2021). Among youth, peer aggression may be related to the stress from disaster exposure, and aggressive behavior after a disaster may be more closely linked to PTSD symptoms than to disaster exposure (Scott et al. 2014). In other words, disaster exposure is more proximally linked to PTSD symptoms that in turn prompt aggression as part of a heightened activation of the anxiety and fear response system (Kunimatsu and Marsee 2012). Also, the sudden nature of natural disasters may lead to global mobilization of resources in disaster-exposed communities (e.g., social support), and help people restore their daily routines that minimize the direct impact on emotional and behavioral problems (Scott et al. 2014). Numerous studies on anger in veterans have found a correlation between aggression or violent behavior and post-traumatic mental health (Novaco and Chemtob 2015; Cowlishaw et al. 2021). A study of people's behavior during Australia's massive fires has found significant anger issues (in association with anxiety and stress) after the disaster, and elevated levels among women and young people (Cowlishaw et al. 2021). The correlation between aggression (especially hostile and impulsive aggression) and anxiety may reflect underlying deficits in emotional regulation that are clinical features of maladaptive reactions to trauma exposure and perceived threat (Novaco and Chemtob 2015).

Reactions to trauma vary across cultures and may include somatic and emotional responses (e.g., stress, distress, dysphonia, sadness, nervousness, anger), in addition to or instead of post-traumatic stress outcomes (Miller et al. 2006). A major problem is that Western concepts may not adequately address non-Western social and cultural contexts, outcomes, or coping strategies (Morris et al. 2007; Pfefferbaum et al. 2019). The expression of depression and anxiety, and aggressive behavior varies across cultures, and focusing on these more widely accepted responses may facilitate the adoption and implementation of effective interventions in disaster situations. The results of studies conducted in the USA and Italy show that the different human responses observed during floods were linked to basic differences in four cultural elements: (1) experience with floods, (2) socio-political traditions and organization, (3) level of integration within a community, and (4) perception of the physical environment (Marincioni 2001). In this context, the COVID-19 pandemic is an excellent opportunity to study human behavior and their response to global stress in different cultural environments. The success of preventing and preserving the psychological health of the population during these crises depends, among other things, on how well the norms and traditions of a given society are taken into account. These can both worsen or alleviate the psychological state.

COVID-19 pandemic is considered as the most crucial global health crisis of the century. The behavior of people during a pandemic is an area of interest to specialists in evolutionary sciences and several articles have been published on the long-term changes in human behavior. A study of German adults showed that the anxiety and depression symptoms were particularly high in early 2020 but decreased in the months that followed (Bendau et al. 2021a). Another research was conducted in the United States and found that anxiety and depressive symptoms increased three times more often in the initial phase of the pandemic in early 2020 than in 2019 (Twenge and Joiner 2020). Data from 10,979 individuals from Germany who responded between October 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021 revealed an increase in the severity of depression among women (Abreu et al. 2021).

Studies of aggressive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic are more controversial. Researchers have also found that during the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020, conflicts and cyberbullying have risen sharply (Zhen et al. 2022). Some researchers have demonstrated that amid quarantine and lockdown restrictions, the level of aggressiveness increased, specially this was claimed to be the case with domestic violence (Killgore et al. 2021; Abreu et al. 2021), whereas in other studies, on the contrary, have been reported its decrease (Zhang et al. 2020). Presumably, this may be due to cultural differences in the use of aggressive behavior strategies, as well as to specific situational factors in each country. In the USA, movement restrictions were introduced amid mounting racial tensions, stronger protests and riots related to the presidential elections, and natural disasters in a number of regions. In Belarus, the second COVID-19 wave coincided with the presidential elections and the ensuing riots (Burkova et al. 2021b; (Burkova et al. 2022). These factors led to an additional increase in anxiety and aggression, which is almost impossible to separate from pandemic-induced stress.

The frustration-aggression hypothesis originally stated that frustration is a necessary and sufficient condition for aggression, that is, any frustration will inevitably lead to aggression, and any act of aggression is provoked by frustration (Kruglanski et al. 2023). According to this theory, various restrictions imposed during the pandemic, especially social isolation and social distancing, can lead to frustration, because the aspect of frustration that produces an instigation to aggress is the negative feelings that frustration produces (Berkowitz 1989). The pandemic itself, the fear of infection, stress, as well as social, economic and psychological problems against its background are the most powerful frustrating factor provoking increased aggression.

The Touch Deprivation/Aggression Model predicted that touch deprivation during the COVID-19 pandemic may cause higher aggression levels (Field et al. 2020). Sensory deprivation early in adolescence may contribute to adult violence, namely cultures practicing higher physical affection for young children demonstrate lower rates of physical abuse among adults and vice versa (Prescott 1990). In one COVID-19 survey, less touching was associated with more aggression (Field et al. 2020). Thus, it can be assumed that a reduction in contacts between closely related people during restrictive measures during the COVID-19 can lead to more aggression. However, this association may be highly culturally specific, depending on the norms of behavior in the specific society, including the prevalence of tactile contacts.

