supp.apa.org · Web view2021. 4. 30. · citizen; had been diagnosed with depression or an anxiety disorder in the past 5 years (Lee et al., 2017a); currently smoked tobacco cigarettes;

COVID-19 INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND WELL-BEING 1

Supplementary Online Materials

Table of Contents

Detailed Method. 2

Table S1. Full Descriptions of the Demographic Variables. 7

Table S2. Full Descriptions of the Dependent Variables. 8

Table S3. Bivariate Correlations Between Main Variables for Pre-Lockdown and Post Lockdown Groups.13

Table S4. Sample Sizes and Confidence Intervals of Dependent Variable Means for Pre-Lockdown and Post-Lockdown Groups. 15

Table S5. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Between Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government. 17

Table S6. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Between Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Wellbeing. 18

Table S7. Residual correlation matrices between (a) indicators of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government, and (b) Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Wellbeing, adjusting for Pre- versus Post-Lockdown condition 19

Table S8. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Within Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government. 20

Table S9. Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Within Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Wellbeing. 21

Figure S1. Comparisons of Means and Distributions of Different Measures of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government Between Pre- and Post-Lockdown Groups. 22

Figure S2. Comparisons of Means and Distributions of Different Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Wellbeing Between Pre- and Post-Lockdown Groups. 23

References 25


Detailed Method

Participants

Sampling Procedure

The NZAVS is an ongoing 20-year national longitudinal panel study of social attitudes, personality,

and health outcomes that began in 2009 (Ns = 4,441-47,951). Commencing in October 2019, data collection

for the eleventh wave of the study was underway during the COVID-19 crisis. Participants were originally

sampled from the New Zealand electoral roll, which is available for scientific research, and contains contact

details of all registered voters. Booster samples completed over the first decade of the study mean that the

NZAVS has been drawn from random electoral roll samples, stratified electoral roll samples, and random

electoral roll samples with upper age limits; with response rates ranging from 16.6% (2009) through to 9.2%

(2018). The exceptions to this approach are a non-random booster sample in 2011 (to boost Māori

[Indigenous] representation) drawn from a survey conducted by a major newspaper (2,962 participants

completed the questionnaire when subsequently contacted), opt-ins through word-of-mouth, and attempts at

recruiting the partners of current participants.

Wave-on-wave retention has generally been high: upwards of 80%, for example, 82.3% between

2017-2018 (notwithstanding a retention rate of 72% between 2016-2017 due to a lack of funding for phone

reminders and the closure of many New Zealand specific email domains). Retention attempts have included

prize draws, newsletters, phoning participants, emailing and posting surveys, and more recently, social

media advertisements (largely paid Facebook advertising). A more detailed description of the sampling

procedure for the NZAVS is available in Sibley (2020). Although the NZAVS has participant opt-ins

through its public reputation, advertising, and word-of-mouth, all of the participants in the current paper

were completing at least their second annual wave of the survey, providing assurance that there is nothing

particular about the current sample in terms of sudden opting-in during the pandemic or lockdown.


Propensity Score Matching

Given that the NZAVS started surveying participants for the current (Time 11) wave in October

2019, thousands more people had completed the questionnaire prior to the implementation of the lockdown

than after it. Therefore, we used propensity score matching (using the propensity score matching algorithm

in SPSS version 26) to match the 1,003 post-lockdown (March 26 to April 12, 2020) respondents with 1,003

from the pool of 23,351 pre-lockdown 'controls'. These controls had completed the questionnaire from

October 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019, well before the threat of COVID-19 became known. Note that these

time periods were determined a priori as stated in our pre-registration. The window for data collection of

March 26 to April 12, 2020 was chosen for practical reasons, as it represented the maximum time for data

collection while still allowing us to achieve our goal of processing, coding and conducting data analysis and

preparing the paper for rapid release (the idea being, of course, that we hoped our data may be informative

during this critical time).

The goal of propensity score matching is to allow valid comparisons between a treatment group and

a matched control group when random allocation to condition is not possible (as is the case with experiences

of a pandemic). This is achieved by matching participants in the treatment group to similar participants

drawn from a larger control sample on numerous demographic (or other ‘third variable’ factors). Thus, any

observed differences between the treatment and control group are more likely to be due to the treatment

effect (in this case being in the lockdown period of the COVID-19 pandemic) rather than other confounding

factors. The full list of demographic variables on which propensity score matching was based are presented

in Table S1.

Ethnicity was assessed with the standard Statistics New Zealand (2020) question which allows for

multiple ethnic identities. From this, we created dummy codes (yes/no) for European, Māori, Pacific, and

Asian ethnicities. Gender was assessed using an open-ended item and coded according to the NZAVS

gender coding scheme into women, gender diverse, and men (Fraser et al., 2019). We used participant self-

reported date of birth to get their year of birth (age). Binary (yes/no) variables were created for whether


participants: were born in New Zealand or not (coded from an open-ended item); were a New Zealand

citizen; had been diagnosed with depression or an anxiety disorder in the past 5 years (Lee et al., 2017a);

currently smoked tobacco cigarettes; or had a limiting health condition or disability that had lasted for 6+

months.

Participants’ highest level of education was asked with an open-ended question and then coded

according to levels of education recognized by New Zealand (New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2012),

leaving a 0 (low) to 10 (high scale). We used two indicators of socio-economic status, the New Zealand

Socio-Economic Index (Fahy et al., 2017) and the New Zealand Deprivation Index (Atkinson et al., 2014).

These variables are both based on a number of regional level indicators drawn from 2013 national census

data (the 2018 national census had a number of serious issues meaning data is of lower quality and releases

have been delayed; Jack & Graziadei, 2019). Participants’ residential addresses were also used to code

whether they lived in a major urban area, relative to all other areas. Two open-ended questions were used to

create binary variables to indicate whether someone was in a serious relationship and/or was a parent.

Finally, religious status was assessed using a yes/no question: “Do you identify with a religion and/or

spiritual group?” (Hoverd & Sibley, 2010).

Consistent with current conventions for best research practice (Nosek et al., 2018; Yamada, 2018),

we pre-registered our analyses prior to finalizing and analyzing our dataset. The preregistration document

for the present study is publicly available at the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/e765a/. These

demographics were chosen a priori and listed in our pre-registration. Our pre-registration stated that we

would first begin using a fairly strict tolerance value of .05 when assessing the performance of our

propensity score matches, and then adopt a stricter or more liberal criteria as needed, depending on whether

we encounter a large proportion of match failures. We dropped match tolerance to .01 without any failures

to match. This stricter match tolerance was possible because the lockdown sample was fairly close to the

control sample in demographics.


