Individuals with higher education experienced a more depressive symptoms & more decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19; those of highest levels of income experienced more decrease in life satisfaction

Wanberg, C. R., Csillag, B., Douglass, R. P., Zhou, L., & Pollard, M. S. (2020). Socioeconomic status and well-being during COVID-19: A resource-based examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, Oct 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000831

Abstract: The authors assess levels and within-person changes in psychological well-being (i.e., depressive symptoms and life satisfaction) from before to during the COVID-19 pandemic for individuals in the United States, in general and by socioeconomic status (SES). The data is from 2 surveys of 1,143 adults from RAND Corporation’s nationally representative American Life Panel, the first administered between April–June, 2019 and the second during the initial peak of the pandemic in the United States in April, 2020. Depressive symptoms during the pandemic were higher than population norms before the pandemic. Depressive symptoms increased from before to during COVID-19 and life satisfaction decreased. Individuals with higher education experienced a greater increase in depressive symptoms and a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 in comparison to those with lower education. Supplemental analysis illustrates that income had a curvilinear relationship with changes in well-being, such that individuals at the highest levels of income experienced a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 than individuals with lower levels of income. We draw on conservation of resources theory and the theory of fundamental social causes to examine four key mechanisms (perceived financial resources, perceived control, interpersonal resources, and COVID-19-related knowledge/news consumption) underlying the relationship between SES and well-being during COVID-19. These resources explained changes in well-being for the sample as a whole but did not provide insight into why individuals of higher education experienced a greater decline in well-being from before to during COVID-19.

KEYWORDS: socioeconomic status, conservation of resources, well-being, COVID-19

Discussion

A nationally representative sample in the United States displayed an increase in depressive symptoms and a decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19. Levels of depressive symptoms during COVID-19 were also higher than previously established norms (Tomitaka et al., 2018).

Contributing to the important goal of illustrating how the pandemic is affecting individuals of lower and higher SES, our study showed that during the first peak of the pandemic in the United States, higher education was positively associated with depressive symptoms and negatively associated with life satisfaction. This was contrary to expectations because individuals with lower SES generally have lower well-being. Consistent with expectations, higher income was associated with lower depressive symptoms and higher life satisfaction during the pandemic.

Assessment of change from before to during the pandemic is important to diagnose how the pandemic affected well-being. Individuals with higher education experienced a greater increase in depressive symptoms and a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 than individuals with lower education. Income did not have linear relationship with changes in well-being, but supplemental analysis supported a curvilinear relationship showing that individuals at higher levels of income experienced a greater decrease in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19 than individuals with lower levels of income (see Figure 2).

These findings provide a partial replication of the Axios-Ipsos poll, which indicated that in the United States, a higher proportion of higher SES individuals reported a decline in their emotional well-being due to the pandemic than those of lower SES (Talev, 2020). A major difference between our study and the Axios-Ipsos poll (beyond our use of comparison data from before the pandemic) is their use of an income and education composite to index SES. Income and education capture different parts of SES and can result in divergent empirical findings (e.g., Christie & Barling, 2009; DeGarmo, Forgatch, & Martinez, 1999), which we also reveal in this study.

We examined four resource-based mechanisms to try to explain how SES may transmit to lower and reduced well-being. Tested mediators did not provide good explanatory value, especially for the effect of education. The one significant mediator, COVID-related knowledge, contributed to an increase in life satisfaction from before to during COVID-19, rather than a decrease. As such, COVID-related knowledge was not a valuable explanatory mechanism to explain why individuals with more education displayed an overall well-being decline. Further insight is thus needed. In supplemental analyses, education was not associated with job loss due to COVID-19, r = −.06, p > .05. We also added having experienced job loss (furloughed or laid off) due to COVID-19 as another control variable. Results were consistent with or without this control. An unmeasured explanation is the increase in work responsibility that individuals of higher education may have encountered. The pandemic meant that many managers had to lead their business units and teams through staffing changes such as layoffs or pay cuts, producing substantial stress (Knight, 2020). Further, educational attainment is a key predictor of participation in the stock market (Cooper & Zhu, 2016), which represents a nuanced aspect of financial resources that our measure might not have fully captured. In the few weeks preceding our T2 assessment, the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost one third of its total value (S&P Dow Jones Indices, 2020), which may have contributed to a greater loss of wealth (and fear of loss) among individuals with higher levels of education.

Finally, it is plausible that individuals of higher SES experience adaptation or an endowment effect whereby they have a higher expectation for a constant availability of resources (including ones not incorporated in our theorizing), and therefore experience greater declines in well-being when a crisis contracts or threatens their resource supplies (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). This possible explanation is particularly intriguing given that evidence suggests that the pandemic has hit individuals of lower SES very hard. As one of many examples of higher impacts to lower SES individuals, household crowding and higher odds of working on-site have been linked to higher rates of COVID-19 infections (Emeruwa et al., 2020; Oppel, Gebeloff, Lai, Wright, & Smith, 2020).

Our study assessed well-being early in the pandemic and it is possible that the findings of more severe well-being decline among individuals of higher SES are temporary. Future research should examine well-being among groups of higher and lower SES over a longer time during the pandemic as well as moderators of the impact of education (e.g., personality traits). For organizational and managerial practice, as well as mental health practitioners, it will be key to identify the groups for whom the impacts are longer lasting in order to address inequities. It would also be intriguing to examine if our findings replicate in other countries, to consider the role of threat of loss versus actual loss of resources, and to theorize the role of factors such as age and general health as more central predictors of psychological well-being during COVID.

There are several unique aspects to our investigation. Available pre–post studies of SES in the context of other crises have relied on data following versus during the event (Norris et al., 2002). Our study also expands collective knowledge by examining the role of resources in explaining SES differences in levels and changes in well-being during a crisis event. An additional major strength of our study is that it features a probability sample-based, nationally representative panel. This broad sampling strategy was essential to represent both low and high levels of SES, and to provide a more rigorous test of our hypotheses.

We contribute to the conversation on socioeconomic inequality by illuminating how a crisis event afflicts well-being across the SES spectrum. The theory of fundamental social causes has primarily been examined with respect to physical health. Our study extends this theory to the examination of psychological well-being. We found more support for this theory with respect to income as an SES indicator than for education. Moreover, our study contributes to the dynamic testing of COR theory, which emphasizes the velocity of loss spirals underlying chronic resource shortages and suggests the primacy of acute resource losses (Ennis, Hobfoll, & Schröder, 2000; Hobfoll, 2010). Our findings provide some support for both of these tenets. We found inferior well-being during the pandemic among individuals with lower income and also observed well-being declines to a greater extent among individuals of higher education. Future research is needed to distinguish between the relative impact of chronic resource shortages and acute resource losses. We also invite more managerial research delineating how SES contexts shape psychological experiences in the face of societal and organizational crises (Bapuji, Patel, Ertug, & Allen, 2020; Fiske & Markus, 2012).

As a limitation, our sample focused on individuals who participated in the Adult Social Networks and Well Being study that targeted U.S. adults between 30 and 80 years old. Future research can examine whether our results generalize to those under the age of 30. It is also important to qualify our inferences about COVID-19 per se being the definitive cause of well-being changes from 2019 to 2020. These dynamics may plausibly be explained by other factors that are not associated with the pandemic, such as the political environment. The consistent timing of well-being assessments in 2019 and 2020 mostly rule out alternative explanations related to seasonal effects.