Abstract
Social connection is important across the life course, but overall levels have been declining. The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique context to examine social connectedness and adaptive capacity in times of social adversity. We used a parallel mixed method design to collect online survey data from a representative U.S. sample (N = 359). Applying an exploratory sequential approach, we used a general linear model multivariate approach to repeated measures to test for differences in participants’ perceptions of social connectedness by time and age category and qualitative analysis to gain insights about disrupted social contexts. Results indicated that social connectedness decreased after mitigation restrictions for all age groups, but individuals in emerging and late adulthood felt the greatest impact. Two themes emerged: differing emotional responses to altered communication and intentionality of maintaining and/or creating social connections. Experiences of social connectedness need to be understood as a function of life stage and developmental timing.
Social connection is important across the life span and continues to be a research priority for scholars (e.g., Bloomberg et al., 1994; Holt-Lunstad, 2020). Social connection refers to different types of physical and emotional contact (Holt-Lunstad, 2020), while social connectedness describes a sense of belonging, or subjective psychological bond between individuals and groups of others (Haslam et al., 2015). As Haslam et al. (2015) discussed, there are numerous concepts used interchangeably to imply social connectedness, yet overall findings suggest the importance of social relationships for good health. Typically, the environment provides opportunities for social connectedness through social activities, but the environment can also deprive individuals of these resources (Martin et al., 2001). A salient and recent example is how the restrictions implemented to mitigate the spread of the COVID-19 virus disrupted the social and economic fabrics of life, exacerbating existing challenges. Opportunities for daily in-person interactions, which are an important mechanism to promote social connectedness (Cigna, 2018; Montpetit et al., 2017), were vastly reduced at the onset of the pandemic. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine differences across the lifespan in perceptions of social connectedness and explore adults’ adaptive capacity in times of social adversity (i.e., using the pandemic as a unique example of adversity for this study).
Overall levels of social connection have been trending lower than previously recorded (Cigna, 2018; Wrzus et al., 2013). Researchers declared a “loneliness epidemic” deserving recognition as a public health priority (Cigna, 2018; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2017). Loneliness indicates a lack of social connection (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2017). Adults of all ages who are dissatisfied with family, social, or community life are more likely to feel lonely or isolated (Bialik, 2018). One study found that one in three adults over the age of 45 reported loneliness, with low-income older adults at greatest risk (Anderson & Thayer, 2018). Another study reported the highest prevalence of loneliness among young adults, compared to middle age and older adults (Child & Lawton, 2019).
Sources of social connection may differ across the lifespan. The height of social connectedness occurs at age 25 (i.e., in emerging adulthood) and declines thereafter until age 45, where it remains stable for about a decade, before another steady decline (Bhattacharya et al., 2016). For young adults, support from family, friends, and romantic partners mediated the burden of stress on wellbeing (Lee et al., 2018). Typically, as individuals age, they desire fewer but deeper relationships (English & Carstensen, 2014). In adulthood and old age, friend relationships predicted psychological wellbeing to the same extent as family ties (Blieszner et al., 2019).
The COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent mitigation efforts have disrupted daily and social life, forcefully altering human interaction. Evidence suggests that the impact of the pandemic varies by specific developmental stages primarily because many disrupted social activities such as work, education, marriage, childrearing, and retirement, are strongly associated with the timing of lives and cultural expectations of age-graded social roles. In addition to considering social time and age/stages, life course theory also highlights the principle of linked lives by recognizing how individuals’ lives are shaped by and shape the lives of others (Giele & Elder, 1998). The concept of linked lives describes the interdependency and integration of social relationships with family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues with one's own life. As stay-at-home recommendations due to the pandemic required most individuals to transition from social activities experienced outside home to that of within/from home, the long-term path of their life trajectories might have been altered. Using a life course framework enables us to analyze the impact of the pandemic on individual lives, with a premise that our lives are interconnected and embedded in historical context. The pandemic provided a unique context to study adults’ experiences with social connection.
