We frame this study using a relational developmental systems framework that is commonly used in the field to study resilience (Masten, 2018). Research on resilience has shown that in times of crisis, when individuals experience a high number of risks, people draw on protective processes, including various psychological, social, and economic resources to cope, adapt, or overcome adversity (Masten, 2018). Protective factors are commonly defined as characteristics of the child, family, and broader environment that matter when adversity is high (Masten and Reed, 2002; Masten, 2013; Wright et al., 2013; Masten and Cicchetti, 2016). The interplay between risk and protective factors is central to the concept of resilience, which is defined as the “the capacity of a dynamic system to withstand or recover from significant challenges that threaten its stability, viability, or development” (Masten, 2011, p. 494).

We focus on families with young children because it is a time of unprecedented growth and it is most sensitive to environmental contexts (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). As such, economic and social risks or stressors during this period are likely to influence all aspects of development. Although the research is clear that the early years represent an optimal time for brain development, there is less clarity about the factors that might protect children from the adverse effects of poverty and other stressors on family functioning. Research has shown that many children growing up in low-income households are exposed to high quality experiences that promote their development (Cabrera et al., 2007). To bolster these supports, it is critically important to understand the factors during this pandemic that promote children’s social adaptation and family wellbeing in early childhood despite adverse circumstances (Compas et al., 2001). In this study, we examine both the associations between risks and family functioning as well as the promotive factors that might protect children from these negative effects.

A central function of families is to nurture and socialize children to the norms and values of their cultural milieu (Georgas et al., 2001). We focus on the following indicators of family functioning because an extensive body of research has shown them to be significantly and robustly related to young children’s social adjustment: children’s socioemotional skills, parent engagement in learning activities at home, parents’ mental health, coparenting support, and parental positivity (Priel et al., 2019).

The rapid and substantial policy response to the pandemic—extended unemployment insurance and stimulus funds—in many ways protected families from a deeper economic crisis (Ganong et al., 2020). However, little is known yet about the individual- or family-level protective factors that helped people withstand the substantial negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family functioning. Therefore, this study also tests moderation effects.

Risk is typically defined as the elevated probability of a negative outcome that tends to accumulate over time (Evans et al., 2013). The experience of multiple risks is likely to have a cumulative and negative effect on all aspects of family functioning (Evans et al., 2013; Masarik and Conger, 2017). The more risks families experience, the higher the probability of them taking a toll on their wellbeing (Cappa et al., 2011; Crnic and Ross, 2017; de Cock et al., 2017; Rollè et al., 2017). This literature also demonstrates that risks have differential effects on children and families (Griffith et al., 2020; Romero et al., 2020). Families with fewer economic and social resources, as a group, are likely to suffer the most (Duncan and Murnane, 2016). An extensive body of work conducted prior to the current pandemic robustly showed that various types of risk, including economic and social stressors, have short- and long-term effects on all aspects of family functioning, including parents’ mental health, parenting and children’s socioemotional adjustment (McLoyd, 1990; Harvey and Delfabbro, 2004; Fiorini and Keane, 2014; Masarik and Conger, 2017).

The economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and families and the policies implemented to contain the virus, including lock-down orders, school and childcare closures, new regulations for frontline workers—have resulted in multiple sources of risk and stress for families, including but not limited to worries about the future, fear of being infected or becoming terminally ill, pressures related to working under unsafe conditions, and losing childcare arrangements (Pew Research Center, 2020). These economic (e.g., job loss, inability to pay one’s bills) and social sources of stress (e.g., disruption in child care, being exposed to the virus) have the potential to be long-lasting with effects reverberating throughout individuals’ lives. Research to date on the associations between the stress caused by this pandemic and families’ wellbeing has mostly documented economic and health impacts (Brown et al., 2020; Fontanesi et al., 2020; Lawson et al., 2020; Hertz-Palmor et al., 2021). Because the pandemic is still evolving, the science to understand the pandemic’s effects on family functioning, including parenting and mental health, is also unfolding in real time.

