Socioeconomic stratification and trajectories of social trust during COVID-19.

Extant theory suggests that crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic may change people's trust in others. A crisis-to-solidarity model suggests that people become more trusting, while a crisis-to-negative experience theory suggests that people lose trust, and a stability perspective predicts that social trust will largely remain unchanged. We argue that, when a crisis occurs, trust is likely to fall into distinct trajectories of change that will conform to these different perspectives, and placement into contrasting trajectories of change will be predicated on socioeconomic position. To test our argument, we use data from multiple waves of Canadian national surveys conducted from September 2019 to February 2021 and examine how two major forms of social trust-generalized trust and neighborhood trust-changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. A longitudinal latent class analysis (LLCA) shows increasing, decreasing, and stable trajectories of trust, which conform to each of the proposed patterns. We further show that individuals' baseline socioeconomic position is a strong indicator of the placement in these trajectories. Both forms of trust increased among individuals with higher socioeconomic positions while decreased among individuals with lower socioeconomic positions. This research contributes to the literature on the social context of trust by reconciling contrasting views of the consequences of crises for trust, and also in showing that the segmentation of changes in trust are proscribed by structures of social stratification.

A protective rung on the ladder? How past and current social status shaped changes in health during COVID-19.

An emerging body of work has started to document population health consequences of the social and economic transformations during the COVID-19 pandemic. We consider an individual's relative social position in the stratification system-subjective social status (SSS)-and assess how past (childhood) and current SSS predict change in self-rated health during the pandemic. Using two waves of data from the Canadian Quality of Work and Economic Life Study, we follow respondents between the onset of lockdown measures in March and May of 2020 (N = 1886). Drawing from the life course perspective and stress process model, we find that lower current SSS predicts a greater likelihood of being in stable poor health and reporting declining health. Lower past SSS predicts a higher chance of being in stable poor health indirectly through current SSS. And lower cumulative SSS that sums both past and present SSS also predicts stable poor health, while perceived upward mobility over time is associated with stable good health. This robust relationship between SSS and health in such a short time period of two months at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic provides an important glimpse into the influence that SSS has on population health.

Did perceptions of supportive work-life culture change during the COVID-19 pandemic?

Objective: This article examines whether perceptions of supportive work-life culture changed during the COVID-19 pandemic-and if that depended on (1) working from home; (2) children in the household; and (3) professional status. We test for gender differences across the analyses. Background: During normal times, the "ideal worker" is expected to prioritize the demands of their job and is penalized for attending to family/personal needs while on company time. But the organization and expectations of roles might have changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Organizations could have become more empathic or reinforced norms about single-minded devotion to work. Method: In September 2019, we collected data from a national sample of Canadian workers. Then, during a pivotal period of shocks to the economy and social life, we re-interviewed these participants in June 2020. Results: We discovered that overall perceptions of work-life culture became more positive. However, subgroup differences revealed this positive change was muted among employees: (1) who worked from home; (2) with children under age 6 at home; and (3) in professional occupations. We found no subgroup differences by gender. Conclusion: Our findings address speculation about whether employees perceived their employers as becoming more supportive of work-life fit early in the pandemic. Future research should determine (a) longer-term change in work-life culture during and after the pandemic; and (b) whether the actual benefits of supportive work-life culture also changed or if it was "window dressing." This direction suggests it should have more strongly reduced work-life conflict as the pandemic unfolded.

Socially Distant? Social Network Confidants, Loneliness, and Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, many nations around the world instituted strict social distancing measures. Although necessary to deter the spread of the virus, these measures may also have had adverse health repercussions by increasing social isolation. Using a national longitudinal study from Canada, in which respondents were surveyed in March 2020 at the beginning of stay-at-home orders and again two months later in May, we show that, at baseline, loneliness was inversely associated with perceptions of self-rated health, and there was a beneficial indirect association between respondents? number of social network confidants and perceived health through lower levels of loneliness. Between March and May, social network confidants decreased and loneliness increased;these changes were independent of each other and contributed to declines in self-rated health. Greater loneliness at baseline was also associated with declines in self-rated health. Our observations suggest that social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic impaired social connectedness, thereby resulting in declines in perceptions of health. We conclude by discussing several policy-related implications of our findings.

Religion Protected Mental Health but Constrained Crisis Response During Crucial Early Days of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

This study demonstrates that religion protected mental health but constrained support for crisis response during the crucial early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from a national probability-based sample of the U.S. population show that highly religious individuals and evangelicals suffered less distress in March 2020. They were also less likely to see the coronavirus outbreak as a crisis and less likely to support public health restrictions to limit the spread of the virus. The conservative politicization of religion in the United States can help explain why religious Americans (and evangelicals in particular) experienced less distress and were less likely to back public health efforts to contain the virus. We conclude that religion can be a source of comfort and strength in times of crisis, but-at least in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic-it can also undercut efforts to end the root causes of suffering.

