Happily Distant or Bitter Medicine? The Impact of Social Distancing Preferences, Behavior, and Emotional Costs on Subjective Wellbeing During the Epidemic

Abstract

To inhibit the spread of COVID-19 Public health officials stress, and governments often require, restrictions on social interaction ("social distancing"). While the medical benefits are clear, important questions remain about these measures' downsides: How bitter is this medicine? Ten large non-probability internet-based surveys between April and November 2020, weighted statistically to reflect the US population in age, education, and religious background and excluding respondents who even occasionally role-played rather than giving their own true views; N = 6,223. Pre-epidemic data from 2017-2019, N = 4,032. Reliable multiple-item scales including subjective wellbeing (2 European Quality of Life Survey items, Cronbach's alpha = .85); distancing attitudes (5 items, alpha = .87); distancing behavior e.g., standing 6' apart in public (5 items, alpha = .80); emotional cost of distancing and restrictions on social interaction (8-12 items, alpha = .94); and an extensive suite of controls (19 variables). Descriptive statistics, OLS regression, structural equation models. Subjective wellbeing is greater for those who approve of distancing, for those who practice distancing, and particularly for those whose distancing attitudes and behavior are congruent, either both in favor or both opposed (multiplicative interaction). The emotional cost of distancing is strongly tied to wellbeing and is heterogeneous, with some disliking distancing much more than others. An SEM model suggests causality: that emotional costs strongly reduce wellbeing but not vice-versa. During the epidemic, COVID issues constitute two of the top 5 influences on wellbeing, behind only subjective health and religious belief and tied with income. All this is net of family background, religious origins, age, ethnicity, race, gender, rural residence, education, occupational status, marriage, unemployment, income, health, religion, and political party.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11482-023-10149-0.

Fig. 1

Life satisfaction. Percent distribution (bars) and kernel density (line). N = 6,195 US adults. April-November 2020

Fig. 2

Happiness. Percent distribution (bars) and kernel density (line). N = 6208 American adults. April to November 2020

Fig. 3

Life satisfaction. Percent distributions before the epidemic (line) and during the epidemic (shape). Adult Americans, weighted N = 4,018 before the epidemic and 6,161 during the epidemic

Fig. 4

Happiness. Percent distributions before the epidemic (line) and during the epidemic (shape). Adult Americans, weighted N = 4,016 before the epidemic and 6,172 during the epidemic

Fig. 5

Attitude towards social distancing (multiple-item scale). Smoothed percents, expressed as probability densities. Weighted data, role-players excluded. N = 6,121 adult Americans, April-November 2020

Fig. 6

Actual social distancing behavior (multiple-item scale). Smoothed percents, expressed as probability densities. Weighted data, role-players excluded. N = 6,222 adult Americans, April-November 2020

Fig. 7

Attitudes toward social distancing and actual social distancing behavior: Joint distribution (scatterplot) and quadratic fit line. N = 6,120 adult Americans, April-November 2020. Weighted; role-players are excluded

Fig. 8

Emotional costs of distancing. Smoothed percents (expressed as probability density functions). Weighted. Role-players excluded. N = 6122 adult Americans, April-November 2020

Fig. 9

Well-being by income and emotional costs

Fig. 10

Interaction effect of distancing attitude and behavior on wellbeing: Predicted values; N = 5,569. Details and regression coefficients are in Supplementary Material Appendix INTERACTION