The Scapegoat Theory claims that when people cannot deal with the cause of their negative emotions, they look for a ‘scapegoat’ to let out their frustrations (Wang et al. 2022). Being in forced isolation, facing various restrictions during a pandemic, people can redirect their negative emotions to their loved ones who are quarantined with them. According to this theory, expect a full range of domestic violence, that supported some studies (Killgore et al. 2021; Usher et al. 2021).
It was even suggested that the COVID-19 pandemic had unleashed a ‘perfect storm’ of factors that could bring about escalating domestic violence (Usher et al. 2021). According to the summary based on 18 studies, domestic violence increased by 8 % during pandemic (Piquero et al. 2021; Field 2021). However, it needs to be mentioned that such reports lacked the baseline data. In addition, the use of different methods and localization of data (majority of data being collected in North America) should be taken into account. In our research, we will concentrate on the general self-assessment of aggression and anxiety by the respondents rather than on domestic violence.

Also, behavioral dynamics were usually followed during the first six months of the pandemic and did not cover a longer period (Abreu et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2020; Killgore et al. 2021). Thus, it is not impossible to predict how the level of aggressive behavior would have changed in a later period. People could have coped with their early fears and insecurities about the pandemic, adapted to the stressful situation, and, thus, aggressive behavior and general anxiety could have decreased.

Our present study aimed to follow the dynamics of aggressive and anxious behavior during the three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia as compared to the pre-pandemic data. We covered the three COVID-19 waves in Russia with the total duration of 15 months (from May 2020 to July 2021), and examined the association between aggressive behavior and anxiety during the pandemic depending on sex and the wave. Based on the predictions from the previous studies, we expected a higher level of aggressive behavior in comparison with the pre-pandemic data due to increased general stress, as well as due to a number of other negative restrictive factors. We hypothesized that after quarantine was eased and the number and severity of restrictions were reduced, and people on the whole adapted to constant stress,
a decrease in aggression and anxiety from the first to third waves would be registered.

DATA AND METHODS

Participants

Self-reported data from 7,450 participants were collected during the three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic from May 2020 to July 2021 in different Russian regions (Table 1). Additionally, we use our 2019 pre-pandemic data collected using the same design research.

Table 1

Distribution of the sample

WAVE OF COVID-19	Total N	SEX		Mean age
		men	women	(±SD)
0 (pre-pandemic data)	488	212	276	19.50 (±1.53)
1	1,904	486	1,418	20.99 (±4.72)
2	1,606	681	925	20.14 (±3,96)
3	3,664	971	2,693	23.44 (±8.57)
TOTAL	7,662	2,350	5,312	21.89 (±4.69)

Procedure

All of the co-authors collected data for this study in their home regions. The questionnaire was compiled through the Google Forms service. The participants were recruited from the university environment. The inclusion criteria were: 1) aged 18 and above; 2) not having a chronic disease and/or predisposition for depression, or not undergoing treatment (based on the self-assessment of participants). All the participants provided their informed consent before completing the survey.

The survey was conducted during the three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) the main data set was collected in May 2020 (median – May 5, 2020); 2) the main data set was collected in December 2020 (median – December 7, 2020); 3) the main data set was collected in May–June 2021 (median – May 28, 2021). The collection of data generally corresponds to the dates of the waves indicated by Rospotrebnadzor^* (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Distribution of the sample during COVID-19 phases

The Scientific Council of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences approved the ethic protocols used to recruit participants and to collect data (protocol No 01, issued April 9, 2020).

Methods

The participants completed a standard demographic survey and asked about their lockdown conditions. Self-reported aggression was assessed with the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ) (Buss and Perry 1992) in adapted version in Russian (Enikolopov and Tsybulsky 2007). The BPAQ includes four scales – Physical Aggression (α reliability coefficients = 0.78), Verbal Aggression (α = 0.75), Anger (α = 0.81), and Hostility (α = 0.83).

Two questionnaires for measurement of anxiety level were used in this study – the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) (Spitzer et al. 2006) and the State Anxiety Inventory (SAI) (Spielberger 1983). GAD-7 screens for the presence of anxiety and related disorders, while SAI evaluates anxiety as a state, a reaction to stress. The GAD-7 asks participants to rate their symptoms of anxiety over the past two weeks (α = 0.91). Total scores across items are calculated, and anxiety symptoms are classified as norm, mild, moderate and severe.

Anxiety as an emotional state was measured using the first part of questionnaire, The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). It was developed to provide reliable, relatively brief, self-report scales for assessing state and trait anxiety in research and clinical practice. Participants report the intensity of their feelings of anxiety right now, at that moment. Total scores anxiety symptoms are classified as norm, moderate and high (α = 0.76).

SPSS (Version 29.0) and Python were employed for data evaluation and visualization.

RESULTS

Sex differences were found in the three scales of aggression except VA prior to the pandemic and during the first wave (Table 2). Men showed higher self-ratings on physical aggression in each phase of the pandemic, while women had higher self-ratings on anger and hostility. Verbal aggression estimates are slightly higher in women in the second COVID-19 wave and a little lower in the third wave. Sex differences were not found in SAI only before the pandemic (Table 2). The level of anxiety is higher in women over the entire period (Table 2).