Accumulation of economic hardship and health during the COVID-19 pandemic: Social causation or selection?

This study examines whether economic hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic is deleteriously associated with psychological distress and self-rated health. A social causation perspective suggests that exposure to economic hardship will harm well-being, but a social selection perspective suggests that the appearance of health effects of hardship during the pandemic are attributable to the increased risk of exposure to hardship associated with poor well-being at the start of the pandemic. We also propose a third perspective, economic selection, which suggests that economic hardship prior to the pandemic negatively affects health and increases risk of exposure to hardship during the pandemic; consequently, an association between health and economic hardship during the pandemic may be spurious, and entirely due to pre-existing levels of hardship. To test these competing perspectives, we use a longitudinal study based in Canada that began in late March of 2020 and followed respondents monthly in April, May, and June. Baseline psychological distress and self-rated health, as well as economic hardship prior to the pandemic, independently predict the accumulation of monthly periods of hardship from April to June. The accumulation of periods of hardship from April to June is deleteriously associated with psychological distress and self-rated health in June. Controls for prior economic hardship and baseline health weaken the association between accumulation of periods of hardship and psychological distress, while also eliminating the association between accumulation of hardship and self-rated health. These findings favor a social causation perspective for psychological distress and a social selection perspective for self-rated health, with less evidence found in support of economic selection. This study took place during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, though, and associations with self-rated health may have become more evident as hardship further wore on individual well-being over a longer period of time.

Work-Life Conflict During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic upended work, family, and social life. These massive changes may have created shifts in exposure to work-life conflict. Using a national survey that followed Canadian workers from September 2019 into April and June 2020, the authors find that work-life conflict decreased among those with no children at home. In contrast, for those with children at home, the patterns depended on age of youngest child. Among individuals with children younger than 6 or between 6 and 12, no decreases in work-life conflict were observed. In contrast, those with teenagers did not differ from the child-free. Although these patterns did not significantly differ by gender, they were amplified among individuals with high work-home integration. These findings suggest an overall pattern of reduced work-life conflict during the pandemic?but also that these shifts were circumscribed by age of youngest child at home and the degree of work-home integration.

Social Estrangement and Psychological Distress before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patterns of Change in Canadian Workers.

This article argues that the COVID-19 pandemic and associated social distancing measures intended to slow the rate of transmission of the virus resulted in greater subjective isolation and community distrust, in turn adversely impacting psychological distress. To support this argument, we examine data from the Canadian Quality of Work and Economic Life Study, two national surveys of Canadian workers-one from late September 2019 (N = 2,477) and the second from mid-March 2020 (N = 2,446). Analyses show that subjective isolation and community distrust increased between the two surveys, which led to a substantial rise in psychological distress. Increases in subjective isolation were stronger in older respondents, resulting in a greater escalation in psychological distress. These findings support a Durkheimian perspective on the harm to social integration and mental health caused by periods of rapid social change but also illustrate how a life course context can differentiate individual vulnerability to disintegrative social forces.

The Status Dynamics of Role Blurring in the Time of COVID-19.

Has the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic altered the status dynamics of role blurring? Although researchers typically investigate its conflictual aspects, the authors assess if the work-home interface might also be a source of status-and the relevance of schedule control in these processes. Analyzing data from nationally representative samples of workers in September 2019 and March 2020, the authors find that role blurring is associated with elevated status, but the onset of coronavirus disease 2019 weakens that effect. Likewise, schedule control enhances the status of role blurring, but its potency is also weakened during the pandemic. These findings align with the suggestion that role blurring signals a commitment to work and adherence to ideal worker norms. However, the pandemic changed that by intensifying role integration and possibly by reducing the degree of agency once associated with role blurring. The loss of choice around role blurring might have also diluted the distinctive status that it once carried.

A less objectionable greed? Work-life conflict and unjust pay during a pandemic.

Perceptions of unjust pay represent a central feature in research on distributive justice. Prior studies document that work-life conflict (WLC) is a strong predictor of unjustly low pay. We extend that work by asking: Did the social and economic changes associated with the coronavirus pandemic 2019 (COVID-19) modify the relationship between WLC and perceptions of unjust pay? In September 2019, we collected data from a nationally representative sample of workers to profile the quality of work and economic life. Then, during a critical period of widespread economic and social shockwaves, we re-interviewed these same study participants in May 2020 to evaluate change. We observe that the strong positive association between WLC and unjustly low pay decreased overall in the population-but the strength and direction of that association differed significantly across several dimensions of social stratification. Specifically, we found a weaker relationship among visible minorities, younger workers, and individuals with lower socioeconomic status. We interpret these patterns as suggesting that-at least among more vulnerable groups-the "greed" represented in the process of work interfering with non-work was unevenly experienced during peak period of the COVID-19 pandemic.