Conditions of the treatment group

The full timeline of the response rate by date for both the pre- and post-lockdown groups is provided

in Figure 1 in the main article. On Saturday March 21st, the New Zealand government announced a four-

level COVID-19 alert system to deal with the pandemic, with increasing levels of restrictions and measures

to be taken. The four alert levels are: prepare (Level 1), reduce (Level 2), restrict (Level 3) and eliminate

(Level 4) (for details, see Unite Against COVID-19, 2020). Initially, the government placed New Zealand

on Level 2, but on Monday March 23rd it was announced New Zealand was on Level 3 and had 48 hours to

prepare for a Level 4 lockdown. The overall messaging and branding from the government response has

elicited the collective good and the public spirit (Lunn et al., 2020; Unite Against COVID-19, 2020). For

example, a few hours before the lockdown started, an emergency alert text was sent to mobile phones

detailing the lockdown and with the message: “This message is for all of New Zealand. We are depending

on you. Follow the rules and STAY HOME. Act as if you have COVID-19. This will save lives”. Alongside

the lockdown measures, the New Zealand Finance Minister Grant Robertson made a range (Beehive.govt.nz,

2020; Curtin, 2020) of announcements on financial supports for businesses, borrowers, beneficiaries, and

those made redundant.

Although some notable cases of individuals breaching the lockdown rules were broadcasted (with

847 recorded breaches in the first two weeks; Whyte, 2020), the vast majority of New Zealanders have

obeyed the lockdown, and opinion polling suggests that upwards of 80-90% agree with the course of action

(Crothers, 2020). After two weeks, data indicate a reduction in the number of new cases daily, after peaking

at 89 on April 2nd, combined with an increase in the number of tests performed (averaging 3,500 tests per

day as at April 8th; Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora, n.d.). All data for participants in the treatment

group were collected after March 26th, and thus all participants in the treatment group were in lockdown as

they completed the NZAVS survey.


Ethics

The NZAVS is reviewed every three years by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics

Committee. Our most recent ethics approval statement is as follows: The New Zealand Attitudes and Values

Study was approved by The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on 03-June-2015

until 03-June-2018, and renewed on 05-September-2017 until 03-June-2021. Reference Number: 014889.

Our previous ethics approval statement for the 2009-2015 period is: The New Zealand Attitudes and Values

Study was approved by The University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee on 09-

September-2009 until 09-September-2012, and renewed on 17-February-2012 until 09-September-2015.

Reference Number: 6171. All participants provide informed consent before starting the survey.


Table S1

Full Descriptions of the Demographic Variables

Variable Coding Question Reference (if applicable)Ethnicity Coded from "Which ethnic group(s) do you belong to?" (tick

boxes and open-ended)(Statistics New Zealand, 2020)

European 1 yes, 0 noMāori 1 yes, 0 noPacific 1 yes, 0 noAsian 1 yes, 0 no

Gender 1 man, 0 woman, 0.5 gender diverse

"What is your gender?" (open-ended) (Fraser et al., 2019)

Year of Birth year "What is your date of birth?" (open-ended)Born in NZ 1 yes, 0 no Coded from "Which country were you born in?" (open-ended)

Citizen of NZ 1 yes, 0 no "Are you a New Zealand citizen?" (yes/no)Diagnosis "Have you been diagnosed with, or treated for, any of the

following health conditions by a doctor in the last five years?"(Lee et al., 2017a)

Depression 1 yes, 0 no "Depression" (tick box)Anxiety 1 yes, 0 no "Anxiety disorder" (tick box)

Smoker 1 yes, 0 no "Do you currently... smoke tobacco cigarettes?" (yes/no)

Disability 1 yes, 0 no "Do you have a health condition or disability that limits you, and that has lasted for 6+ months?" (yes/no)

Education (NZREG) 0 (low) - 10 (high) Coded from "What is your highest level of qualification?" (open-ended)

(New Zealand Qualifications Authority, 2012)

NZ Deprivation Index (NZDep) 1 (low) - 10 (high) Coded based on participant address (Atkinson et al., 2014)NZ Socioeconomic Index (NZSEI) 10 (low) - 90 (high) Coded based on participant address (Fahy et al., 2017)Major Urban Area 1 yes, 0 no Coded based on participant addressPartner 1 yes, 0 no Coded from "What is your relationship status?" (open-ended)

Parent 1 yes, 0 no Coded from "How many children have you given birth to, fathered, or adopted?" (open-ended)

Religious 1 yes, 0 no "Do you identify with a religion and/or spiritual group?" (yes/no)

(Hoverd & Sibley, 2010)


Table S2

Full Descriptions of the Dependent Variables

Scale and questions

Scale range Reference Question wording Construct definitions Scoring

Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government

Trust in Science (2 questions)

1 (Strongly Disagree) - 7 (Strongly Agree)

(Hartman, Dieckmann, Sprenger, Stastny, & DeMarree, 2017; Nisbet, Cooper, & Garrett, 2015)

"I have a high degree of confidence in the scientific community."; "Our society places too much emphasis on science." (R)

This measure assesses the degree to which people believe that science and the scientific community are to be trusted (i.e., that through their process and communication they provide reliable, unbiased, evidence-based information to the public).

A score of 3 or below indicates general mistrust of science, while a score of 5 or above indicates general trust in science. A score of 4 represents a lack of either trust or mistrust.

Vaccination Attitudes


Developed for the NZAVS (Lee et al., 2017b)

"It is safe to vaccinate children following the standard NZ immunization schedule."

This question measures whether people think that it is physically and psychologically safe for children to receive medical vaccinations (e.g., for measles, diphtheria, tetanus) following the NZ schedule (approx. 15 vaccinations administered to children from 6-weeks of age, until 11 or 12 years old)

A score of 3 or below indicates general disagreement that vaccines are safe, while a score of 5 or above indicates general agreement that vaccines are safe. A score of 4 represents a lack of either agreement or disagreement that vaccines are safe.

Trust in Police (3 questions)


(Tyler, 2005) "People’s basic rights are well protected by the New Zealand Police."; "There are many things about the New Zealand Police and its policies that need to be changed." (R); "The New Zealand Police care about the well-being of everyone they deal with."