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and sex differences on aggression
and anxiety scales

scales	Wave of COVID-19	N	Men		Women		t	p (sig.)	Cohen’ d
			Mean	SD	Mean	SD
PA	0 (pre)	488	21.51	5.32	18.03	6.33	6.431	< 0.000	.588
	1	1,904	19.86	6.26	17.23	5.88	8.287	< 0.000	.439
	2	1,606	19.40	6.09	16.81	6.16	8.286	< 0.000	.422
	3	3,664	19.51	6.66	16.88	5.99	10.646	< 0.000	.426
VA	0 (pre)	488	14.62	3.97	14.02	3.94	1.692	NS	.155
	1	1,904	12.37	4.88	12.60	4.51	–0.919	NS	–.049
	2	1,606	12.34	4.51	12.87	4.61	–2.260	.024	–.115
	3	3,664	12.44	4.92	11.83	4.77	3.142	.002	.126
Anger	0 (pre)	488	13.36	5.52	15.61	6.43	–4.068	< 0.000	–.372
	1	1,904	14.06	5.94	15.24	6.15	–3.636	< 0.000	–.193
	2	1,606	13.00	5.32	15.37	6.32	–7.856	< 0.000	–.114
	3	3,664	13.92	5.94	14.42	6.02	–2.082	.037	–.083
Hostility	0 (pre)	488	20.83	5.02	23.03	5.91	–4.340	< 0.000	–.397
	1	1,904	18.89	7.41	20.59	7.39	–4.332	< 0.000	–.230
	2	1,606	18.42	6.83	21.08	7.22	–7.389	< 0.000	–.400
	3	3,664	18.53	7.30	19.35	7.71	–2.699	.007	–.108
SAI	0 (pre)	368	23.51	8.11	24.28	9.08	–0.852	NS	–.089
	1	1,904	25.34	11.57	29.47	11.66	–6.768	< 0.000	–.356
	2	1,606	24.58	11.18	30.97	12.20	–10.736	< 0.000	–.542
	3	3,664	25.33	11.91	28.31	11.91	–6.417	< 0.000	–.250
GAD-7	0 (pre)	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
	1	1,904	3.80	4.42	5.71	4.98	–7.503	< 0.000	–.394
	2	1,606	3.58	4.16	6.89	5.14	–13.779	< 0.000	–.696
	3	3,664	4.23	5.26	6.29	5.85	–9.682	< 0.000	–.362

Sex differences presented according to Student’s T-test (t – test statistics, p – statistical significance, Cohen’ d – effect size, NS – not significant). Cohen’ d power: d = 0.8 (large effect), d = 0.5 (medium effect); d = 0.2 (small effect).

The GLM MANOVA analysis with ratings on four aggression scales as dependent variables and the wave, sex, the GAD-7 and SAI as fixed factors showed significant main effects of sex for physical and verbal aggression, and the wave for all aggression scales (with small effect sizes (Table 3).

Table 3

The impact of sex, COVID-19 wave, and anxiety scales
on individual aggression ratings

Predictor	Dependent variable	F (df)	p (sig.)	Partial Eta2
Wave	Physical aggression (PA)	4.539(2)	0.011	0.001
	Verbal aggression (VA)	5.951(2)	0.003	0.002
	Anger (A)	9.120(2)	< 0.001	0.003
	Hostility (H)	7.287(2)	0.001	0.002
Sex	PA	396.990(1)	< 0.001	0.057
	VA	38.979(1)	< 0.001	0.006
	Anger	0.818(1)	NS	0.000
	Hostility	1.339(1)	NS	0.000
GAD-7	PA	9.135(21)	< 0.001	0.028
	VA	22.357(21)	< 0.001	0.066
	Anger	26.447(21)	< 0.001	0.077
	Hostility	31.677(21)	< 0.001	0.091
SAI	PA	1.967(60)	< 0.001	0.018
	VA	2.873(60)	< 0.001	0.025
	Anger	4.350(60)	< 0.001	0.038
	Hostility	5.234(60)	< 0.001	0.045

F – test statistics, df – degree of freedom, p – statistical significance, partial Eta² – effect size PA: R² = 0.110; VA: R² = 0.119; A: R² =
0.226; R² = 0.248

The maximum on all aggression scales was obtained before the pandemic (Fig. 2). During the COVID-19 waves, the level of physical aggression decreased from the first wave to the second, and remained almost unchanged to the third phase (Fig. 4a). The level of verbal aggression followed a similar trend among men, but decreased sharply from the second wave to the third among women (Fig. 4b). The anger and hostility scales show different trajectories for men and women. The level of anger decreased from the first to the second wave in men and then increased again to the third; the level of hostility dropped from the first to the second, and remained practically at the same level to the third wave (Figs 4c, d). Whereas, in women, anger ratings were stable between the first and second waves and decreased to the third wave; hostility increased from the first to second wave and then decreased to the third (Figs 4c, d). It is important to note that only anger had lower levels in men before the pandemic compared to during it, as compared to other aggression scales (Fig. 4c).

Fig. 2. The dynamics of aggression scales (medians) before
and during waves of COVID-19: a) physical aggression,
b) verbal aggression, c) anger, d) hostility

On the contrary, the level of anxiety was minimal before the pandemic, and increased significantly during COVID-19, especially in the first and second waves among women (Fig. 3a). In men, an increase
in anxiety is observed in the first and third phase of the pandemic
(Fig. 3a, b).