Purpose
Guided by principles of life course theory, the purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in perceptions of social connectedness across distinct developmental age categories and to explore adults’ adaptive capacity in times of social adversity (i.e., using the pandemic as a unique example of adversity). With so many unknowns about the new research topic (i.e., the ongoing uncertainties of the pandemic), using mixed methods was appropriate and ideal as it elucidates more information than can be obtained in a single method alone and highlights participants’ point of view beyond the quantitative results (Creswell & Plano-Clark, 2017).
First, we characterized the participants and identified age-based differences in sociodemographic indicators. Second, we evaluated perceived differences in social connectedness by time (prior to and at onset of the pandemic), age, and their interaction. Third, we contextualized the findings using participants’ qualitative insights. These findings help identify subgroups that were more vulnerable or resilient to the social disruptions caused by COVID-19 mitigation efforts. Our first research question (quantitative) was: Is there a change in perceptions of social connectedness over time (main effect); by age category (main effect); and over time by age category (interaction effect)? We hypothesized that all age categories would perceive a decline in social connectedness over time; individuals in emerging adulthood would perceive the most significant negative impact. Our second research question (qualitative) was: How does individuals’ perceived sense of social connectedness during times of social adversity (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) differ across distinct developmental age categories?
Methods
Participant Recruitment and Data Collection
We recruited 403 participants through Prolific Academic, an established participant recruitment website that uses Census Bureau population group estimates to obtain a sample that is representative of the age, sex, and ethnic distribution in the United States (Peer et al., 2017). Participants were eligible for this study if they lived in the U.S., spoke English, and were at least 18 years old. Participants consented to a three-part study, available at sequential periods between April 21 and May 6, 2020, and completed a battery of quantitative scales and open-ended questions (see Blinded for more information). For the current analysis, our sample comprised 359 adults who completed at least the first two parts of the survey, met criteria for completing attention checks in the survey, and provided their age. The University's Institutional Review Board certified this study as exempt.
Study Design
We used a parallel mixed method design to collect data and analyzed with an exploratory sequential approach (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017) to offer a better understanding of the issue than either method alone. While both quantitative and qualitative data were collected at the same time, qualitative data analysis helped explain the quantitative results by contextualizing the experiences of social isolation and connectedness at the onset of restriction efforts to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
Quantitative Strand
Outcome Variable
Our outcome variable of interest was social connectedness. Participants responded to the 6-item Friendship Scale (Hawthorne, 2006) that measures important dimensions of social isolation and social connection. The measure has been validated among adults broadly (Hawthorne, 2008) and has practical utility when parsimonious measures are needed. We asked participants to indicate how often they resonated with each item on a 5-point Likert scale (range from 0 = not at all to 4 = almost always), prior to and at the start of physical distancing restrictions and currently. For example, participants saw the following statements: “It has been easy to relate to others” and “I felt isolated from other people.” This brief, user-friendly scale had acceptable reliability (prior α = .77; current α = .83). We calculated a sum score from the six items (range 0–24) and interpreted the value where a lower score indicates experiences of social isolation, and a higher score indicates experiences of social connection (Hawthorne, 2008).
Sociodemographic Variables
Participants provided a range of sociodemographic and psychosocial individual and family-level variables, which helped characterize the sample (see Blinded for Review for more information). Of particular importance is how we assigned participants to an ordinal variable to assess potential differences attributable to development stage: emerging (ages 18–25), early (ages 26–44), middle (45–64), and late (65 + ) adulthood (Arnett et al., 2014; Levinson, 1986). We moved beyond the extreme age groups design which typically compares young to old adults, and consider differences in emerging, early, middle, and late adulthood.
Analysis
We conducted univariate statistics (mean, frequency, standard deviation) to characterize the sample. Then, we conducted bivariate analyses (chi-square; one-way ANOVA) to examine differences in sociodemographic characteristics across age-categories. We used a repeated measures general linear model (GLM) multivariate approach to test for the differences in participants’ perceptions of social connection by time (within-subjects factor) and age category (between-subjects factor). This is an appropriate statistical approach to longitudinal analyses when there are only two time points available (as was the case in this study). Most other approaches to longitudinal data analysis require at least three time points so that individual slope parameters can be estimated. The GLM multivariate approach to repeated measures used here is preferable to the traditional repeated analysis of variance because it makes fewer statistical assumptions.