These items are designed to establish whether (and how much) people have confidence in the police, and the extent to which policing and criminal justice systems protect people's rights and operate with the goal of improving the functioning and wellbeing of all members of society.

A score of 3 or below indicates general mistrust of police, while a score of 5 or above indicates general trust of police. A score of 4 represents a lack of either agreement or disagreement that police can be trusted.

Police Engagement (2 questions)


(Tyler, 2005) "I would always report dangerous or suspicious activities occurring in my neighbourhood to the police."; "I would always provide information to the police to help them find someone suspected of committing a crime."

This measure investigates whether people report that they would (i.e., intend to, or are willing to) actively cooperate with police by reporting on criminal activity that they have knowledge or suspicions of.

A score of 3 or below indicates unwillingness to cooperate with police, while a score of 5 or above indicates general willingness to cooperate with police. A score of 4 represents neither willingness nor unwillingness to cooperate with police.

Trust in Politicians


Developed for the NZAVS

"Politicians in New Zealand can generally be trusted."

This item is designed to assess whether people have confidence in New Zealand politicians to consistently behave and communicate with

A score of 3 or below indicates general mistrust of politicians, while a score of 5 or above indicates general trust in


honesty and integrity. A high score may also indicate that people trust New Zealand politicians to act for the good of all New Zealanders.

politicians. A score of 4 represents a lack of either trust or mistrust.

Belief in Conspiracies


(Lantian et al., 2016)

"I think that the official version of major world events given by authorities often hides the truth."

This single item measure assesses the extent to which people generally believe in conspiracy theories (i.e., explanations of events that attribute blame to sinister actors who cover-up their actions; usually there is insufficient or no proof for a conspiracy theory, and other explanations are more probable).

A score of 3 or below indicates general rejection of conspiracist thinking, while a score of 5 or above indicates general belief in conspiracy theories, and conspiracist thinking. A score of 4 represents neither belief nor disbelief in conspiracy theories.

National Well-being Index

0 (Completely Dissatisfied) - 10 (Completely Satisfied)

(Cummins et al., 2003; Tiliouine et al., 2006)

The national wellbeing index aims to establish the "goodness" and functionality of a nation through social indicators (rather than simply wealth, or health). The measure establishes this by measuring citizens' subjective satisfaction with the broad functioning of their country, including the economic situation, social conditions, business, and the government. Holistically, the measure establishes national wellbeing or vitality, as defined by citizens.

Satisfaction with the Economy

"The economic situation in New Zealand."

This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about the economic situation in New Zealand.

A score of 4 or below indicates general dissatisfaction, while a score of 6 or above indicates general satisfaction. A score of 5 represents a lack of either satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Satisfaction with Social Conditions

"The social conditions in New Zealand."

This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about social conditions in New Zealand.


Satisfaction with Business in NZ

"Business in New Zealand." This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about business in New Zealand.


Satisfaction with Government Performance

"The performance of the current New Zealand government."

This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about the current government in New Zealand.


Access to Healthcare

0 (Completely Dissatisfied) - 10 (Completely

Developed for the NZAVS (Lee & Sibley, 2017)

"Your access to health care when you need it (e.g., doctor, GP)."

This question is designed to get at whether people feel that they can safely access healthcare when they need to, unobstructed by financial,

A score of 4 or below indicates general dissatisfaction, while a score of 6 or above indicates general satisfaction. A


Satisfied) locational, domestic, and psychological concerns. score of 5 represents a lack of either satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

National Identity 1 (Strongly Disagree) - 7 (Strongly Agree)

(Postmes et al., 2013)

"I identify with New Zealand." This single item measure taps into a large construct of "national social identity" and reflects the degree to which people feel connected to, happy about, embedded in, and a part of New Zealand.

A score of 3 or below indicates general low levels of identification with New Zealand, while a score of 5 or above indicates general social identification as a New Zealander. A score of 4 represents neither agreement nor disagreement with identifying as a New Zealander.

Patriotism (2 questions)


(Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989)

"I feel a great pride in the land that is our New Zealand."; "Although at times I may not agree with the government, my commitment to New Zealand always remains strong."

This scale assesses the extent to which people have pride in and are committed to New Zealand.

A score of 3 or below indicates low levels of patriotism, while a score of 5 or above indicates general high levels of patriotism. A score of 4 represents neither the presence nor lack of patriotism.

Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Well-being

Kessler-6 (6 questions)

0 (None of the time) - 4 (All of the time)

(Kessler et al., 2010)

"During the last 30 days, how often did.... you feel hopeless?"; "you feel so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?"; "you feel restless or fidgety?"; "you feel that everything was an effort?"; "you feel worthless?"; "you feel nervous?"

This validated scale assesses people's levels of psychological wellbeing over the last month, specifically focusing on the extent to which people have experienced substantial depression, low self-worth, exhaustion, and anxiety (or the lack thereof).

Scores on the scale are summed to create a composite score. Summed scores can range from 0-24, and serious mental illness or distress is indicated by a score of 13 or greater. Moderate psychological distress is indicated by a score of 5 or greater (Prochasker et al, 2012).

Rumination 0 (None of the time) - 4 (All of the time)

(Nolen-Hoeksema & Morrow, 1993)

"During the last 30 days, how often did.... you have negative thoughts that repeated over and over?"

This item assesses the extent to which people report negative rumination (i.e., repeatedly thinking about negative events, experiences, or feelings).

A score of 0 represents the lack of rumination, with each additional number indicating increasingly frequent rumination over the last 30 days.

Fatigue 0 (None of the time) - 4 (All of the time)


"During the last 30 days, how often did.... you feel exhausted?"

This single item taps into how physically and psychologically tired and worn out people have felt over the last month.

A score of 0 represents the lack of exhaustion, with each additional number indicating increasingly frequent exhaustion over the last 30 days.

Short-Form Subjective Health Scale (3 questions)

First item: 1 (Poor) - 7 (Excellent); other items: 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree)

(Ware & Sherbourne, 1992)

"In general, would you say your health is..." (rated from poor to excellent); "I seem to get sick a little easier than other people."; "I expect my health to get worse."

This measure investigates whether people subjectively feel that their current physical wellbeing is good and feel confident that they will continue to be physically well.

A score of 3 or below indicates subjective perceptions of poor health, while a score of 5 or above indicates subjective perceptions of good health. A score of 4 indicates neither good nor poor health.