Rightly so, early reports of the effects of the pandemic on family functioning have focused on parents of young children (Lawson et al., 2020; Patrick et al., 2020). Decades of research have unequivocally shown that the quality of parenting (e.g., engaging in cognitively stimulating activities, showing love and affection) is critical for children’s development (Smith et al., 2000; Caspi et al., 2004). In times of crisis, parents, especially economically vulnerable parents, may be less responsive and nurturing toward their children which can have dire consequences (Roos et al., 2021). Parents who lost their jobs and childcare arrangements because of the pandemic found themselves spending more time with children at home and having to restructure daily routines and activities to accommodate the new changes (Pew Research Center, 2020). Whether or not the increased parental care time was beneficial for children is uncertain. For some families this increased time at home together may result in more opportunities for learning and structured activities, which support social and cognitive skills development (Cabrera et al., 2020; Gregus et al., 2021). But for other families, the increased time during the COVID-19 pandemic may result in more unstructured and chaotic family organization that increases stress and jeopardizes the quality of parenting (Roos et al., 2021). For many economically vulnerable parents with young children, losing childcare may have meant crowded conditions at home as well as increased demands on parents’ time to cook three meals a day and provide structured activities for their children, which can take a toll on parental mental health. A survey of 405 parents found that about 40% reported major or severe depression and parenting stress during the pandemic (Lee et al., 2021). For parents who were still working during the pandemic, loss of childcare could have presented sizeable challenges in their ability to continue to work. Under these conditions, increased parenting time with children might result in increased stress and diminished positive parenting, with negative implications for children. The same survey conducted by Lee and colleagues found that parents who reported spending an increased amount of time with their children at home also reported higher child anxiety and other behavioral problems (Lee et al., 2021).

A key aspect of family functioning is parents’ mental health (Burke, 2003). The impact of environmental risks on parents’ mental health is well understood. In general, parents who feel they have no control over their lives and are unable to stop worrying are at risk for mental health problems and a more taxing home environment (Conger et al., 2010). Because economic vulnerable parents in the U.S. are already at risk for higher levels of mental health problems (Gard et al., 2020), the added stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic would likely have a cumulative and negative effect on parents’ mental health. Preliminary research conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic has found increased feelings of stress, depression, and anxiety for parents (Russell et al., 2020; Calvano et al., 2021). The negative effects of pandemic-induced economic stress on parenting and mental health confirms the robust findings on how economic stressors such as job loss and inability to pay one’s bills, more generally, can negatively impact families (Conger et al., 1994).

The development of socioemotional skills (e.g., forming and sustaining relationships with others, experiencing, managing, and expressing emotions) during early childhood is a foundational milestone that supports future learning and development across developmental periods (Sroufe, 2005). Social skills influence children’s self-confidence, empathy, and ability to develop meaningful and lasting friendships and partnerships (Eisenberg and Fabes, 2006). Parents and other caregivers foster socioemotional skills by being affectionate and nurturing and engaging in various activities that provide joy and teach children to take turns, listen, and resolve conflict (Belsky, 1990). Thus, any disruption to the quality of parenting is concerning because it has the likelihood of interfering with this process, with potentially long-term negative consequences for children (Eisenberg and Fabes, 2006). Economically stressed parents have children who exhibit less socially competent children than parents who are better off (Duncan and Murnane, 2016).

However, the association between stress and children’s skill development is not linear. It should be noted that some studies have found that certain types of risk such as parental report of family financial difficulty (on a scale of 0–5) are sometimes associated with increases in Latino/a youth’s prosocial behaviors, especially helping behaviors (Davis et al., 2018, 2020). Helping, sharing, or giving love and support are prosocial behaviors that are intended to benefit others (Padilla-Walker and Carlo, 2014). Studies of young children show that parents teach children to respond with compassion and concern when they witness someone being hurt or expressing a negative emotion such as crying (Farrant et al., 2012; Pastorelli et al., 2015). Studies of Latino families have shown that children are socialized to be caring and nurturing and to exhibit greater concern for others (Eisenberg et al., 2009; Calderón-Tena et al., 2011). Thus, it is possible that stress might be related to increases in children’s prosocial behaviors, especially among Latino families.

In this study, we examine how pandemic-related risk factors such as economic and social stressors are associated with important aspects of family functioning, including parenting behaviors, parents’ mental health, and children’s socioemotional problems and prosocial behaviors.

