## 2 Methods
### Measures  
The online questionnaire was structured into three main sections: socio-demographic questions, questions about experiences with COVID-19, and psychological questions. The psychological impact of the quarantine period was quantified and then compared to reference data that were taken from the most recent and closest to our sample data available on these psychological instruments, in order to estimate the impact of the situation on the population through the following scales:  
To measure Self Efficacy, we used the Generalized Self Efficacy Scale (GSE) by [PERSON] et al. [33], a self report measure of one's ability to deal with stressful situations or demands. It is a brief questionnaire that consists of 10 items on a five-point Likert scale. The score is calculated by adding together the answers to all of the items: a higher score in this questionnaire is an indication of higher Self Efficacy. The reference data were taken from a study by [PERSON] et al. [34], in which its internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.90\). In our study, the internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.82\). We measured Locus of Control while using the Locus of Control of Behaviour (LCB) by [PERSON] et al. [35]. Locus of control is the extent to which a person perceives a situation as being a consequence of their actions and under their control: the higher the score in this questionnaire, the more the Locus of Control is external. It consists of 17 items with a six-point rating scale, and the score is calculated by adding the items that are related to external Locus of Control and subtracting the ones that are related to an internal Locus of Control. The reference data were taken from a study by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [36], in which the internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.71\). In our study, it is \(\alpha=0.74\). In order to measure Social Connectedness we used the Social Connectedness scale-Revised (SCS-R) by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [37]. The scale assesses experiences of closeness in interpersonal contexts, and it consists of 20 items with a six-point rating scale. Ten of these items are worded negatively, and the others positively: the negative ones are reverse scored, and a higher score indicates a greater social connectedness. The reference data were taken from a study by [PERSON] et al. [38], in which the internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.88\). In our study, the internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.76\). We assessed sense of community in virtual environments using the Sense of Virtual CommunityScale (SoVc) by [PERSON] [39]. It is an 18-item scale on a five-point Likert scale measuring one's sense of belonging in a virtual community. The reference data were taken by a study by [PERSON] et al. [40], in which its internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.90\) and, in our study, the internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.81\). To measure the eudaimonic well-being, we used the Flourishing Scale (FS) by [PERSON] et al. [41]. This scale is useful for obtaining an overview of one's perception of their positive functioning: it consists of 8 items with a seven-point rating scale. The score is obtained by adding all the items: a higher score means that the subjects see themselves in a more positive light. The reference data were taken from a study by [PERSON] et al. [42], in which its internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.90\) and, in our study, the internal reliability coefficient is \(\alpha=0.79\). In order to assess the hedonic/cognitive well-being, we used the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) by [PERSON] et al. [43]. It consists of two 10-item mood scales: subjects must answer while keeping in mind to what extent they felt every emotion in a specific period of time, with answers in a five-point scale. The Italian validation by [PERSON] et al. [44] from which we took the reference data differentiates between state and trait: we selected state, as we asked our participants to reply according to the last two weeks.