Fig. 3. The dynamics of anxiety scales (medians) before
and during COVID-19 waves: a) State Anxiety Inventory (SAI);
b) Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7)

A total of 67.90 % of males during the first COVID-19 wave reported minimal (low) symptoms of anxiety on the GAD-7; 20.16 % reported mild symptoms, 8.02 % – moderate symptoms and 3.91 % reported severe symptoms (Fig. 4a). Women showed more disturbing data: only 49.01 % of females during the first COVID-19 wave reported minimal (low) symptoms of anxiety on the GAD-7; 31.31 % – mild symptoms, 12.48 % – moderate symptoms and 7.19 % reported severe symptoms (Fig. 4b). During the second COVID-19 wave the number of the most anxious respondents strongly increased among women (9.62 %), but not among men (2.94 %). The number of low-anxiety respondents considerably declined among women (39.03 %), but not in men (68.14 %). By the third COVID-19 wave, the number of the most anxious (severe-level) men almost doubled (6.80 %), as did the number of women (11.62 %) (Figs 4a and 4b). Also, the number of low anxiety levels among male decreased to 65.40 %, while in women, the number of normal anxiety level respondents conversely increased to 47.20 %, although in general the number of anxious women is almost twice the number of anxious men during all the waves of the pandemic (Fig. 4). Thus, we can point to a delayed reaction to stress in men.

4a.

4b.

Fig. 4. The dynamics of GAD-7 anxiety levels during COVID-19 waves

Similar trends were observed in the SAI questionnaire: the largest number of anxious men was observed during the first (5.35 %) and third (4.92 %) waves of the pandemic (Fig. 5a), while in women the highest number of highly anxious women was seen during the second phase – 13.19 % (Fig. 5b). In general, the number of anxious women was almost twice the number of anxious men during all the waves of the pandemic (Fig. 5). Before the pandemic, the lowest level of anxiety – 2.33 % – was observed among men with the high anxiety level and 3.57 % of women (Fig. 5); during the third phase of COVID-19 the level of anxiety did not drop to the pre-pandemic levels. The lowest rates are observed before the pandemic.

g. 5. The dynamics of SAI anxiety levels before

and during waves of COVID-19

ASSOCIATION OF AGGRESSION AND ANXIETY

To evaluate the association between the aggressive scales and self-re-ported symptoms of anxiety, we used a regression analysis. The strongest associations were found between the scales of anxiety and anger and hostility (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6. Correlation matrix of the association
between aggression scales and anxiety scales

The respondents with high anxiety ratings on both anxiety scales also scored high on all the aggressive scales in the total sample (Tables 4 and 5), regardless of gender (Figs 7 and 8) and COVID-19 waves (Figs 9 and 10).

Table 4

The regression analysis for the factors predicting aggression
(GAD-7 as dependent variable)

Predictor	B	SE	Beta	t	P	R2
Physical aggression	.159	.010	.185	15.375	< 0.000	0.034
Verbal aggression	.298	.013	.263	22.297	< 0.000	0.069
Anger	.379	.010	.427	38.700	< 0.000	0.183
Hostility	.309	.008	.431	39.099	< 0.000	0.186

Table 5

The regression analysis for the factors predicting aggression
(SAI as dependent variable)

Predictor	B	SE	Beta	t	P	R2
Physical aggression	.276	.022	.144	12.248	< 0.000	0.021
Verbal aggression	.347	.030	.137	11.656	< 0.000	0.019
Anger	.742	.022	.377	34.176	< 0.000	0.142
Hostility	.575	.018	.358	32.250	< 0.000	0.128

Fig. 7. Association of aggression and anxiety (GAD_TOTAL)
depending on sex (1 – men, 2 – women): a) PH – physical aggression,
b) VA – verbal aggression, c) ANG – anger, d) HOST – hostility

Fig. 8. Association of aggression and situational anxiety
(ST_TOTAL) depending on sex

Fig. 9. Association of aggression and anxiety
(GAD_TOTAL) depending on waves

Fig. 10. Association of aggression and situational anxiety
(ST_TOTAL) depending on waves

DISCUSSION

The results of the current study based on the sample of 7,662 participants revealed the dynamics of aggressive and anxious behavior during three waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia with the total duration of 15 months (from May 2020 to July 2021) in comparison with the pre-pandemic data.

Our data demonstrate that women reported higher levels of anxiety compared to men during the entire period of the COVID-19 pandemic. This finding supports the data from other studies conducted both before and during the pandemic in different populations (Abreu et al. 2021; Burkova et al. 2021a; Burkova et al. 2022; Butovskaya et al. 2021; Fedenok and Burkova 2020; Kowal et al. 2020; Semenova et al. 2021; Spitzer et al. 2006; etc). One of the latest meta-analyses of 315 studies on associations between gender and COVID-19-related fear and anxiety showed that women perceive the coronavirus as a greater threat to their personal health than men (Metin et al. 2022). A study conducted in the UK from April to November 2020 showed that mental health of women deteriorated as the lockdown restrictions were tightened, compared to males' mental health (Stroud and Gutman 2021). Based on these findings and other data, it can be concluded that the COVID-19 outbreak has had a more negative impact on women.

Data on reduced anxiety levels during the pandemic are broadly consistent with what has already been done around the world (Bendau et al. 2021a, b; Burkova et al. 2022; Twenge and Joiner 2020) and show that people generally adapt to stressful situations. These results also agree with a decrease in anxiety symptoms during previous epidemics (Chong et al. 2004). A longitudinal study of a German sample of 6,551 people, who were continuously monitored during the localized four COVID-19 waves from March to June, 2020, showed that all symptoms generally decreased over time. However, the symptoms of fear, depression, and anxiety associated with COVID-19 were on average higher in patients with depression or increased anxiety or other psychiatric disorders, compared to individuals in the normal sample (Bendau et al. 2021b). These data are consistent with our results, which show the increasing number of respondents with high ratings of depression against the total decrease in anxiety. Similar results are observed in the study conducted on a mixed sample in the US students (Fruehwirth et al. 2021; Vahratian et al. 2021; Jia et al. 2021).