Theories of risk and resilience posit that protective factors buffer children from the negative effects of risk and that individuals respond to stress in multiple ways (Putnick et al., 2010; Masten, 2011). Research on stress and resilience has documented how families’ previous adverse experiences provided them with the opportunity to develop effective coping mechanisms that can buffer them from the negative effects of new stressors, such as the current pandemic, on themselves and their children (Schug et al., 2021). Research on what promotive factors are protective in the context of risk in general is not extensive and therefore there is a dearth of information about what types of factors are protective globally and at differing levels of risk (Vanderbilt-Adriance and Shaw, 2008; Masten, 2011). In this study, we test the moderation effects of two factors that have been identified in the emerging COVID-19 literature as being protective: parents’ positivity and feelings of family support, including coparenting support on children’s socioemotional behaviors, parent engagement, and parental mental health (Li and Xu, 2020; Schug et al., 2021).

Pre-pandemic research shows that individuals who are high in positivity have better physical health, higher levels of emotional well-being, more positive social relationships, and improved capacity to cope with a broad range of stressful situations (Brissette et al., 2002; Assad et al., 2007; Kochanska et al., 2007; Carver et al., 2008; Baumgartner et al., 2018). Research with low-income ethnic minority mothers has shown that maternal positivity is associated with lower levels of maternal internalizing symptoms and higher levels of child adjustment (Taylor et al., 2010, 2012). In both mothers and fathers, positivity has been related to effective parenting and children’s socioemotional adjustment (Jeon and Neppl, 2019). There is also some evidence that parental positivity acts as a buffer against the negative impact of economic stress on parents’ mental health (Taylor et al., 2010, 2012). A study conducted in Germany during the pandemic found that in a large sample of healthcare workers, optimism was significantly associated with lower scores of depressive and anxiety symptoms (Schug et al., 2021). Overall, the literature suggests that positivity helps maintain positive parenting during adverse times and may serve as a psychological resource against the negative effects of economic stress on parents and children. However, the roles of positivity and other family supports during this pandemic have yet to be explored. We thus examine whether coparenting support and parent positivity are not just promotive of good outcomes but also protective, facilitating better parenting interactions with children and better child adjustment.

Coparenting or the ability of couples to work together as a team to manage their parenting responsibilities is a significant promotive aspect of family functioning (Feinberg, 2003; McHale, 2007). The quality of the coparenting relationship has been shown to be one of the strongest factors associated with children’s social adjustment (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2012; Palkovitz et al., 2013; Gallegos et al., 2017; Choi and Becher, 2018; Mack and Gee, 2018) and with mothers’ and fathers’ positive parenting behaviors (Cabrera et al., 2009, 2011; Morrill et al., 2010). In one study in New Zealand conducted during the pandemic, researchers found that the association between depression and negative quality of parenting was found only for couples who reported low levels of coparenting support (McRae et al., 2021). Similarly, a study of 1,547 Chinese parents (age range=12–60years) showed that family support (assessed as using the family support subscale of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support) was protective in maintaining mental health (Li and Xu, 2020). It may be that being in a supportive coparenting relationship mitigates the demands that parenting during a pandemic may place on parents. Moreover, parents who feel supported by their co-parent may feel greater confidence in their ability to parent, particularly during a stressful period of time such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on this extant literature, we have two research questions. First, how are pandemic-induced economic and social stressors uniquely associated with indicators of family functioning such as parents’ mental health, parent engagement, and children’s socioemotional problems and prosocial behaviors? Second, how do promotive factors, such as perceived coparenting support and parent positivity, moderate the associations between pandemic-related stressors and indicators of family functioning? Based on models of risk and resilience, we hypothesize that parents who report a high number of economic and social stressors will also report more depressive symptoms and stress, less parent engagement than pre-COVID period (main effects). Because the association between economic stress and child socioemotional behaviors is inconsistent in the literature, we do not specify a direction for this hypothesis. We also hypothesize that parents high on positivity and enjoying high levels of coparenting support will report fewer depressive symptoms and stress, more frequent engagement, and more prosocial behaviors in their children than parents with low levels of positivity and coparenting support (main effects). Given the state of the empirical evidence, we do not hypothesize about the relative importance of each set of stressors. Finally, we hypothesize that the association between economic and social stressors and family functioning outcomes will be reduced when parents have high levels of supportive coparenting relationship and high levels of positivity (interaction effects).