We examined the correlations between social connectedness and the demographic variables to identify possible control variables for the analysis. Since only one demographic variable showed significant correlations (i.e., sex), this was the only control variable used in the final analysis. Pillai's trace test statistic, which is a powerful and robust statistic and appropriate when there are uneven cell sizes or small sample sizes (Seber, 1984), was used to calculate the associated F statistic for each test. Then, we conducted GLM simple main effects, separately for prior and current social connection; we tested for the linear, quadratic, and cubic effects of age category. Together, this trend analysis indicated whether there was a change in perceptions of social connection over time, by age category, and the interaction of time by age category.
Qualitative Strand
For qualitative analysis, we used participants’ narrative responses to a question, “What changes have you noticed in your ability to socially connect with others as a result of the social distancing recommendations or requirements?” Three researchers utilized open coding to establish coding schemes by identifying emerging topics in interview transcripts (Berg & Lune, 2011) resulting in 21 codes. We used a consensus approach through immersion in the transcripts and crystallization of potential codes for inter-rater reliability. Then, we systematically coded transcripts based on the coding scheme established in the previous stage. An iterative process of induction and deduction was performed until consensus was reached. In the final phase, three coders compared and contrasted all codes across age categories and identified major themes.
Quantitative Results
The average age of participants was 46.0 years, with slightly more females in the sample (51.4%) than males. The majority of the sample was White (68.8%). Most participants self-rated their health as very good/excellent (41.5%) or good (41.8%) health, though more than half had at least one chronic condition (56.5%). Just over half the participants were married/partnered (51.5%) and nearly 20% lived alone. See Table 1 for more information.
Sociodemographic Characteristics and Differences Across Life Stage at Onset of Physical Distancing Restrictions to Mitigate Spread of COVID-19.
Notes: Total N and % may not add up due to missingness.
Due to small subsample, “Other” includes Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and multi-racial.
Main effects of time and age category were significant, F(1,348) = 48.84, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.12; age category, F(3,348) = 5.24, p < 0.01, partial eta squared = 0.04. As shown in Figure 1, social connection was higher prior to the pandemic compared to at the onset of the pandemic, and the degree of social connection increased by age category. However, the two main effects were qualified by an interaction between time and age, F(3,348) = 2.60, p = .05, partial eta squared = 0.02. This interaction was followed up with trend analyses run separately for ratings of social connection prior to and at the onset of the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, the relationship between age category and social connection was both linear, B = 2.49, SE = 0.67, p <0.001, and quadratic, B = 1.31, SE = 0.58, p <0.05; however, at the onset of the pandemic it was only linear, B = 2.28, SE = 0.69, p = .001. The quadratic effect at the onset of the pandemic was not significant, B = 0.18, SE = 0.59, p = 0.77. As seen in the figure, individuals in emerging and late adulthood felt the greatest impact of changing social connectedness. Next, we focus on qualitative insights to help explain and contextualize these findings.
A Comparison of adjusted means for perceived change in social connectedness by time and age category. Note. This figure demonstrates perceived changes in social connectedness (range 0-24) by time (prior to and at onset of COVID-19 restrictions) and by age category. We controlled for sex.
Qualitative Results
Our qualitative analysis identified two main themes regarding social connectedness brought about by social distancing requirements and recommendations: 1) different emotional responses to altered communication and 2) intentionality of maintaining and/or creating social connections using communications technology. While most participants experienced disruptions in their social life, it is also important to note that approximately 16% of participants indicated little change after the imposition of social distancing regulations. Among those who reported changes in their social connectedness, we identified both common experiences across age groups as well as nuanced differences among developmental age categories. Illustrative quotations are incorporated below.