The dynamics of aggression during COVID-19 waves showed that maximum scores on all scales were achieved before the pandemic. Hence, our hypothesis that after the outbreak of the pandemic the level of aggression would increase due to stress, social isolation, and various restrictions, has not been confirmed. It should be noted here that our study was unique in that we had access to the data collected before the pandemic using an identical study protocol for a similar age group. A possible explanation for the results obtained may be as follows: the aggression level may have declined as a result of lack of social contacts. The limited interpersonal distance reduces the frequency of violent situations (Moccia et al. 2020). Frans de Waal earlier suggested that human violence occurs through psychological processes of depersonalization and disqualification between individuals or different groups (de Waal 2006). According to this theory, depersonalization of population occurs not only due to constant feelings of danger and risk of life and the high contagiousness of the virus, making another person a potential carrier; but also because social isolation paradoxically deprives people of the ability to establish empathic relationships with others (Ibid.).

We have demonstrated a decrease in aggression and anxiety levels from the first to third waves after the easing of quarantine and the gradual removal of restrictions. Therefore, our next hypothesis has been confirmed. With slight deviations depending on sex, the level of physical aggression decreased from the first to the second wave, and remained almost unchanged to the third phase. The level of verbal aggression followed similar trends among men but decreased sharply from the second to the third wave in women. Anger and hostility scales showed different gender strategies: in men, the level of aggression decreased to the second wave and increased to the third, while in women, on the contrary, it grew to the second and demonstrated a downward trend in the third wave. Unlike the findings of other researchers, our data do not show a spike in aggression during the pandemic. However, it should be noted that most of those studies examined domestic violence and cyberviolence, particularly in stricter quarantines (Abreu et al. 2021; Piquero et al. 2021). In our study, respondents evaluated their aggressive behavior. On the other hand, these studies do not contain data on the level of aggression before the pandemic.

In a similar study conducted in Germany (with 10,979 participants) people showed an increase in aggression between October 1, 2020 and February 28, 2021, with a more significant increase in men compared to women (Abreu et al. 2021). Researchers attributed this jump to the tightening of restrictive measures, including aggravating factors such as decreasing income (which affected men more) and personal experience with coronavirus infection. However, this study did not analyze the direct dynamics of aggressive behavior during that period, but only identified significant factors. As the stringency of the lockdown increased, men showed higher levels of aggression compared to women (Abreu et al. 2021).

Our results are partially consistent with the Frustration/Aggres-
sion and the Touch Deprivation/Aggression theories: at the peak of primary stress from the pandemic, during periods of the most severe quarantine and restrictions of social contacts (the first wave), according to respondents' self-assessment, the highest rates of aggressive behavior were demonstrated. In one study, higher total aggression scores were reported for individuals under lockdown compared to those who were not experiencing lockdown (Killgore et al. 2021). In our study, we did not conduct such a comparison, but we observed a certain trend of decreasing level of aggression and anxiety with less strict restrictions, which was especially noticeable during the third wave, when quarantine was not announced, and restrictions were advisory in nature.

Chinese scientists analyzed changes in aggressiveness in 66 students during the first wave of COVID-19 (February-March 2020) – decreases in aggressiveness levels were found during lockdown and isolation (Zhang et al. 2020). The researchers attributed these results to the fact that the outbreak of COVID-19 made people realize the fragility and value of life. However, sample size may have negatively affected the results of the study.

One study conducted in the USA (5,928 people) also used the BPAQ from April 9, 2020 to September 11, 2020 (Killgore et al. 2021). During the six months spanning the initial stay-at-home orders and the subsequent summer spike in US COVID-19 cases, aggressive tendencies among respondents demonstrated an increase (Ibid.). However, the dynamics of behavior depended on the situation in the country: aggression decreased slightly from early April to early May 2020 during the initial period of lockdowns in the USA, but then quickly increased in June and July 2020, when many bans were extended and social and political unrest grew amid the growing number of COVID-19 infections and deaths (Ibid.). Increased aggression was mainly characteristic of those who reported that they were in isolation, compared to those who reported that they were not under such restrictions. It is important to note that changes in aggression in the USA were demonstrated only during six months in 2020. In our study three large waves of COVID-19 were studied over a longer period, from May, 2020 to May, 2021. Thus, we cannot predict how the level of aggressive behavior in the USA would have changed in a later period. It is also interesting to note that anger was the only scale that did not fit the resulting model, since it was higher among a small percentage of people (6.4 %) who denied that they were in isolation during the first month of lockdown (Killgore et al. 2021). The American researchers suggested that these people may have dealt with their early fears and insecurities about the pandemic by heightening anger, which was more pronounced in communities that resisted stay-at-home orders. This hypothesis may also be valid in relation to our data: the association of all types of aggression with anxiety especially expressed in anger, shows high levels of anxiety among respondents with high anger ratings. Anger, as an emotion, is typically associated with depression and anxiety and is often a predictor of aggression (Field et al. 2021; Spielberger et al. 1983), and it also predisposes to aggressive behavior in response to a (perceived) threat (Bettencourt et al. 2006). The current models of aggression describe aggressive behavior as the result of situational factors (e.g., stress, frustration), personality traits and internal states (e.g., cognition, emotion) (Bushman 2016; Abreu et al. 2021). A stressful situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic with its various restrictions and difficulties can create increased levels of threat, frustration, and discomfort. The COVID-19-related stressors stimulate threat-related behaviors, such as fight-or-flight, that result in higher levels of anger and other forms of reactive aggression (Abreu et al. 2021). A research among university students in Mexico also found a positive correlation between overall aggression score and overall anxiety in males but not in females (Vuelvas-Olmos et al. 2022). Similar findings were obtained in a study of 1,005 Chinese people – anxiety had positive associations with cyber aggression (Wang et al. 2022). According to the Frustrate Aggression Theory, which stipulates that stress and aggressive behavior are closely related (Berkowitz 1989), people feel frustrated and have strong aggressive tendencies in stressful situations. Within the framework of this theory, one can also assume a strong correlation between aggression and anxiety: people with high anxiety levels have high levels of aggression despite the general decrease in aggression during the pandemic in Russia.