Data were collected from a sample of first-time parents participating in a NICHD-funded longitudinal intervention study (BabyBooks 2 project, BB2) that aimed to give information about child development to low-income parents (removed for blind review). Participating families were recruited from centers that administer the Specific Supplement Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, health care clinics, emergency department waiting rooms, parks, and community centers in both the Washington, DC metropolitan area and in Orange County, California. To be eligible for the BB2 intervention project, parents had to be first-time parents of a baby less than 9months of age; be cohabiting, over the age of 18; making less than $75,000 per year; and, literate at a first-grade reading level in either English or Spanish. All infants were full term (37weeks of gestation or longer). Families were told that the project was aimed at understanding how reading to babies helps them learn and were offered children’s books and compensation for their time.

From May to August 2020, eligible parents in the BB2 project were contacted via text message about their interest in participating in an online survey study about their COVID-19-related experiences. The survey was hosted on Qualtrics¹ (Qualtrics, Provo, UT), an online survey tool that allows to create, distribute and record survey questions. Once parents consented to participate, they received a personal link to access the survey on their phone; only one parent requested to take the survey on a computer. Parents received either an English or Spanish version, based on their preferred language, and were given a 21-day timeframe to complete the survey. Of the total BB2 sample, 292 parents were still actively enrolled at the time of this survey. All 292 parents were contacted and 247 consented to participate (84.6% of response rate). All data were collected between July 2020 and September 2020. Each participant was compensated with a $20 e-gift-card or cash and was entered in a raffle to win one of four $50 e-gift-cards. To reduce missing data, participants were reminded to complete each survey question automatically by the online survey software. After viewing the reminder, participants were allowed to skip items if they chose to do so. No identifying information was collected during the survey. The personalized survey link was used to match demographic information from the database. Participants spent an average of 26min to fully complete the survey. Our final sample consisted of 247 parents from 142 families, of which 210 parents were a couple. The remaining 37 parents were 32 mothers and 5 fathers whose partners either did not want to participate or could not.

All of the participants were low-income parents with their children between the ages of 22 and 55months (Mean age=2.9years, SD=0.5) at the time the COVID-19 survey was administered; 48.6% of the total sample (n=120 parents) resided in the greater Washington, D. C. metropolitan area including Virginia and Maryland and 51.4% resided in Orange County, California. Forty-four percent (n=108) of the children were boys and 56% (n=136 children) were girls. The sample included slightly more mothers (55.5%; Mean age=30.0years old, SD=5.8) than fathers (44.5%; Mean age=32.7years old, SD=6.7). The analytic sample (n=142) did not significantly differ from the full BB2 sample (n=240) on household income or education levels assessed as the highest education level in the family. The average annual household income before the pandemic started was USD $40,051 (SD=25,172). Though the bilingual (Spanish-English) BB2 study’s participants are predominately Hispanic, our response rate was greater for Hispanic parents (70%). Table 1 demonstrates the sample demographics and descriptive data of study variables by parent gender.

The predictor variables include four stressful experiences related to the pandemic in both economic and social domains. The economic factor consistsw of self-reported ratings of changes in employment and financial ability to make ends meet since the COVID crisis began. The social factor consists of self-reported ratings of exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and difficulty in accessing childcare since the COVID crisis began. The outcome variables include four key aspects of family functioning: parental mental health, parent engagement, and parent report of changes in child’s socioemotional problem behaviors and prosocial behaviors during the pandemic. We also examined two protective factors (moderators) that are likely to buffer the stressful experiences brought by the pandemic on family functioning. The predictors, outcome variables, and moderators are described in detail below as well as in Table 1.

The analytic sample consisted of 142 families, including 137 mothers and 110 fathers. For our study variables, less that 2% of data were missing at the parent, including one missing score for parent positivity, and two for coparenting support.

We conducted one path analysis with maximum likelihood (ML) method to calculate estimators using RStudio 1.2.5² (PBC, Boston, MA). In the model we allowed the predictors and the outcomes to covary. The model included 4 parent-level predictors (economic stressors, social stressors, parent positivity, and coparenting support), 5 outcomes (maternal mental health difficulties, paternal mental health difficulties, total parent engagement, child socioemotional problems, and child prosocial behaviors), and 1 control variable (highest education level in the family). To examine interaction effects, we added 4 interactions (economic stressors × parent positivity, economic stressors × coparenting support, social stressors × parent positivity, social stressors × coparenting support) in the model. Both main effect and moderation effect models were saturated. The four main predictor variables were first mean-centered and then used to calculate the interactions to reduce multicollinearity among the predictors. We reported standardized estimates of all estimators. Finally, we used simple slopes analysis to visualize the moderation interactions using Process v3.5 in SPSS 27 (Hayes, 2012).