Different Emotional Responses to Altered Communication
The majority of participants reported that social distancing regulations altered their ways of communicating with other people. There appeared to be two opposite emotional experiences brought about by social distancing, with one group of participants reporting a sense of decreased connection with others and the other group reporting feelings of increased connection. The sense of decreased connections was often attributed to a lack of physical interaction and perceived disingenuousness. Typical comments reflecting such sentiments included, “…social distancing takes away considerably from socially connecting—from casual encounters with strangers to more familiar situations. For me, body language and physical cues are much more difficult to read and interactions have become much more mechanical and stressed” and “social interactions do not feel as genuine” when communicating via technology.
In contrast, a sense of increased connection emerged when individuals experienced increased frequency of contact via technology, expanded breadth of contacts (i.e., re-connecting with old friends), and/or exchanges of emotional support under unprecedented challenging circumstances. Such sentiments were reflected in comments such as “I actually find it easier to connect with others because many of my friends are working from home and/or following stay at home orders”; “I can call people that were more acquaintances than friends. We’re getting closer, the mutual fear is making us need each other more.” While the effects of social distancing on social connections were similar across different age categories, there appeared to be nuanced differences that most likely reflected age-related differences in role and available time to socialize.
Our findings suggested that the mental and emotional toll of the pandemic has been hardest on individuals in emerging adulthood. Many in this age group reported a sense of isolation and emotional disturbance, evidenced by comments such as, “It's harder to feel important in someone's’ life when you hardly see them. It's hard being there for friends when you can't see them for weeks” and “Sometimes my friends or family don't have time to talk on the phone/on a Zoom call…I know this just means they’re busy, but sometimes I feel like it means I’m not important in their life.” The strong emphasis on personal relationships with friends, family members, and romantic partners was observed most frequently in this age category, as exemplified by the following quote: “I’ve needed to depend more on my relationships with other people to fulfill the restlessness for social interaction.”
In contrast, individuals in middle and late adulthood, particularly those aged 65 and older, mentioned a wider range of social contexts than those in emerging and early adulthood. Their remarks showed that they missed having casual conversations at stores and exchanging smiles with passersby. As one participant reflected, …it's also hard to feel connected when I don't have the minor or passive interactions I used to –I don't chat with the office admin at work, or that friendly acquaintance whose name I still don't know but who I would sit next to on the bus every day.
This comment and similar comments by older participants on incidental encounters with strangers were particularly striking, especially since such comments were entirely absent from the responses of participants in emerging adulthood.
Furthermore, individuals in middle and late adulthood were more likely to frame social distancing as a shared social experience and to make comments indicating sympathy toward others: “Because everyone is going through the same thing, I feel like I can connect more to others in some ways”; “We all have something in common now. There is an invisible bonding that in some respects transcends all other group identification. We’re all survivors I suppose.” This sense of shared experience encouraged some people to reach out to others: “I have actually reached out more as a result of this crisis, specifically to my neighbors, to let them know they can reach out to me if they need anything.” Conversely, when an individual did not actively reach out or feel they could offer support to others, a sense of isolation may be a result. One participant's comment represents this sentiment: I feel a sharpened, painful sense of having little of value to offer others, and because I’m mildly and ambiguously sick, I cannot check in on neighbors or do other similar things to feel useful. I occasionally do something a bit useful online, but it's not very gratifying so far.
A desire to be “useful” or concern to “not to be a burden” to others was frequently observed among individuals in late adulthood. For example, one participant indicated “with some people, even close family and friends, I might not raise fears of my own because I don't want to scare or burden them.” Perhaps because they are considerate of other people's life priorities, individuals in late adulthood were more likely to express appreciation for their connections and quality time spent with their loved ones.
Intentionality of Maintaining and/or Creating Social Connections Using Communications Technology
Not surprisingly, in lieu of in-person interactions, communications technology has become the primary means of interacting with other people during the social distancing regulations. Most participants identified at least one type of technology used to maintain social connections with each other. Interestingly, participants in middle- and late adulthood were much more likely to indicate the intentionality of maintaining and/or creating social connections using communications technology than participants in emerging adulthood. Participants in emerging adulthood either did not make any explicit statements about the intentionality of making social connections or, if they commented at all, expressed their lack of intention to connect with others reflected by this comment: “I don't really have the energy to message anyone I know, and I also feel anxious about reaching out.”
