JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic is a continued source of inquiry with complex and sometimes contradictory relationships. Insight into distress during this period is critical to understanding well-being during a crisis or chronic stressor. Some research has suggested that distress escalated during the onset of the pandemic while other work has found that changes in distress were short lived. Rather than a singular monolithic experience the COVID-19 pandemic was one with day-to-day changes in severity, risks, and resources. Notably, individuals were exposed daily to new information about the pandemic’s severity, including the number of cases and deaths due to COVID-19. Perhaps accounting for the complexity of one’s experience during this time.

Objective:

This paper tests if daily changes in COVID-19 severity using reported cases and deaths in February and March of 2020 predict daily distress and distress variability in emerging adults.

Methods:

Undergraduate students in central California (n = 56; 81.8% female; Mage = 20.53; Hispanic/Latinx 67.9%, White 58.2%, or Asian 16.4%) completed two consecutive weeks of ecological momentary assessment between February and March of 2020. A new cohort of students was enrolled each week, providing a naturalistic experiment where participants were exposed to differing levels of daily and accumulated cases and death counts while other aspects of daily lives remained roughly consistent. A brief distress scale was completed four times daily, resulting in 56 assessments. Daily averages and standard deviations were calculated for distress. Multilevel models tested cross-level relationships between COVID-19 cases and COVID-19 deaths reported in California, including daily counts and accumulated totals.

Results:

Results indicate an inverse relationship between daily COVID-19 cases and daily distress variability (b = -.43, t(444) = -2.07, p = .039) and between accumulated death counts and daily distress variability (b = -2.65, t(444) = -2.92, p = .004). Suggesting a possible blunting or numbing effect as the COVID-19 pandemic severity changes. In contrast, no significant relationships were found with daily distress means.

Conclusions:

These findings point to differences in the way changes in pandemic severity are experienced, highlighting both acute and chronic aspects of exposure. Also, they support the use of metrics of variability when studying individuals in high stress or crisis environments. A blunted level of responding or numbness to your environment, even to negative cues, over the course of a day could have serious implications for health and well-being, particularly if it becomes a prolonged pattern.