Paradoxical Impacts of Social Relationship on Well-Being During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Seojin Stacey Lee, Yerin Shim, Jongan Choi, Incheol Choi
Author Information
  1. Seojin Stacey Lee: Center for Happiness Studies, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  2. Yerin Shim: Department of Psychology, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, Korea.
  3. Jongan Choi: Department of Psychology, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon, Korea.
  4. Incheol Choi: Center for Happiness Studies, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

Abstract

Social interaction is an important source of psychological and physical well-being during normal times. However, following the COVID-19 outbreak, which spreads rapidly from person to person, social interaction poses a fatal threat to one's health and life. Therefore, several countries including South Korea implemented an intense social distancing mandate to prevent the spread of the virus. During these unique times of Pandemic, the current research investigated whether and how an individual's well-being varies as a function of their interaction with various relationship partners using experience sampling data (Study 1) and online longitudinal data (Study 2). The results indicated that being alone was more detrimental to well-being during the Pandemic than before it. Specifically, interaction with close relationship partners (e.g., romantic partner, spouse, or friend) was positively related to well-being, whereas interaction with formal relationship partners (e.g., coworker, boss) was negatively linked to momentary well-being during the Pandemic. Furthermore, our study showed that the association between social supports from close relationships and well-being was temporally strengthened during COVID-19 Pandemic. In sum, the benefits of close relationships on well-being were stronger during the COVID-19 Pandemic than before it.

Keywords

References

  1. PLoS One. 2021 Apr 23;16(4):e0250252 [PMID: 33891642]
  2. Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 5;71(8):1943-1946 [PMID: 32301964]
  3. Emotion. 2021 Aug;21(5):1114-1118 [PMID: 33289572]
  4. Science. 2010 Nov 12;330(6006):932 [PMID: 21071660]
  5. J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96 [PMID: 6668417]
  6. J Pers Assess. 1985 Feb;49(1):71-5 [PMID: 16367493]
  7. BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 7;9(3):e026354 [PMID: 30850417]
  8. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020 Sep;119(3):672-694 [PMID: 32202811]
  9. Emotion. 2021 Mar;21(2):326-336 [PMID: 31697104]
  10. J Crim Justice. 2021 May-Jun;74:101806 [PMID: 36281275]
  11. PLoS Med. 2010 Jul 27;7(7):e1000316 [PMID: 20668659]
  12. Psychol Bull. 1995 May;117(3):497-529 [PMID: 7777651]
  13. J Pers Assess. 1990 Winter;55(3-4):610-7 [PMID: 2280326]
  14. SSM Popul Health. 2017 Apr 09;3:393-402 [PMID: 29349232]
  15. Science. 2004 Dec 3;306(5702):1776-80 [PMID: 15576620]
  16. Psychol Methods. 2014 Mar;19(1):72-91 [PMID: 23646988]
  17. Soc Sci Med. 2021 Apr;274:113779 [PMID: 33639395]
  18. Annu Rev Psychol. 2001;52:141-66 [PMID: 11148302]
  19. Br J Health Psychol. 2021 May;26(2):553-569 [PMID: 33099800]
  20. J Happiness Stud. 2021;22(6):2703-2720 [PMID: 33424431]
  21. J Appl Psychol. 2006 May;91(3):689-95 [PMID: 16737364]
  22. Pediatrics. 2020 Oct;146(4): [PMID: 32709738]
  23. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2022 Feb;76(2):128-132 [PMID: 34413184]
  24. Gerontologist. 2021 Feb 23;61(2):240-250 [PMID: 33258898]
  25. Qual Health Res. 2021 Jan;31(2):203-217 [PMID: 33213283]
  26. Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Dec;183:111127 [PMID: 36569789]
  27. Fam Process. 2021 Sep;60(3):1002-1015 [PMID: 33220082]
  28. World Psychiatry. 2020 Jun;19(2):261 [PMID: 32394565]
  29. Psychol Trauma. 2020 Aug;12(S1):S55-S57 [PMID: 32551762]
  30. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 Jun;54(6):1063-70 [PMID: 3397865]
  31. Psychol Assess. 2019 Feb;31(2):226-235 [PMID: 30394762]
  32. Psychol Bull. 1985 Sep;98(2):310-57 [PMID: 3901065]
  33. Am Psychol. 2020 Jul-Aug;75(5):618-630 [PMID: 32496074]
  34. Front Psychol. 2021 May 21;12:663799 [PMID: 34093358]
  35. Soc Indic Res. 2012 Jul;107(3):509-529 [PMID: 22707845]
  36. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 2;23(3):e26997 [PMID: 33556034]
  37. Child Abuse Negl. 2003 Dec;27(12):1377-95 [PMID: 14644056]
  38. Psychol Med. 2021 Jan 13;:1-10 [PMID: 33436126]
  39. Am Psychol. 2000 Jan;55(1):56-67 [PMID: 11392866]
  40. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020 Mar 06;69(9):245-246 [PMID: 32134909]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0well-beinginteractionCOVID-19pandemicSocialsocialrelationshippartnersclosetimespersonsamplingdataStudyegrelationshipsimportantsourcepsychologicalphysicalnormalHoweverfollowingoutbreakspreadsrapidlyposesfatalthreatone'shealthlifeThereforeseveralcountriesincludingSouthKoreaimplementedintensedistancingmandatepreventspreadvirusuniquecurrentresearchinvestigatedwhetherindividual'svariesfunctionvarioususingexperience1onlinelongitudinal2resultsindicatedalonedetrimentalSpecificallyromanticpartnerspousefriendpositivelyrelatedwhereasformalcoworkerbossnegativelylinkedmomentaryFurthermorestudyshowedassociationsupportstemporallystrengthenedsumbenefitsstrongeritParadoxicalImpactsRelationshipWell-BeingPandemicExperienceWell-being

Similar Articles

Cited By (3)