This, however, may not mean that individuals in emerging adulthood do not long for social connection. To the contrary, as discussed in the previous section, participants in this age group emphasized their need for personal relationships. Young adults may have already been using various technological tools such as FaceTime, videogame chatrooms, Zoom and other online communications platforms as means of communication prior to the pandemic. Thus, they might not have felt a need to change their means of communication or to make a conscious effort to find new ways of connecting with their friends and families. The following comment is exemplifying: “I have not noticed any changes personally because I almost always socially connect with people digitally like playing video games with my friends.” Another commented, “I have noticed a slight negative change in my ability to socially connect, but this can be alleviated using online meeting applications.”
Individuals in later adulthood, on the other hand, showed strong indication that they made a conscious effort to connect and re-connect with others both physically and digitally. One participant succinctly said, “I am making more of an effort to contact my family that lives in other states.” Another described their efforts as follows: I’ve included a weekly visit with my kids and grandkids. I drive to their homes, which are about 20 min away. I stand on their lawn, and they sit on their porch, staying over 6′ apart and yet provides me the opportunity to see their faces in person not on FaceTime or Zoom. I have been willing to do FaceTime and Zoom (with church groups) which I did not do before.
As seen in the comments above, many individuals age 65 + missed face-to-face interactions and physical contact, including hugging. However, they also adapted to the new environment by learning to use previously unfamiliar communication technology or by increasing their use of such technology (i.e., “I text and message more now in a day than I would normally do in a week.”). Other individuals in both middle- and late adulthood also shared the creative ways they came up with to make social connections such as organizing online group of friends, video chats, stay-at-home scavenger hunts, and zoom parties. One participant said: I organized an online group of friends from work, and we are using it a lot. I also included some others who were not really part of the group. Also, I have done two video chats with my family who live a long way away that did not happen before.
However, not all adults adopted communication technology with ease. Some people, regardless of their age, felt frustration toward heavy reliance on technology, and even indicated resistance to using new technology. One participant in late adulthood explained, I haven't tried to connect with anyone online, any contacts I have are from walking around or out and about. There is really nothing I want from a virtual connection. Maybe that will change as the reality sets in how long we will need to maintain distance.
Another in early adulthood echoed his sentiment: “things like Zoom and video conference calls help but they are not a true replacement.”
Taken together, our findings indicate that restrictions implemented to curb the spread of COVID-19 created a historical context where most U.S. adults experienced shared challenges. However, nuanced differences emerged by different age categories most evident in individuals’ narrative accounts. In general, individuals in emerging adulthood faced more emotional challenges than other age categories while those in late adulthood showed strong intentionality to maintain and/or create social connections by showing willingness to learn new communication technology.
Discussion
Using COVID-19 as a unique example of social adversity, we found that individuals across all points of the lifespan perceived decreased social connection, particularly among emerging and older adults. Unprecedented societal changes occurred because of physical distancing restrictions implemented to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Settersten et al. (2020) provided several examples that demonstrate how the pandemic will be interpreted through different historical lenses because historical experiences can and do affect individuals’ response to (and effects of) the pandemic. We use tenets of life course theory as an organizing framework relevant for thinking about and understanding social connectedness during the pandemic. Specifically, historical timing and place, agency, and linked lives are essential to our discussion of findings.
Typically, young adults are in a developmental period when they should be experiencing the peak of their social connectedness, but instead faced restrictions that compromised their ability to nurture social relationships. The lack of social connectedness, or social isolation, is seen as a multidimensional construct defined by few or infrequent social contacts (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2017) and has been linked to adverse health behaviors and outcomes, particularly among people in poor health (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015). Prior to the pandemic, researchers were beginning to recognize social isolation and loneliness as a growing health concern, especially among young adults (Whitley, 2020). Unsurprisingly, the pandemic has only exacerbated the decline. This is concerning, given the body of evidence linking social isolation and disconnection to premature mortality (Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015).
