IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ariqol/v18y2023i1d10.1007_s11482-023-10149-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Kelley

    (Child Trends)

  • M. D. R. Evans

    (University of Nevada)

  • Jonathan Kelley

    (International Social Science Survey)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Kelley & M. D. R. Evans & Jonathan Kelley, 2023. "Happily Distant or Bitter Medicine? The Impact of Social Distancing Preferences, Behavior, and Emotional Costs on Subjective Wellbeing During the Epidemic," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 115-162, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:18:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11482-023-10149-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11482-023-10149-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11482-023-10149-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11482-023-10149-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ulrich Thy Jensen, 2020. "Is self-reported social distancing susceptible to social desirability bias? Using the crosswise model to elicit sensitive behaviors," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    2. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    3. Layard, Richard & Clark, Andrew E. & De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel & Krekel, Christian & Fancourt, Daisy & Hey, Nancy & O'Donnell, Gus, 2020. "When to release the lockdown: a wellbeing framework for analysing costs and benefits," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 104276, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Evans, MDR & Kelley, Jonathan & Kelley, Sarah, 2021. "A Scale for Measuring Social Distancing Behavior: Survey Questions and National Norms, USA 2020," SocArXiv qnjwg, Center for Open Science.
    5. David G. Blanchflower, 2021. "Is happiness U-shaped everywhere? Age and subjective well-being in 145 countries," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 34(2), pages 575-624, April.
    6. Nowak, Piotr Bolesław, 2019. "Moment-type estimation from grouped samples," Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 149(C), pages 80-85.
    7. Ricky N. Lawton & Iulian Gramatki & Will Watt & Daniel Fujiwara, 2021. "Does Volunteering Make Us Happier, or Are Happier People More Likely to Volunteer? Addressing the Problem of Reverse Causality When Estimating the Wellbeing Impacts of Volunteering," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 599-624, February.
    8. Jean-François Daoust & Eric Bélanger & Ruth Dassonneville & Erick Lachapelle & Richard Nadeau & Michael Becher & Sylvain Brouard & Martial Foucault & Christoph Hönninge & Daniel Stegmueller, 2021. "A guilt-free strategy increases self-reported non-compliance with COVID-19 preventive measures: Experimental evidence from 12 countries," Post-Print hal-03244320, HAL.
    9. M. Evans & Jonathan Kelley, 2004. "Effect of family structure on life satisfaction: australian evidence," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 69(3), pages 303-349, December.
    10. M. D. R. Evans & Jonathan Kelley & S. M. C. Kelley & C. G. E. Kelley, 2019. "Rising Income Inequality During the Great Recession Had No Impact on Subjective Wellbeing in Europe, 2003–2012," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 203-228, January.
    11. Roy Cerqueti & Raffaella Coppier & Alessandro Girardi & Marco Ventura, 2022. "The sooner the better: lives saved by the lockdown during the COVID-19 outbreak. The case of Italy [Using synthetic controls: Feasibility, data requirements, and methodological aspects]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 25(1), pages 46-70.
    12. Haiyang Lu & Peng Nie & Long Qian, 2021. "Do Quarantine Experiences and Attitudes Towards COVID-19 Affect the Distribution of Mental Health in China? A Quantile Regression Analysis," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 1925-1942, October.
    13. Sendhil Mullainathan & Marianne Bertrand, 2001. "Do People Mean What They Say? Implications for Subjective Survey Data," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 67-72, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel J. Benjamin & Kristen Cooper & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball, 2023. "From Happiness Data to Economic Conclusions," NBER Working Papers 31727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. M. D. R. Evans & Jonathan Kelley & C. G. E. Kelley & S. M. C. Kelley, 2020. "Income Inequality in the Great Recession did not Harm Subjective Health in Europe, 2003–2012," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1451-1473, November.
    3. Drakopoulos, Stavros A., 2023. "The Economics of Wellbeing and Psychology: An Historical and Methodological Viewpoint," MPRA Paper 117891, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. David W. Johnston & Olena Stavrunova, 2021. "Subjective Wellbeing Dynamics," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(4), pages 518-529, December.
    5. Marcus Klemm, 2022. "Well-being Changes from Year to Year: A Comparison of Current, Remembered and Predicted Life Satisfaction," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 1669-1681, April.
    6. Burger,Martijn & Hendriks,Martijn & Ianchovichina,Elena, 2022. "Anatomy of Brazil’s Subjective Well-Being : A Tale of Growing Discontent and Polarization in the 2010s," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9924, The World Bank.
    7. Martijn Burger & Martijn Hendriks & Elena Ianchovichina, 2022. "Happy but Unequal: Differences in Subjective Well-Being across Individuals and Space in Colombia," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1343-1387, June.
    8. Kelsey J. O'Connor, 2020. "Life Satisfaction and Noncognitive Skills: Effects on the Likelihood of Unemployment," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(4), pages 568-604, November.
    9. Ambrey, Christopher L. & Fleming, Christopher M., 2011. "The influence of the natural environment and climate on life satisfaction in Australia," 2011 Conference (55th), February 8-11, 2011, Melbourne, Australia 100548, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    10. Martin, Ralf & Muûls, Mirabelle & de Preux, Laure B. & Wagner, Ulrich J., 2012. "Anatomy of a paradox: Management practices, organizational structure and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 208-223.
    11. Nicholas Bloom & Raffaella Sadun & John Van Reenen, 2015. "Do Private Equity Owned Firms Have Better Management Practices?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(5), pages 442-446, May.
    12. Anna Fabry & Goedele Broeck & Miet Maertens, 2022. "Gender Inequality and Job Satisfaction in Senegal: A Multiple Mediation Model," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 2291-2311, June.
    13. Mujcic, Redzo & Frijters, Paul, 2013. "Still Not Allowed on the Bus: It Matters If You're Black or White!," IZA Discussion Papers 7300, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Sergio Sousa, 2010. "Small-scale changes in wealth and attitudes toward risk," Discussion Papers 2010-11, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    15. Brodeur, Abel & Clark, Andrew E. & Fleche, Sarah & Powdthavee, Nattavudh, 2021. "COVID-19, lockdowns and well-being: Evidence from Google Trends," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    16. Andrés, Antonio R. & Halicioglu, Ferda, 2010. "Determinants of suicides in Denmark: Evidence from time series data," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(2-3), pages 263-269, December.
    17. Tomáš Želinský & Martina Mysíková & Thesia I. Garner, 2022. "Trends in Subjective Income Poverty Rates in the European Union," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 34(5), pages 2493-2516, October.
    18. Lex Borghans & Bas ter Weel, 2011. "Computers, skills and wages," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(29), pages 4607-4622.
    19. Lamar Pierce & Jason Snyder, 2015. "Unethical Demand and Employee Turnover," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 131(4), pages 853-869, November.
    20. Olken, Benjamin A., 2009. "Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(7-8), pages 950-964, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:18:y:2023:i:1:d:10.1007_s11482-023-10149-0. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.