CONCLUSION

This study examined the fluctuation of aggression and anxiety levels in Russia during the various COVID-19 waves between May 2020 and July 2021. The results obtained were compared with the pre-pandemic data.

Our data showed that before the pandemic, aggression levels were higher, which contradicts theories about frustration and aggression deprivation, according to which an increase in aggression is more likely to happen in case of stress and isolation. However, these hypotheses were partially confirmed during the three pandemic waves. From the first to the third wave, there was a decrease in the level of aggression (and stress), which indicated successful adaptation of people to constant stress. In addition, the decreased levels were associated with more lenient restrictions. However, we should not exclude a possibility that the decline in aggression could also be caused by the inability to interact with other people (in this study we do not consider domestic violence).

Relying on our data, we suggest that one should be very careful when interpreting findings indicating the growth in aggression in the form of violent acts during pandemic-related restrictions and isolation. Most studies with such conclusions were conducted during the first wave of the pandemic and did not provide any information about later periods. However, our data show that the aggression levels declined over time from wave to wave. Hence, it may be incorrect to extrapolate conclusions from early stages to the entire period. The average age of our sample ranges from 19.5 to 23.4 years, allowing us to limit the results to this age group. Thus, whether the current findings can apply to other population groups remains unclear, and future research should, therefore, examine the impact of age on behavioral parameters studied.

FUNDING

The article was prepared in accordance with the research plan of the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology RAS (Human Ultrasociality: Biosocial and Cross-Cultural Aspects).

NOTE

* Official statistics are presented on The Yandex DataLens portal, based on official statistics from the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation and Rospotrebnadzor https://stopcoronavirus.ru https://datalens.yandex/7o7is1q6ikh23?tab=X1&utm_source =cbmain&state=4d4ea3bc211

REFERENCES

Abreu, L., Koebach, A., Díaz, O., et al. 2021. Life with Corona: Increased Gender Differences in Aggression and Depression Symptoms due to the COVID-19 Pandemic Burden in Germany. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 689396. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689396.

Alisic, E., Zalta, A. K., van Wesel, F., et al. 2014. Rates of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Trauma-Exposed Children and Adolescents: Meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry 204: 335–340.

Bendau, A., Plag, J., Kunas, S., et al. 2021a. Longitudinal Changes in Anxiety and Psychological Distress, and Associated Risk and protective Factors during the First Three Months of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Germany. Brain and Behavior 11 (2): e01964.

Bendau, A., Kunas, S. L., Wyka, S., et al. 2021b. Longitudinal Changes of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany: The Role of Pre-Existing Anxiety, Depressive, and Other Mental Disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 79: 102377.

Berkowitz, L. 1989. Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis: Examination and Reformulation. Psychological Bulletin 106 (1): 59–73. doi: 10.1037/0033- 2909.106.1.59. PMID: 2667009.

Berta, A., Ángel, C. M., Clara, G. S., Manuel, M. 2020. The Psychological Impact of Six Weeks of Lockdown as a Consequence of COVID-19 and the Importance of Social Support: A Cross-Cultural Study Comparing Spanish and Russian Populations. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art 13 (4): 89–105.

Bettencourt, B., Talley, A., Benjamin, A. J., and Valentine, J. 2006. Personality and Aggressive Behavior under Provoking and Neutral Conditions: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin 132 (5): 751–777.

Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., et al. 2020. The Psychological Impact of Quarantine and How to Reduce It: Rapid Review of the Evidence. Lancet 395: 912–920.

Burkova, V. N., Butovskaya, M. L., Randall, A. K., et al. 2021a. Predictors of Anxiety in the COVID-19 Pandemic from a Global Perspective: Data from 23 Countries. Sustainability 13 (7): 4017.

Burkova, V., Kasparova, E., Butovskaya, М. 2021b. Anxiety and Aggression in the Context of Covid-19: Sex and Cultural Differences (on the example of Minsk and Moscow). Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology 12 (4): 580–596.

Burkova, V. N., Butovskaya, M. L., Randall, A. K., et al. 2022. Factors Associated with Highest Symptoms of Anxiety During COVID-19: Cross-Cultural Study of 23 Countries. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 805586.

Bushman, B. J. (ed.). 2016. Aggression and Violence: A Social Psychological Perspective. Psychology Press.