Among the 142 families in our sample, 77.5% percent of families reported negative change in levels of economic hardship and 63% reported experiencing at least one social stressor since the pandemic. Parent report of each set of stressors is presented in Table 2. Parents reported high level of positivity during the pandemic (Mean=22.4, SD=3.9) and high level of supportive coparenting relationship since the pandemic (Mean=34.2, SD=7.5). Mothers (Mean=6.5, SD=3.6) and fathers (Mean=5.2, SD=3.7) reported low levels of depression, anxiety and stress during the pandemic. Mothers and fathers reported more engagement with their child since the pandemic began (Mean=39.1, SD=6.0). Families reported no change in their children’s socioemotional problems since the pandemic began (Mean=2.5, SD=1.0); and, reported observing more prosocial behaviors in their children since the pandemic began (Mean=4.0, SD=0.8). Mean, standard deviation, range are presented in Table 1 and correlations of study variables are presented in Table 3.

We conducted one path model to examine the associations between parent risk factors (i.e., economic and social stressors) and the five outcomes (i.e., mother and father mental health, parent engagement, child socioemotional problems and prosocial behaviors; Figure 1).

Parents’ increase of economic stressors since the pandemic began was significantly associated with parent report of more children’s prosocial behaviors, controlling for family education level. That is, one standard deviation increase in economic stressors was associated with a 0.28 standard deviation increase in child prosocial scores (beta=0.28, 95% CI=[0.12, 0.44], p<0.01), keeping everything else constant. Parents’ increase of economic stressors since the pandemic began was positively and significantly associated with paternal (but not maternal) mental health scores during the pandemic (beta=0.19, 95% CI=[0.02, 0.37], p<0.05), controlling for family education level. That is, one standard deviation increase in economic stressors was associated with 0.19 standard deviation increase in paternal mental health scores, keeping everything else constant.

Parents’ increase in social stressors since the pandemic began was significantly associated with less parent engagement (beta=−0.27, 95% CI=[−0.42, −0.13], p<0.001) and with more parent-reported socioemotional problems in the child as compared to before the pandemic (beta=0.19, 95% CI=[0.03, 0.33], p<0.05), controlling for family education level. That is, one standard deviation increase in social stressors was associated with 0.27 standard deviation decrease in parent engagement score and 0.19 standard deviation increase in child socioemotional problem scores, keeping everything else constant.

During the pandemic, parent positivity showed negative association with mothers’ mental health difficulties scores, beta=−0.45, 95% CI=[−0.60, −0.30], p<0.001, and fathers’ mental health difficulties scores, beta=−0.36, 95% CI=[−0.54, −0.19], p<0.001), as well as positive association with parent-reported children’s prosocial behaviors since the pandemic began, beta=0.21, 95% CI=[0.05, 0.38], p<0.05, controlling for family education level. That is, one standard deviation increase in parental positivity score was associated with 0.45 standard deviation decrease in maternal mental health score and 0.36 standard deviation decrease in paternal mental health score, and associated with 0.21 standard deviation increase in children’s prosocial behaviors score, keeping everything else constant.

Since the pandemic began, more coparenting support was associated with increased parent engagement, beta=0.27, 95% CI=[0.11, 0.43], p<0.01, and parent report of increased prosocial behaviors (beta=0.18, 95% CI=[0.02, 0.35], p<0.05), controlling for family education level. That is, one standard deviation increase in coparenting support score was associated with 0.27 standard deviation increase in parent engagement score and 0.18 standard deviation increase in the prosocial behaviors score, keeping everything else constant.

To test the moderation effects, four interaction terms (economic stressors × parent positivity, economic × coparenting support, social stressors × parent positivity, social stressors × coparenting support) were added to the main effects model. We report three significant interactions.