Early research about the experiences of COVID-19 suggests that younger adults have faced a different set of challenges, reporting more stress, life changes, and social isolation due to the pandemic (Birditt et al., 2021). Given this social trend, it makes sense that young adults in our study reported the lowest level of social connectedness prior to the pandemic, and perceived significant decreases in social connectedness at the onset of the physical distancing restrictions. This also aligns with research by Lee and colleagues (2020) who found loneliness had increased among young adults at the onset of the pandemic. Our data shows that young adults were not intentional about maintaining and/or creating social connections via technology, or at least they did not recognize the need to expand their communication via technology, perhaps because digital communications had been already a part of their daily lives. Young adults’ narratives indicated that physical distancing fostered feelings of isolation, frustration, and emotional disturbances. Conversely, while adults in middle- and late adulthood also experienced significant decline in perceived social connectedness, they applied multiple strategies to adjust to this historical event. This aligns with previous research suggesting older adults are less negatively impacted by negative social events (Russell et al., 2012), which also reinforces the notion that emotion regulation improves with age (Carstensten et al., 1999). Older adults’ ability to adjust to the pandemic is important, as Sharifian and Grühn (2019) found that social participation buffers age-related declines in psychological well-being. Adults in middle- and late adulthood were more likely to appreciate their community, reach out to family, friends, and neighbors, and recognize the shared humanity of the experience. It is noteworthy that they made conscious effort to stay connected with their social network through technology. Life course theory emphasizes the importance of agency, which people exercise on their own behalf. In the social distancing context, they made choices to reach out and learn new technology which became a building block toward connectedness. The intentionality—or agency—of older adults seemed to function as a protective factor against the adverse effects of social isolation. It invokes Erikson's concept of generativity (Ehlman & Ligon, 2012), or the propensity and willingness to engage in acts that promote the wellbeing of others, especially younger generations. The apparent intentionality behind fostering connections, and harnessing creative ways to connect, seems like a potentially good mechanism for considering interventions to promote social connectedness.
The COVID-19 pandemic forced many of us to alter the way we socially connect, which resulted in disruption to our social network and support systems where our lives are embedded. In other words, our social capital significantly decreased, at least initially. Our findings clearly document that our lives are interdependent with each other (i.e., the tenet of linked lives), evidenced by our participants’ strong desire to connect and re-connect with other people, provide support to a community, and care for and be valued by other people. This interdependency is critical to positive health outcomes across the lifespan. Physical distancing measures left people painfully aware of how much their wellbeing is linked to others and how much they take for granted the ability to be with others. Individuals in emerging and late adulthood perceived the greatest changes related to social connectedness, though older adults appeared to display more resilience in making conscious efforts to stay connected. Both life stages are a critical time for relationships and friendships and these findings support those established developmental trends. In contextualizing these findings with a life course lens on social changes, timing, and transitions, there are developmental differences between emerging and late adulthood. They differ in terms of time perspective, where younger adults are more likely to be future-oriented, seeing a vast horizon of life and time left to live ahead of them. Older adults are more aware that time is finite and are more likely to be focused on the present than the future. This makes them more attuned to immediate joys in life. In the face of decreased social capital, many older adults took concrete steps to preserve their control over an uncertain situation by employing various coping strategies.