Buss, A. H., and Perry, M. 1992. The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63 (3): 452–459.

Butovskaya, M. L., Burkova, V. N., Randall, A. K., et al. 2021. Cross-cultural Perspectives on the Role of Empathy during COVID-19's First Wave. Sustainability 13 (13): 7431.

Cacioppo, J. T., Hawkley, L. C. 2009. Perceived Social Isolation and Cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 (10): 447–454.

Catani, C., Jacob, N., Schauer, E., Kohila, M., and Neuner, F. 2008. Family Violence, War, and Natural Disasters: A Study of the Effect of Extreme Stress on Children's Mental Health in Sri Lanka. BMC Psychiatry 8: 1–10.

Celik, T., Simsek, A., Koca, C. F., Aydin, S., and Yasar, S. 2021. Evaluation of Cochlear Functions in Infants Exposed to SARS-CoV-2 Intrauterine. American Journal of Otolaryngology 42 (4): 102982.

Chong, M. Y., Wang, W. C., Hsieh, W. C., et al. 2004. Psychological Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome on Health Workers in a Tertiary Hospital. The British Journal of Psychiatry 185 (2): 127–133.

Cohen, S., Janicki-Deverts, D., Doyle, W. J., et al. 2012. Chronic Stress, Glucocorticoid Receptor Resistance, Inflammation, and Disease Risk. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109: 5995–5999.

Cowlishaw, S., Metcalf, O., Varker, T., et al. 2021. Anger Dimensions and Mental Health Following a Disaster: Distribution and Implications after a Major Bushfire. Journal of Traumatic Stress 34 (1): 46–55.

Coyle, C. E., Dugan, E. 2012. Social Isolation, Loneliness and Health among Older Adults. Journal of Aging and Health 24 (8): 1346–1363.

De Waal, F. 2006. Our Inner Ape: The Best and Worst of Human Nature. Granta.

Enikolopov, S. N., Tsybulsky, N. P. 2007. Psychometric Analysis of Russian-Language Version of Questionnaire for Aggression Diagnostics by A. Buss and M. Perry. Psychologichesky Jurnal 28 (1): 115–124. Original in Russian (Ениколопов С. Н., Цибульский Н. П. Психометрический анализ русскоязычной версии опросника диагностики агрессии А. Басса и М. Перри. Психологический журнал 28 (1): 115–124).

Fedenok, J., Burkova, V. 2020. Social Distancing as Altruism in the Context of the Coronavirus Pandemic: A Cross-Cultural Study. Siberian Historical Research 2: 6–40.

Field, T. 2021. Aggression and Violence Affecting Youth during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Narrative Review. J. Psychiatry Res. 3: 1–7. doi: 10.47 363/JPSRR/2021(3)128.

Field, T., Poling, S., Mines, S., Bendell, D., & Veazey, C. 2020. Exercise Improves Psychological and Physical Well-Being during a COVID-19 Lockdown. Journal of Community Medicine & Public Health 4: 196.

Fruehwirth, J. C., Biswas, S., Perreira, K. M. 2021. The Covid-19 Pandemic and Mental Health of first-Year College Students: Examining the Effect of Covid-19 Stressors Using Longitudinal Data. PloS one, 16 (3), e0247999.

Jia, H., Guerin, R. J., Barile, J. P. et al. 2021. National and State Trends in anxiety and Depression Severity Scores among Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic – United States, 2020–2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70 (40): 1427–1432.

Halsøy, Ø., Johnson, S. U., Hoffart, A., Ebrahimi, O. V. 2021. Insomnia Symptoms in the General Population during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Frontiers in Psychiatry 12: 762799.

Killgore, W. D., Cloonan, S. A., Taylor, E. C., Anlap, I., Dailey, N. S. 2021. Increasing Aggression during the COVID-19 Lockdowns. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports 5: 100163.

Kitaev-Smyk, L. A. 2001. The Stress of War: Essays of a Frontline Psychologist. Moscow: Russian Institute of Cultural Studies. Original in Russian (Китаев-Смык Л. А. Стресс войны: фронтовые записки врача-психо-лога. Москва: Рос. ин-т культурологии).

Kowal, M., Coll‐Martín, T., Ikizer, G., et al. 2020. Who is the Most Stressed during the COVID‐19 Pandemic? Data from 26 Countries and Areas. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being 12 (4): 946–966.

Kruglanski, A. W., Ellenberg, M., Szumowska, E., et al. 2023. Frustration–Aggression Hypothesis Reconsidered: The Role of Significance Quest. Aggressive Behavior 49 (5): 445–468.

Kunimatsu, M. M., and Marsee, M. A. 2012. Examining the Presence of Anxiety in Aggressive Individuals: The Illuminating Role of Fight-or-Flight Mechanisms. Child and Youth Care Forum 41: 247–258.

Lee, K. S., Ono, H. 2012. Marriage, Cohabitation, and Happiness: A Cross-National Analysis of 27 Countries. Journal of Marriage and Family 74 (5): 953–972.

Levi, M. 1981. The Predatory Theory of Rule. Politics & Society 10 (4): 431–465.

Mak, I. W. C., Chu, C. M., Pan, P. C., et al. 2009. Long-Term Psychiatric Morbidities among SARS Survivors. Gen. Hosp. Psychiatry 31: 318–326.

Marincioni, F. 2001. A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Natural Disaster Response: The Northwest Italy Floods of 1994 Compared to the US Midwest Floods of 1993. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters 19 (2): 209–235.