Personal Well-being Index:

0 (Completely Dissatisfied) - 10

(Cummins et al., 2003)

"Your health" This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about their physical wellbeing,

A score of 4 or below indicates general dissatisfaction, while a score of 6 or


Satisfaction with Health

(Completely Satisfied)

typically indicating an absence of ill health. above indicates general satisfaction. A score of 5 represents a lack of either satisfaction or dissatisfaction.

Perceived Social Support (3 questions)


(Cutrona & Russell, 1987)

"There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it."; "There is no one I can turn to for guidance in times of stress." (R); "I know there are people I can turn to when I need help."

This measure investigates whether people subjectively feel that they can count on others to support, help, listen to, and be there, for them.

A score of 3 or below indicates a general feeling of lack of social support, while a score of 5 or above indicates a general feeling of being socially supported. A score of 4 represents neither feel supported nor unsupported.

Felt Belongingness (3 questions)


(Hagerty & Patusky, 1995)

"I... know that people in my life accept and value me."; "feel like an outsider." (R); "There are people I can depend on to help me if I really need it."; "There is no one I can turn to for guidance in times of stress." (R); "I know that people around me share my attitudes and beliefs."

These items tap into the extent to which people feel that they are connected to, accepted by, and belong with, other people in their life, rather than feeling disconnected, separate, and cut-off.

A score of 3 or below indicates a general feeling of separation and distance from those in one's life, while a score of 5 or above indicates a general feeling of belonging and connection with those in one's life. A score of 4 represents neither belonging nor separation.

Sense of Community


(Quality of Life Project, 2009; Sengupta et al., 2013)

"I feel a sense of community with others in my local neighbourhood."

This single item measure aims to establish whether people feel embedded in, committed to, and connected with the residents of their immediate surrounds (i.e., their neighbourhood).

A score of 3 or below indicates a general feeling of community disconnection, while a score of 5 or above indicates a general feeling of connection with one's community. A score of 4 represents neither connection nor disconnection with one's community.

Satisfaction with Life (2 questions)


(Diener et al., 1985) "I am satisfied with my life."; "In most ways my life is close to ideal."

This holistic measure accesses the extent to which people feel happy, content, and pleased with the conditions and pattern of their life, overall.

A score of 3 or below indicates general dissatisfaction with life, while a score of 5 or above indicates general satisfaction with life. A score of 4 represents a lack of either satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life.

Support for Domestic Violence Prevention



"Greater investment in reducing domestic violence."

This item is designed to ascertain whether people want to prioritise and increase public spending and effort to reduce domestic violence.

A score of 3 or below indicates general disagreement that New Zealand should invest more in reducing domestic violence, while a score of 5 or above indicates general support for investing more to reduce domestic violence. A score of 4 represents neither agreement or disagreement.

Personal Well- 0 (Completely (Cummins et al., The national wellbeing index aims to establish the


being Index Dissatisfied) - 10 (Completely Satisfied)

2003) "goodness" and functionality of a nation through personal, as well as social indicators. The personal wellbeing index establishes this by measuring people's subjective satisfaction with the broad functioning of their personal life, including the economic situation, social conditions, business, and the government. Holistically, the measure establishes national wellbeing or vitality, as defined by citizens.

Satisfaction with your Standard of Living

"Your standard of living" This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about their personal standard of living (i.e., material comfort and wealth).


Satisfaction with your Future Security

"Your future security" This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about their personal future, including the extent to which they are confident that they will have sufficient physical safety, shelter, material comfort, and wealth.


Satisfaction with your Personal Relationships

"Your personal relationships" This single item measure taps into how happy and secure people feel about their interpersonal relationships, including those with family, friends, and colleagues.


Note. (R) denotes a reverse-worded item.

Table S3

Bivariate Correlations Between the Dependent Variables for Pre-Lockdown and Post-Lockdown Groups

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 261. Trust in science (.666) .242 .096 .165 .156 .143 .142 -.080 .078 .405 .255 -.267 .161 -.001 .101 .147 .214 .195 .124 .036 .172 .136 .112 -.060 -.090 .118

2. Trust in police .136 (.762) .464 .381 .255 .311 .238 -.138 .199 .290 .393 -.255 .276 .308 .253 .164 .251 .093 .309 .158 .222 .236 .187 -.115 -.071 .204

3. Police engagement .062 .363 (.579) .349 .218 .249 .247 -.110 .119 .147 .222 -.034 .192 .135 .169 .061 .230 .151 .305 .134 .232 .168 .181 -.105 -.075 .117

4. Patriotism .050 .292 .263 (.657) .289 .280 .307 -.136 .125 .257 .224 -.029 .195 .154 .191 .227 .244 .211 .684 .228 .237 .239 .190 -.101 -.095 .167

5. Perceived social support

.075 .204 .181 .305 (.842) .553 .508 -.356 .292 .149 .246 -.125 .181 .105 .159 .131 .340 .192 .265 .266 .359 .330 .464 -.313 -.242 .301

6. Belongingness .071 .260 .184 .275 .546 (.582) .535 -.480 .358 .093 .207 -.116 .226 .209 .219 .131 .284 .104 .261 .365 .372 .357 .501 -.408 -.342 .355

7. Satisfaction with life .091 .232 .191 .277 .463 .546 (.772) -.481 .432 .096 .231 -.120 .284 .214 .284 .141 .351 .091 .259 .327 .564 .503 .548 -.368 -.343 .486


8. Kessler-6 -.071 -.244 -.218 -.202 -.361 -.517 -.513 (.840) -.343 .007 -.109 .098 -.227 -.154 -.127 -.019 -.194 .007 -.142 -.214 -.314 -.299 -.354 .671 .556 -.339

9. Subjective health .036 .190 .103 .118 .308 .321 .386 -.413 (.632) .049 .140 -.136 .165 .163 .183 .058 .293 .048 .107 .232 .294 .284 .282 -.250 -.308 .719

10. Perceptions of vaccination safety

.349 .193 .091 .167 .052 .062 .057 -.012 -.013 --- .214 -.226 .164 .066 .170 .162 .168 .203 .160 .050 .173 .198 .072 -.015 -.047 .078

11. Trust in politicians .189 .361 .093 .230 .180 .156 .197 -.128 .090 .093 --- -.318 .305 .187 .262 .337 .246 .195 .181 .133 .225 .239 .158 -.076 -.085 .147

