Background. Social connections are crucial for our health and well-being. This is especially true during times of high uncertainty and distress, such as during the COVID-19 lockdown. This period was characterized by unprecedented physical distancing (often communicated as social distancing) measures resulting in significant changes to people's usual social lives. Given the potential effects of this disruption on people's well-being, it is crucial to identify factors which are associated with negative health outcomes, and conversely, those that promote resilience during times of adversity. Aims. We examined the relationship between individuals' levels of social connectedness during lockdown and self-reported stress, worry, and fatigue. Method: Survey data were collected from 981 individuals in a representative sample of Austrian citizens. Data collection occurred during the last week of a six-week nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The final sample consisted of 902 participants. Participants were asked to complete validated questionnaires to assess levels of social connectedness as well as measures of perceived stress, worry-both general and COVID-19 specific-and symptoms of fatigue during the previous two weeks. Results. Our results demonstrate that greater social connectedness during the lockdown period was associated with lower levels of perceived stress, as well as general and COVID-19-specific worries. Furthermore, we found a negative relationship between This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated self-reported factors associated with public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = −0.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.

Background: Social connections are crucial for our health and well-being. This is especially true during times of high uncertainty and distress, such as during the COVID-19 lockdown. This period was characterized by unprecedented social distancing measures resulting in significant changes to people’s usual social lives. Given the potential effects of this disruption on people’s wellbeing, it is crucial to identify factors which are associated with negative health outcomes, and conversely, those that promote resilience during times of adversity. Aims: We examined the relationship between individuals’ levels of social connectedness during lockdown and self-reported stress, worry, and fatigue. Method: Survey data was collected from 981 individuals in a representative sample of Austrian citizens. Data collection occurred during the last week of a six-week nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The final sample consisted of 902 participants. Participants were asked to complete validated questionnaires to assess levels of social connectedness as well as measures of perceived stress, worry—both general and COVID-19 specific—and symptoms of fatigue during the previous two weeks. Results: Our results demonstrate that greater social connectedness during the lockdown period was associated with lower levels of perceived stress, as well as general and COVID-19 specific worries. Furthermore, we found a negative relationship between fatigue and social connectedness, which was mediated by feelings of stress, general worries, and COVID-19 specific worries—respectively, indicating that individuals with smaller network sizes, who were highly distressed during the pandemic, were also likely to report feeling more fatigued. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the important role that social connections play in promoting resilience by buffering against negative physical and mental health outcomes, particularly in times of adversity.

Acute psychosocial stress activates the physiological and endocrine stress systems and increases the subjective emotional experience of stress. While considerable efforts have been made to link changes in the activity of the biological stress systems with changes in the subjective emotional experience of stress, results so far have been mixed, at best. To investigate this association in a study employing experimental manipulation, we pharmacologically suppressed both the autonomic and the endocrine stress responses, and investigated the effects of acute psychosocial stress on the emotional stress experience. 22 healthy men and women received dexamethasone (2mg) the day before, and propranolol (80mg) one hour before psychosocial stress induction. A control group (n=24) received placebo pills on each occasion. Salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase and heart-rate responses to stress were assessed before, during and after stress induction. Subjective stress, mood, and state self-esteem assessments were made before and after stress. In the pharmacological manipulation group, subjects demonstrated no increase in autonomic or endocrine stress response, after exposure to psychosocial stress. Despite these effects, the emotional stress experience was intact in this group and identical to the control group. Participants in the experimental group showed an increase in subjective stress, greater mood dysregulation, and lower state self-esteem following stress exposure, with the response magnitude comparable to the control group. Our findings suggest that at least acutely, the physiological stress arousal systems and the emotional experience of stress are dissociated. This raises important questions about the efficacy of our measurement of subjective stress, and the unique contributions of the autonomic and endocrine responses in the subjective stress experience.