Metin, A., Erbiçer, E. S., Şen, S., Çetinkaya, A. 2022. Gender and COVID-19 Related Fear and Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of affective Disorders 310: 384–395.

Miller, K. E., Kulkarni, M., and Kushner, H. 2006. Beyond Trauma-Focused Psychiatric Epidemiology: Bridging Research and Practice with War-Affected Populations. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 76 (4): 409–422.

Moccia, L., Janiri, D., Pepe, M., et al. 2020. Affective Temperament, Attachment Style, and the Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak: An Early Report on the Italian General Population. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 87: 75–79.

Morris, J., van Ommeren, M., Belfer, M., Saxena, S., and Saraceno, B. 2007. Children and the Sphere Standard on Mental and Social Aspects of Health. Disasters 31 (1): 71–90.

Nel, P., Righarts, M. 2008. Natural Disasters and the Risk of Violent Civil Conflict. Int Stud Quar. 52: 159–185.

Novaco, R. W., Chemtob, C. M. 2015. Violence Associated with Combat Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: The Importance of Anger. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice and Policy 7 (5): 485–492.

Pfefferbaum, B., Nitiéma, P., and Newman, E. 2019. A Meta-Analysis of Intervention Effects on Depression and/or Anxiety in Youth Exposed to Political Violence or Natural Disasters. Child & Youth Care Forum. 48: 449–477.

Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Jemison, E., Kaukinen, C., Knaul, F. M. 2021. Domestic Violence during COVID-19: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. 21. Washington, D.C: Council on Criminal Justice.

Popkin, M. K., Stiliner, V., Hall, R. C. 1978. A Generalized Response to Protracted Stress? Milit. Med., 143 (7): 479–480.

Prescott, J. W. 1990. Affectional Bonding for the Prevention of Violent Behaviors: Neurobiological, Psychological and Religious/Spiritual Determinants. In Hertzberg, L. J., Ostrom, G. F., Field J. R. (eds.), Violent Behavior (pp. 95–124). New York: Great Neck.

Reynolds, D. L., Garay, J. R., Deamond, S. L., et al. 2008. Understanding, Compliance and Psychological Impact of the SARS Quarantine Experience. Epidemiol. Infect. 136 (7): 997–1007.

Sadeh, N., and Bredemeier, K. 2019. Engaging in Risky and Impulsive Behaviors to Alleviate Distress Mediates Associations between Intolerance of Uncertainty and Externalizing Psychopathology. Journal of Personality Disorders 33: 456.

Scott, B. G., Lapré, G. E., Marsee, M. A., Weems, C. F. 2014. Aggressive Behavior and its Associations with Posttraumatic Stress and Academic Achievement Following a Natural Disaster. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 43 (1): 43–50.

Semenova, O., Apalkova, J., Butovskaya, M. 2021. Sex Differences in Spatial Activity and Anxiety Levels in the COVID-19 Pandemic from Evolutionary Perspective. Sustainability 13 (3): 1–18.

Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., Lowe, B. 2006. A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Arch. Int. Med. 166: 1092–1097.

Spielberger, C. D. 1983. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Strong, P. 1990. Epidemic Psychology: A Model. Sociology of Health & Illness 12 (3): 249–259.

Stroud, I., Gutman, L. M. 2021. Longitudinal Changes in the Mental Health of UK Young Male and Female Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Psychiatry Research 303: 114074.

Twenge, J. M., Joiner, T. E. 2020. US Census Bureau‐Assessed Prevalence of Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in 2019 and during the 2020 COVID‐19 Pandemic. Depression and Anxiety 37 (10): 954–956.

Usher, K., Bradbury Jones, C., Bhullar, N., et al. 2021. COVID‐19 and Family Violence: Is This a Perfect Storm? International Journal of Mental Health Nursing 30 (4): 1022–1032.

Vahratian, A., Blumberg, S. J., Terlizzi, E. P., Schiller, J. S. 2021. Symptoms of Anxiety or Depressive Disorder and Use of Mental Health Care among Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic – United States, August 2020–February 2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 70 (13): 490.

Victor, C., Scambler, S., Bond, J., Bowling, A. 2000. Being alone in later Life: Loneliness, Social Isolation. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology 10 (4): 407–417.

Vuelvas-Olmos, C. R., Sánchez-Vidaña, D. I., Cortés-Álvarez, N. Y. 2022. Gender-Based Analysis of the Association between Mental Health, Sleep Quality, Aggression, and Physical Activity among University Students during the CoViD-19 Outbreak. Psychological Reports, 0033294122108
6209.

Wang, Q., Luo, X., Tu, R., et al. 2022. COVID-19 Information Overload and Cyber Aggression during the Pandemic Lockdown: The Mediating Role of Depression/Anxiety and the Moderating Role of Confucian Responsibility Thinking. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19 (3): 1540.

Zhang, Y., Zhang, H., Ma, X., and Di, Q. 2020. Mental Health Problems during the COVID-19 Pandemics and the Mitigation Effects of Exercise: A Longitudinal Study of College Students in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (10): 3722.

Zhen, B., Yao, B., and
Zhou, X. 2022. Pandemic Exposure, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Conflict Behaviors,
and Online Aggressive Behaviors among College Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic:
Examining the Moderating Role of Gender. Frontiers
in Psychiatry 13: 809173.