12. Beliefs in conspiracies -.221 -.224 -.039 -.042 -.092 -.119 -.081 .108 -.080 -.165 -.222 --- -.193 -.100 -.142 -.164 -.136 -.077 -.030 -.060 -.126 -.144 -.115 .080 .081 -.130

13. Satisfaction with the economy in NZ

.130 .362 .144 .214 .160 .212 .289 -.230 .185 .083 .371 -.119 --- .345 .556 .373 .268 .066 .115 .121 .413 .464 .187 -.119 -.176 .277

14. Satisfaction with social conditions in NZ

-.040 .333 .051 .101 .060 .147 .151 -.147 .201 .031 .216 -.048 .458 --- .340 .078 .137 -.108 .088 .114 .188 .270 .174 -.136 -.103 .293

15. Satisfaction with business in NZ

.171 .287 .165 .250 .258 .279 .310 -.210 .230 .109 .354 -.147 .517 .376 --- .252 .288 .052 .104 .089 .331 .556 .241 -.063 -.095 .275

16. Satisfaction with NZ government performance

.142 .091 .028 .106 .114 .051 .079 -.021 .037 .026 .371 -.095 .375 .111 .340 --- .213 .228 .146 .090 .184 .262 .136 -.006 -.031 .133

17. Satisfaction with access to healthcare

.105 .249 .131 .166 .335 .284 .347 -.256 .287 .144 .158 -.109 .284 .179 .296 .142 --- .114 .164 .092 .434 .355 .341 -.161 -.159 .331

18. Support for greater investment in reducing domestic violence

.158 -.063 .082 .107 .141 .074 .135 .027 .030 .105 .115 -.016 .070 -.105 .101 .210 .091 --- .182 .059 .095 .094 .125 -.005 -.034 .048

19. Identification with New Zealand

.072 .188 .204 .602 .303 .297 .301 -.235 .103 .096 .173 -.036 .163 .034 .205 .038 .181 .100 --- .238 .157 .169 .157 -.138 -.111 .130

20. Sense of community .010 .108 .108 .246 .324 .312 .268 -.238 .157 -.010 .135 -.052 .109 .051 .157 .046 .115 .029 .205 --- .207 .216 .274 -.200 -.204 .218

21. Satisfaction with standard of living

.120 .263 .169 .241 .332 .357 .540 -.316 .316 .141 .237 -.146 .377 .186 .312 .098 .396 .109 .226 .101 --- .577 .378 -.208 -.233 .433

22. Satisfaction with future security

.118 .298 .105 .191 .311 .384 .457 -.387 .313 .089 .281 -.142 .397 .315 .510 .243 .357 .036 .221 .177 .535 --- .364 -.210 -.237 .371

23. Satisfaction with personal relationships

.078 .135 .156 .186 .435 .508 .571 -.415 .279 .035 .152 -.050 .236 .138 .274 .106 .330 .136 .208 .252 .342 .317 --- -.306 -.253 .305

24. Rumination -.053 -.156 -.197 -.173 -.275 -.418 -.414 .735 -.326 -.006 -.097 .105 -.133 -.089 -.142 .017 -.150 .000 -.214 -.199 -.206 -.257 -.366 --- .403 -.260

25. Fatigue -.035 -.179 -.093 -.090 -.194 -.289 -.306 .559 -.358 -.073 -.055 .058 -.188 -.218 -.132 .004 -.244 .136 -.112 -.112 -.244 -.284 -.246 .371 --- -.311

26. Satisfaction with health

.052 .241 .132 .127 .308 .347 .452 -.412 .712 .042 .148 -.091 .316 .296 .281 .102 .397 .075 .123 .172 .433 .397 .362 -.314 -.361 ---

Note. Correlation coefficients below and above diagonal are for the Pre-Lockdown (n=1003) and Post-Lockdown (n=1003) groups, respectively. Cronbach's alphas for multi-item measures are presented on the diagonal. r-values > .062, .081 and .104 are statistically significant at p < .05, .01 and .001, two-tailed, respectively.


Table S4

Sample Sizes and Confidence Intervals of Dependent Variable Means for Pre-Lockdown and Post-Lockdown Groups

Scale/item Range Pre-lockdown controls (Oct 1-Dec 31, 2019)

Post-lockdown (Mar 26-Apr 12, 2020)

N M (SD) 99% CI [Lower, Upper]

N M (SD) 99% CI [Lower, Upper]

Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and GovernmentTrust in Science (2 questions) 1-7 1,001 5.39 (1.26) [5.38, 5.39] 996 5.60 (1.20) [5.59, 5.60]Vaccination Attitudes 1-7 992 6.27 (1.27) [6.26, 6.27] 992 6.25 (1.26) [6.24, 6.25]Trust in Police (3 questions) 1-7 1,003 4.59 (1.22) [4.59, 4.59] 1,003 4.79 (1.22) [4.79, 4.79]Police Engagement (2 questions) 1-7 1,003 5.75 (1.09) [5.74, 5.75] 1,003 5.71 (1.19) [5.71, 5.72]Trust in Politicians 1-7 978 3.69 (1.40) [3.69, 3.70] 1,002 4.14 (1.41) [4.13, 4.14]Belief in Conspiracies 1-7 980 4.35 (1.55) [4.35, 4.35] 991 4.18 (1.61) [4.17, 4.18]National Well-being Index

Satisfaction with the Economy 0-10 994 5.42 (2.18) [5.41, 5.42] 997 5.39 (2.25) [5.39, 5.40]Satisfaction with Social Conditions 0-10 997 4.59 (2.23) [4.58, 4.59] 1,001 4.78 (2.23) [4.78, 4.79]Satisfaction with Business in NZ 0-10 996 5.67 (1.93) [5.66, 5.67] 999 5.48 (2.18) [5.47, 5.49]Satisfaction with Government Performance 0-10 1,000 5.35 (2.69) [5.34, 5.36] 1,001 7.14 (2.54) [7.13, 7.14]

Access to Healthcare 0-10 1,001 7.80 (2.28) [7.80, 7.81] 999 8.00 (2.26) [8.00, 8.01]National Identity 1-7 994 6.30 (1.05) [6.30, 6.31] 985 6.39 (0.96) [6.39, 6.40]Patriotism (2 questions) 1-7 1,003 5.93 (1.02) [5.93, 5.93] 1,003 6.10 (0.96) [6.10, 6.10]

Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Well-beingKessler-6 (6 questions) 0-4 994 0.86 (0.67) [0.86, 0.87] 1,003 0.94 (0.63) [0.94, 0.94]Rumination 0-4 993 0.79 1.00) [0.79, 0.79] 1,002 0.77 (0.93) [0.77, 0.77]Fatigue 0-4 994 1.63 (1.05) [1.63, 1.63] 1,002 1.52 (1.04) [1.52, 1.53]Short-Form Subjective Health Scale (3 questions) 1-7 1,003 5.05 (1.15) [5.04, 5.05] 1,003 4.97 (1.19) [4.96, 4.97]Perceived Social Support (3 questions) 1-7 1,002 5.93 (1.16) [5.92, 5.93] 1,003 5.99 (1.14) [5.99, 5.99]Felt Belongingness (3 questions) 1-7 994 5.10 (1.05) [5.10, 5.11] 1,003 5.07 (1.10) [5.07, 5.07]Sense of Community 1-7 1,001 4.15 (1.60) [4.15, 4.16] 1,003 4.45 (1.59) [4.45, 4.46]Satisfaction with Life (2 questions) 1-7 1,001 5.31 (1.23) [5.31, 5.31] 996 5.24 (1.64) [5.32, 5.33]Support for Domestic Violence Prevention 1-7 996 6.05 (1.14) [6.05, 6.06] 996 6.19 (1.03) [6.18, 6.19]


Personal Well-being IndexSatisfaction with Health 0-10 999 6.65 (2.29) [6.64, 6.65] 998 6.52 (2.39) [6.52, 6.53]Satisfaction with your Standard of Living 0-10 994 7.68 (2.06) [7.67, 7.68] 994 7.63 (1.27) [7.62, 7.64]Satisfaction with your Future Security 0-10 998 6.17 (2.23) [6.17, 6.18] 1,001 6.20 (2.52) [6.20, 6.21]Satisfaction with your Personal Relationships 0-10 1,002 7.59 (2.27) [7.59, 7.60] 1,000 7.59 (2.34) [7.59, 7.60]


Table S5

Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Between Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government

Scale/item Range

Pre-lockdown Time1

M (SD)

Post-lockdown Time2

M (SD) F df pVaccination Attitudes 1-7 6.28 (1.25) 6.24 (1.27) 0.49 1, 1,903 .486Trust in Police (3 items) 1-7 4.60 (1.20) 4.78 (1.22) 11.30 1, 1,903 .001Police Engagement (2 items) 1-7 5.76 (1.08) 5.71 (1.19) 0.94 1, 1,903 .332Trust in Politicians 1-7 3.68 (1.39) 4.13 (1.40) 48.94 1, 1,903 < .001National Well-being Index

Satisfaction with the Economy 0-10 5.42 (2.16) 5.44 (2.22) 0.03 1, 1,903 .861Satisfaction with Social Conditions 0-10 4.59 (2.24) 4.79 (2.22) 3.73 1, 1,903 .054Satisfaction with Business in NZ 0-10 5.67 (1.92) 5.49 (2.17) 3.36 1, 1,903 .067Satisfaction with Government Performance 0-10 5.31 (2.68) 7.11 (2.54) 225.69 1, 1,903 <. 001

Access to Healthcare 0-10 7.77 (2.30) 7.99 (2.27) 4.48 1, 1,903 .034National Identity 1-7 6.30 (1.05) 6.39 (0.96) 3.93 1, 1,903 .047Patriotism (2 items) 1-7 5.93 (1.01) 6.09 (0.97) 12.34 1, 1,903 < .001

1Pre-lockdown data were collected October 1 to December 31, 20192Post-lockdown data were collected March 26 to April 12, 2020


Table S6

Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Between Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Subjective

Wellbeing

Scale/item Range

Pre-lockdown Time1

M (SD)

Post-lockdown Time2

M (SD) F df pKessler-6 (6 items) 0-4 0.86 (0.67) 0.95 (0.63) 8.77 1, 1937 .003Rumination 0-4 0.79 (1.00) 0.77 (0.94) 0.18 1, 1937 .672Fatigue 0-4 1.63 (1.05) 1.53 (1.04) 4.63 1, 1937 .032Short-Form Subjective Health Scale (3 items) 1-7 5.05 (1.15) 4.96 (1.17) 3.16 1, 1937 .076Perceived Social Support (3 items) 1-7 5.92 (1.17) 5.99 (1.14) 1.59 1, 1937 .207Felt Belongingness (3 items) 1-7 5.11 (1.05) 5.06 (1.10) 0.95 1, 1937 .330Sense of Community 1-7 4.15 (1.60) 4.46 (1.59) 18.31 1, 1937 < .001Satisfaction with Life (2 items) 1-7 5.30 (1.23) 5.32 (1.17) 0.20 1, 1937 .653Support for Domestic Violence Prevention 1-7 6.06 (1.14) 6.18 (1.03) 6.72 1, 1937 .010Personal Well-being Index

Satisfaction with Health 0-10 6.66 (2.29) 6.52 (2.39) 1.75 1, 1937 .186Satisfaction with your Standard of Living 0-10 7.68 (2.04) 7.64 (2.07) 0.21 1, 1937 .644Satisfaction with your Future Security 0-10 6.16 (2.30) 6.19 (2.52) 0.06 1, 1937 .804Satisfaction with your Personal Relationships 0-10 7.58 (2.52) 7.57 (2.35) 0.00 1, 1937 .952

1Pre-lockdown data were collected October 1 to December 31, 20192Post-lockdown data were collected March 26 to April 12, 2020


Table S7

Residual correlation matrices between (a) indicators of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government, and (b) Measures of Mental and

Physical Health and Subjective Wellbeing, adjusting for Pre- versus Post-Lockdown condition

Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12.

