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

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.

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

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.

Status Construction During COVID-19: Antibody Positive People's Rising Prestige.

The protracted COVID-19 crisis provides a new social niche in which new inequalities can emerge. We provide predictions about one such new inequality using the logic of Status Construction Theory (SCT). SCT, rooted in Expectations State Theory and from there developed by Ridgeway and colleagues, proposes general hypotheses about how new inequalities arise through process of interaction at the individual level: an unordered categorical difference becomes attached to a cultural value that gives one category more value than the other; social scripts concerning it emerge; small elements of assertion and deference creep into more and more encounters that an individual participates in, hears about through networks, and learns about via social and conventional media. The categorical difference begins to morph into a hierarchical status distinction. Through these mechanisms, individuals develop "status beliefs" that most people in their communities endorse the status distinction. Although they may or may not endorse the distinction personally, they believe that most people do so and they find that the path of least resistance socially is to enact the scripts that affirm the higher status/prestige of the favored group. We apply Status Construction Theory to the categorical difference between Antibody Positives (who have been tested for IgG antibodies) and Others (everybody else). Using the general logic of SCT and specifically developing applications of its key propositions, we predict that the categorical difference between Antibody Positives and Others will transition to a status distinction and propose testable, falsifiable hypotheses about each step of the process.