National Longitudinal Mediators of Psychological Distress During Stringent COVID-19 Lockdown

Abstract

We leverage powerful time-series data from a national longitudinal sample measured before the COVID-19 pandemic and during the world's eighth most stringent COVID-19 lockdown (New Zealand, March-April 2020, N = 940) and apply Bayesian multilevel mediation models to rigorously test five theories of pandemic distress. Findings: (1) during lockdown, rest diminished distress; without rest psychological distress would have been about 1.74 times greater; (2) an elevated sense of community reduced distress, a little, but elevated government satisfaction was inert. Thus, the psychological benefits of lockdown extended to political discontents; (3) most lockdown distress arose from dissatisfaction from personal relationships. Social captivity, more than isolation, proved challenging; (4-5) Health and business satisfaction were stable; were they challenged substantially more distress would have ensued. Thus, lockdown benefited psychological health by affording safety, yet only because income remained secure. These national longitudinal findings clarify the mental health effects of stringent infectious disease containment.

Shifting themes in the cognitive and evolutionary sciences of religion

“…The study samples in CESR research are diverse geographically and demographically and include several large-scale studies (see, e.g., Gervais et al, 2017;Hoogeveen, Altay, et al, 2023;Lang et al, 2019;Purzycki et al, 2016;van Mulukom et al, 2023). Similarly, there is an increased emphasis on a proper causal assessment in understanding the effects of religious beliefs and behaviors on relevant outcomes (e.g., cooperation; Major-Smith, 2023), and while not mainstream yet, we believe that a proper causal assessment will be ever more important in the next decade of CESR (Bulbulia et al, 2024;Bulbulia, 2023;Purzycki, Bendixen, et al, 2022). We hope to see these practices play a prominent role in CESR research; and while we do not think that the target article authors would necessarily disagree, the fact that they omitted these developments from their review suggests that we may differ on assessing the importance of these developments.…”