Life course theory points to the situational imperative where a new situation requires new behaviors, as seen in older adults’ adaptive behaviors. It also postulates that if an individual cannot exercise control or adapt to a new situation successfully, a sense of hopelessness sets in. Globally, high levels of stress, anxiety and depression during the pandemic have been reported (Varma et al., 2021). However, age-specific interventions are recommended to address the unique vulnerabilities associated with being younger (Turna et al., 2021; Varma et al., 2021). It is likely that emotional disturbances felt by many in emerging adulthood were caused by their reduced sense of control over the new situation. Researchers have established that older people have better emotion regulation, more advanced coping strategies, and greater ability to optimize positive and minimize negative affective experiences, compared to younger people (e.g., Blanchard-Fields et al., 2004). Initial research on the pandemic focused on older populations and revealed their resilience in terms of psychological coping and adaptability to adversity (Fuller & Huseth-Zosel, 2020), all the while maintaining social connection to reduce loneliness and sustain wellbeing (Macdonald & Hülür, 2021). This highlights some of the developmental strengths that occur in later life and may also serve to benefit older people in navigating the challenging circumstances of the pandemic, reflecting some of the resilience displayed in our findings. So, for younger adults, the disruption caused by the pandemic may feel especially distressing perhaps because they do not have a long history of experiences or accumulated resources to draw upon as they re-adjust their goals/expectations and learn to adapt to changes/disappointments.
Finally, it is important to mention that, while most striking contrasts were observed between emerging and later adulthood, individuals in early and middle adulthood were also experiencing changes in perceived social connectedness. Considering typical social roles in these life stages, individuals are likely mired in family/work responsibilities and shouldering a heavy caregiving load with young children and aging parents, making them acutely aware of the pandemic’s toll. It is also worth noting that 16% of participants suggested no or little impact of social distancing on their sense of social connectedness. The most frequently cited reasons for minimal impact of social distancing on social life included being an “introvert” and having an ability to retain/maintain in-depth social connections with a select group of individuals by relying heavily on technology for communication even before the pandemic. Among people who identified themselves as introverts, their comments indicated that they felt “relieved” from a pressure to interact with other people. Life course theory explains that under condition of crisis or critical transition, people tend to rely on their most prominent personality characteristics—in this case, being an introvert—in order to regain control over the situation.
Strengths and limitations. This study contributes knowledge about social connectedness at the onset of the pandemic and efforts to promote social wellbeing, distinct by developmental life stage. We used a nationally representative sample, modest in size for quantitative data analysis but rather robust for qualitative data analysis. To support the quality of data collection, we included attention checks and used validated measures. We used self-reported recall data (i.e., social connectedness prior to the pandemic), which some consider a limitation; however, doing so allowed us to evaluate perceived change in social wellbeing. While our participants provided their qualitative responses toward a question on social change in a written form— and thus some may argue that they are limited — we were surprised by the richness of information that emerged from the data. Our qualitative analysis on more than 300 comments assured us that we have reached thematic saturation. Taken together, our analysis of narrative responses enhanced our interpretation of the quantitative findings. These data were collected early in the pandemic, so it will be important to continue to address the longer-term effects of these disruptions on health and wellbeing one year, or multiple years later. This is particularly important given the aforementioned decline in overall levels of social connection prior to the pandemic.
Conclusion
The pandemic is likely the historical event of our lifetime and an important topic to study. Our study demonstrates how pandemic experiences need to be understood as a function of life stage. We need to be aware of how the ages of people provide us with insight and perspective into the way they understand and relate to the world. The developmental timing of experiencing social adversity like the pandemic caused different experiences. Prior to the pandemic, individuals across the lifespan struggled with social isolation (Brown & Munson, 2020). However, enhancing social connectedness is vital, as it is associated with desirable outcomes, including better health. In the months and years following the pandemic, it will be essential to develop interventions designed to promote social connectedness for individuals of all ages. Researchers must consider the impacts of earlier experience on later life satisfaction. Interventions need to alter the course of the loneliness epidemic so that individuals benefit from the positive outcomes associated with social connectedness, including advances in life expectancy, mental health, and cognitive health (Haslam et al., 2015). To address salient concerns and challenges adequately, design elements for interventions must consider how individuals at different points in the lifespan uniquely experienced the pandemic.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the study participants and members of the Washington State University COVID-19 and health behaviors study team including Alana Anderson, Anne E. Cox, Alexandra Jackson, and Elizabeth Weybright for their support with this project.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Washington State University Vancouver mini-grant and a Washington State University College of Education Collaborative grant.