1. Trust in Science2. Vaccination Attitudes .393. Trust in Police .19 .244. Police Engagement .08 .12 .415. Trust in Politicians .22 .16 .38 .166. Belief in Conspiracies -.24 -.19 -.24 -.04 -.277. Satisfaction with the Economy .15 .14 .32 .17 .34 -.168. Satisfaction with Social Conditions -.02 .06 .33 .10 .20 -.08 .419. Satisfaction with Business in NZ .13 .15 .26 .16 .30 -.15 .55 .3610. Satisfaction with Government Performance .14 .09 .12 .04 .36 -.13 .38 .10 .2911. Access to Healthcare .16 .16 .25 .18 .20 -.13 .28 .16 .30 .1712. National Identity .10 .13 .25 .26 .18 -.03 .14 .06 .15 .09 .1813. Patriotism .11 .21 .33 .32 .23 -.03 .21 .13 .22 .15 .21 .64

Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Wellbeing 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10 11. 12.1. Kessler-62. Rumination .713. Fatigue .56 .394. Short-Form Subjective Health Scale -.38 -.29 -.345. Perceived Social Support -.36 -.29 -.22 .306. Felt Belongingness -.50 -.41 -.32 .34 .557. Sense of Community -.23 -.20 -.16 .20 .29 .348. Satisfaction with Life -.50 -.40 -.33 .41 .49 .54 .309. Support for Domestic Violence Prevention .02 .00 .05 .04 .16 .09 .04 .1110. Satisfaction with Health -.38 -.29 -.34 .72 .30 .35 .20 .47 .0611. Satisfaction with your Standard of Living -.31 -.20 -.24 .31 .35 .37 .16 .56 .11 .43


12. Satisfaction with your Future Security -.34 -.23 -.26 .29 .32 .37 .20 .48 .06 .38 .5613. Satisfaction with your Personal Relationships -.39 -.34 -.25 .28 .45 .51 .27 .56 .13 .33 .36 .34


Table S8

Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Within Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards

Nation and Government

Scale/item Range

Pre-lockdown 2018/2019

M (SD)

Post-lockdown 2020

M (SD)MeanDiff.

99% CI[Lower, Upper] t df p

Cohen’sd

Vaccination Attitudes 1-7 5.99 (1.45) 6.25 (1.25) 0.26 [0.20, 0.33] 8.00 925 < .001 0.19Trust in Police (3 items) 1-7 4.53 (1.18) 4.79 (1.22) 0.27 [0.20, 0.33] 8.32 939 < .001 0.22Police Engagement (2 items) 1-7 5.88 (1.09) 5.73 (1.20) -0.15 [-0.22, -0.09] -4.62 901 < .001 0.13Trust in Politicians 1-7 3.73 (1.44) 4.12 (1.41) 0.39 [0.31, 0.48] 8.94 921 < .001 0.27National Well-being Index

Satisfaction with the Economy 0-10 5.34 (2.19) 5.40 (2.24) 0.06 [-0.09, 0.22] 0.78 924 .433 0.03Satisfaction with Social Conditions 0-10 4.65 (2.18) 4.79 (2.20) 0.14 [-0.00, 0.29] 1.94 934 .053 0.06Satisfaction with Business in NZ 0-10 5.79 (1.86) 5.47 (2.19) -0.32 [-0.46, -0.18] -4.45 930 < .001 0.16Satisfaction with Government Performance 0-10 5.63 (2.59) 7.11 (2.53) 1.49 [1.35, 1.63] 20.54 933 < .001 0.58

Access to Healthcare 0-10 7.95 (2.18) 7.99 (2.25) 0.04 [-0.10, 0.18] 0.57 934 .571 0.02National Identity 1-7 6.31 (1.07) 6.40 (0.96) 0.08 [0.03, 0.14] 3.00 917 .003 0.08Patriotism (2 items) 1-7 5.87 (1.05) 6.11 (0.96) 0.24 [0.19, 0.29] 9.28 939 < .001 0.24


Table S9

Descriptive Statistics and Mean Differences Within Individuals Before and After Lockdown Across Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Subjective

Wellbeing

Scale/item Range

Pre-lockdown 2018/2019

M (SD)

Post-lockdown 2020

M (SD)Mean Diff.

99% CI[Lower, Upper] t df p

Cohen’sd

Kessler-6 (6 items) 0-4 0.90 (0.67) 0.94 (0.63) 0.04 [0.00, 0.07] 2.21 933 .027 0.06Rumination 0-4 0.81 (0.99) 0.77 (0.93) -0.04 [-0.10, 0.02] -1.20 930 .230 0.04Fatigue 0-4 1.73 (1.09) 1.51 (1.04) -0.22 [-0.28, -0.15] -6.77 931 < .001 0.20Short-Form Subjective Health Scale (3 items) 1-7 4.92 (1.20) 4.96 (1.20) 0.04 [-0.02, 0.09] 1.17 939 .245 0.03Perceived Social Support (3 items) 1-7 5.96 (1.14) 5.98 (1.16) 0.03 [-0.03, 0.09] 0.84 939 .402 0.02Felt Belongingness (3 items) 1-7 5.10 (1.08) 5.08 (1.09) -0.02 [-0.08, 0.04] -0.76 932 .447 0.02Sense of Community 1-7 4.19 (1.63) 4.45 (1.59) 0.27 [0.17, 0.36] 5.64 932 < .001 0.17Satisfaction with Life (2 items) 1-7 5.30 (1.22) 5.32 (1.17) 0.03 [-0.03, 0.08] 0.91 929 .362 0.02Support for Domestic Violence Prevention 1-7 6.09 (1.11) 6.19 (1.03) 0.10 [0.03, 0.17] 2.80 924 .005 0.10Personal Well-being Index

Satisfaction with Health 0-10 6.58 (2.39) 6.51 (2.40) -0.07 [-0.19, 0.06] -1.04 936 .297 0.03Satisfaction with your Standard of Living 0-10 7.62 (2.04) 7.64 (2.10) 0.02 [-0.09, 0.13] 0.34 929 .735 0.01Satisfaction with your Future Security 0-10 6.29 (2.39) 6.19 (2.54) -0.10 [-0.25, 0.05] -1.35 936 .179 0.04Satisfaction with your Personal Relationships 0-10 7.70 (2.15) 7.58 (2.34) -0.12 [-0.25, 0.01] -1.78 935 .076 0.05


Figure S1

Comparisons of Means and Distributions of Different Measures of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Nation and Government Between Pre- and Post-

Lockdown Groups

Note. Box edges represent lower and upper quartiles. The center line shows the median. Medians are printed in text where they overlap with quartiles. Whiskers represent 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR; displayed on plot for each box for each sample) above or below the upper and lower quartiles respectively. Outlying points reflect observations beyond this range. Differences in means are deemed not significant (ns.) at p > .01. 99% CIs for each mean are displayed in Table S4 of the online supplementary materials. Y-axes display the full scale range but note where scale ranges differ across plots.