First, parent positivity during the pandemic, a protective factor, moderated the association between increases in economic stressors since the pandemic and maternal mental health scores during the pandemic, beta=0.26, 95% CI=[0.09, 0.42], p<0.01. The positive association between economic stressors and maternal mental health difficulties was reduced for mothers who lived in homes with high levels of parent positivity. Simple slopes analysis (Figure 2) showed that, mothers’ mental health difficulties were the highest at low level of parent positivity (−1 SD). At the low level of parent positivity, the association between economic stressors and maternal mental health was negative and non-significant (b=−0.63, s.e.=0.57, p=0.27). At the average level (sample mean), the relationship was positive and non-significant (b=0.57, s.e.=0.40, p =0.16). Finally, at high level of parent positivity (+1 SD), the relationship was positive and significant (b=1.76, s.e.=0.57, p<0.01). So, for low and average levels of positivity, mothers’ mental health difficulties remained higher independent of the number of economic stressors. Meanwhile, high level of parent positivity kept mothers’ mental health difficulties lower, even though this protective effect became weaker as economic stressors accumulated.

Second, parent positivity during the pandemic, a protective factor, moderated the association between increases in economic stressors since the pandemic and parent engagement during the pandemic, beta=0.27, 95% CI=[0.11, 0.44], p<0.01. Simple slopes analysis (Figure 3) showed that, parent engagement were the highest at low level of parent positivity (−1 SD). At the low level of parent positivity, the association between economic stressors and parent engagement was negative and significant (b=−3.6, s.e.=0.99, p<0. 001). At the average level (sample mean), the relationship was negative and non-significant (b=−1.2, s.e.=0.71, p=0.09). Finally, at high level of parent positivity (+1 SD), the relationship was positive and non-significant (b=1.15, s.e.=1.03, p=0.27). So, for low and average levels of positivity, parent engagement decreased as the number of economic stressors accumulated. For high level of positivity, parent engagement increased as economic stressors accumulated. Therefore, average or high level of parent positivity buffered parents from the negative effect that economic stressors had on parent engagement.

Third, more coparenting support since the pandemic began, a protective factor, moderated the association between increases in economic stressors since the pandemic began and more paternal mental health difficulties during the pandemic, beta=−0.30, 95% CI=[−0.54, −0.06], p<0.05. The association between economic stressors and fathers’ mental health difficulties was significantly reduced for fathers who lived in homes with high levels of coparenting support. Simple slopes analysis (Figure 4) showed that, at low level of coparenting support (−1 SD) during the pandemic, the association between economic stressors and paternal mental health was positive and significant (b=2.50, s.e.=0.61, p<0.001). At the average level (sample mean), the association was also positive and significant (b=1.23, s.e.=0.49, p<0.05). Finally, at high level of coparenting support (+1 SD), the association was negative and non-significant (b=−0.03, s.e.=0.71, p=0.97). So, for low and average level of coparenting support, fathers’ mental health difficulties increased significantly as family economic stressors accumulated. However, at the high level of coparenting support, fathers’ mental health did not increase as economic stressors accumulated. Therefore, high level of coparenting support buffered fathers from the negative effect that economic stressors had on fathers’ mental health difficulties.

The study is of course not without limitations. First, it is difficult to reveal the directions of associations with a cross-sectional design. Although moderation effects were tested, longitudinal studies are essential for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms between pandemic-related risks and familial functioning. Second, not all items from the original scales were included for several variables. The number of items included in the questionnaire were shorten to decrease the burden on our respondents, who were already very stressed by the pandemic. Therefore, it is not possible to compare these outcomes with the norms established by these scales. Although the items selected for this study have overall adequate content coverage, this could compromise the validity of measures with fewer items because the items that are deleted may contain content that’s important to the concept one is measuring. Third, because of time, logistics, and limited funds we were not able to directly assess children. Although our socioemotional measures are summed across both parents when both parents responded, thus somewhat reducing the measurement error, using parents’ report of children’s behaviors is not ideal. Last but not least, our models account for relatively small amount of variance in the child outcome measures. About 14% of child socioemotional problems and 18% of child prosocial behaviors are accounted for.

In summary, these results make clear that the consequences of the economic and social pandemic-related stressors on family functioning are still revealing themselves and are similar but also different for mothers and fathers. In a relatively short period of time, the pandemic has drastically and dramatically altered many aspects of our lives, including children’s, in ways that have yet to be known. Understanding how mothers and fathers use their resources, including psychological resources, to protect themselves and their families is now more important than ever, as the economic and social cost of the pandemic may be the most damaging and enduring that we have experienced in a generation.