Figure S2

Comparisons of Means and Distributions of Different Measures of Mental and Physical Health and Subjective Wellbeing Between Pre- and Post-Lockdown

Groups

Note. Box edges represent lower and upper quartiles. The center line shows the median. Medians are printed in text where they overlap with quartiles. Whiskers represent 1.5 times the interquartile range (IQR; displayed on plot for each box for each sample) above or below the upper and lower quartiles respectively. Outlying points reflect observations beyond this range. Differences in means are deemed not significant (ns.) at p > .01. 99% CIs for each mean are displayed in Table S4 of the online supplementary materials. Y-axes display the full scale range but note where scale ranges differ across plots.


References

Atkinson, J., Salmond, C., & Crampton, P. (2014). NZDep2013 Index of Deprivation. Department of

Public Health, University of Otago.

https://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/departments/publichealth/research/hirp/otago020194.html

Beehive.govt.nz. (2020, April 15). COVID-19: Economic response package. New Zealand Government.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/feature/covid-19-economic-response-package

Crothers, C. (2020). CV-19 Related Surveys in New Zealand, early April 2020: Research Note 1.

Auckland University of Technology.

https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/366292/Covid19-Survey-

Research-Note-1.pdf

Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., Pallant, J., van Vugt, J., & Misajon, R. (2003). Developing a national

index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators

Research, 64(2), 159–190. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024704320683

Curtin, J. (2020, March 18). The politics of the Covid-19 relief package. Newsroom.

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/2020/03/18/1087930?slug=the-politics-of-the-covid-

19-relief-package

Cutrona, C. E., & Russell, D. W. (1987). The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress.

Advances in Personal Relationships, 1(1), 37–67.

Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71–75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13

Fahy, K. M., Lee, A., & Milne, B. J. (2017). New Zealand socio-economic index 2013. Stats NZ.

http://archive.stats.govt.nz/methods/research-papers/nz-socio-economic-index-2013.aspx

Fraser, G., Bulbulia, J., Greaves, L. M., Wilson, M. S., & Sibley, C. G. (2019). Coding responses to an

open-ended gender measure in a New Zealand national sample. The Journal of Sex Research.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2019.1687640

Hagerty, B. M. K., & Patusky, K. (1995). Developing a measure of sense of belonging. Nursing

Research, 44(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-199501000-00003

COVID-19 INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND WELL-BEING 25Hoverd, W. J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Religious and denominational diversity in New Zealand 2009.

New Zealand Sociology, 25(2), 59.

Jack, M., & Graziadei, C. (2019). Report of the independent review of New Zealand’s 2018 census.

Statistics New Zealand. https://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/report-of-the-independent-review-of-

new-zealands-2018-census

Kessler, R. C., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Bromet, E., Cuitan, M., Furukawa, T. A.,

Gureje, O., Hinkov, H., Hu, C.-Y., Lara, C., Lee, S., Mneimneh, Z., Myer, L., Oakley-Browne,

M., Posada-Villa, J., Sagar, R., Viana, M. C., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2010). Screening for serious

mental illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: Results from the WHO

World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric

Research, 20(1), 62–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.333

Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes.

Political Psychology, 10(2), 257. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791647

Lantian, A., Muller, D., Nurra, C., & Douglas, K. M. (2016). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories:

Validation of a French and English single-item scale. International Review of Social Psychology,

29(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.8

Lee, C. H. J., Duck, I. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2017a). Ethnic inequality in diagnosis with depression and

anxiety disorders. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1454), 10–20.

Lee, C. H. J., Duck, I. M., & Sibley, C. G. (2017b). Personality and demographic correlates of New

Zealanders’ confidence in the safety of childhood vaccinations. Vaccine, 35(45), 6089–6095.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2017.09.061

Lee, C. H. J., & Sibley, C. G. (2017). Demographic and psychological correlates of satisfaction with

healthcare access in New Zealand. The New Zealand Medical Journal, 130(1459), 11–24.

Lunn, P. D., Belton, C. A., Lavin, C., McGowan, F. P., Timmons, S., & Robertson, D. A. (2020). Using

behavioral science to help fight the coronavirus. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration,

3(1). https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.31.147

COVID-19 INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND WELL-BEING 26Ministry of Health – Manatū Hauora. (n.d.). COVID-19—Current cases. New Zealand Government.

Retrieved April 15, 2020, from

https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/

covid-19-current-situation/covid-19-current-cases

New Zealand Qualifications Authority. (2012). The New Zealand Qualifications Framework. New

Zealand Government. https://www.nzqa.govt.nz/studying-in-new-zealand/understand-nz-quals/

Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1993). Effects of rumination and distraction on naturally occurring

depressed mood. Cognition and Emotion, 7(6), 561–570.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02699939308409206

Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C., & Mellor, D. T. (2018). The preregistration revolution.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2600–2606.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708274114

Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification:

Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52(4), 597–617.

https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12006

Quality of Life Project. (2009). Quality of Life 2008 Survey National Report.

http://www.qualityoflifeproject.govt.nz/pdfs/Quality_of_Life_2008.pdf

Sengupta, N. K., Luyten, N., Greaves, L. M., Osborne, D., Robertson, A., Armstrong, G., & Sibley, C.

G. (2013). Sense of community in New Zealand neighbourhoods: A multi-level model

predicting social capital. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 42(1), 36–45.

Sibley, C. G. (2020). Sampling procedure and sample details for the New Zealand Attitudes and Values

Study. NZAVS Technical Documents. https://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/en/about/new-zealand-

attitudes-and-values-study/nzavs-tech-docs.html

Statistics New Zealand. (2020). Ethnicity. http://archive.stats.govt.nz/methods/classifications-and-

standards/classification-related-stats-standards/ethnicity.aspx

COVID-19 INSTITUTIONAL TRUST AND WELL-BEING 27Tiliouine, H., Cummins, R. A., & Davern, M. (2006). Measuring wellbeing in developing countries:

The case of Algeria. Social Indicators Research, 75(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-

004-2012-2

Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in Black and White: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the

police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 322–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271105

Unite Against COVID-19. (2020). New Zealand COVID-19 Alert Levels. New Zealand Government.

https://covid19.govt.nz/assets/COVID_Alert-levels_v2.pdf

Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-ltem short-form health survey (SF-36). Medical

Care, 30(6), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002

Whyte, A. (2020, April 12). More than 800 breaches of Covid-19 lockdown rules with 109

prosecutions. TVNZ. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/more-than-800-breaches-

covid-19-lockdown-rules-109-prosecutions

Yamada, Y. (2018). How to crack pre-registration: Toward transparent and open science. Frontiers in

Psychology, 9, 1831. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01831