Happiness amidst the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia: exploring gender, residence type, and pandemic severity

The paper investigates how the COVID-19 pandemic affected subjective well-being (happiness) in Indonesia, a topic of growing interest as happiness measures complement traditional welfare indicators. Prior studies show mixed global effects of the pandemic on SWB, underscoring contextual variation in severity and responses. Indonesia, among the world’s most populous countries, experienced substantial heterogeneity in COVID-19 exposure across provinces and between urban and rural areas. The study’s purpose is to examine shifts in happiness before and during the pandemic, focusing on gender and residence type, and to address gaps in prior work that often used convenience samples, online-only surveys, single time points, and retrospective recall. Using two nationally representative cross-sectional surveys (2017 pre-pandemic and 2021 during the pandemic) with face-to-face interviews, the study minimizes recall bias by anchoring happiness at two distinct time points and leverages large sample size for precision. The overarching hypothesis, guided by reactivity theory, is that adverse shocks like COVID-19 reduce happiness, potentially altering established advantages historically observed for women and urban residents.

Theoretical background: Reactivity theory posits that happiness responds to objective conditions (income, age, gender, marital status, occupation, family structure, region, policy). Positive events tend to raise happiness; adverse events (natural disasters, pandemics) lower it. Pre-pandemic Indonesia studies examined determinants of happiness in the general population and specific groups, as well as contextual topics like religiosity, decentralization, and inequality. Aggregate measures provide mixed signals: World Happiness Report scores for Indonesia decreased from 2018–2020 to 2019–2021, whereas the national Happiness Index rose from 2017 to 2021, reflecting differing constructs. Early Indonesian pandemic studies (mostly online cross-sections) showed varied SWB impacts shortly after the outbreak. Neighboring country evidence (Singapore, Thailand) documented declines in life satisfaction during COVID-19. Research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: Does greater COVID-19 severity (cases per 100,000) reduce happiness?
• RQ2: Did pandemic severity lessen women’s happiness advantage over men?
• RQ3: Did pandemic severity diminish the happiness advantage of urban over rural residents?
• RQ4: Do provincial macroeconomic conditions (poverty incidence, income inequality) affect happiness?

Design and model: Multilevel mixed-effects ordered logistic regressions with individuals (level 1) nested in provinces (level 2), estimated via Stata 17 meologit with random intercepts for provinces. Two model families were estimated: (1) Main Model including individual/household covariates and provincial context; (2) Interaction Models adding interactions of COVID-19 severity with gender and with residence type (and both). The latent happiness y* maps to six ordered categories via cutpoints; constants are absorbed into cutpoints. Covariates:

• Individual/household: gender (woman), age and age^2, marital status (married), education (primary, junior secondary, senior secondary, tertiary), employment (currently working), residence type (urban), household income brackets (IDR 1.8–3.0m; 3.0–4.8m; 4.8–7.2m; 7.2m+).
• Provincial context: poverty rate, Gini coefficient of per capita expenditures, COVID-19 severity (total confirmed cases per 100,000; log-transformed for models).
• Interactions: Woman × log(COVID-19); Urban × log(COVID-19); and a specification including both. Data: Happiness Level Measurement Survey (SPTK) 2017 and 2021 by Indonesia’s BPS; administered face-to-face using probabilistic sampling of households within census blocks nationwide. Respondent is household head or spouse. Analytical sample: 137,958 respondents aged 25–80 who are working or primarily care for the household (2017 N=67,450; 2021 N=70,508). Outcome measure: Cantril ladder 0–10 for “How happy are you with life as a whole?” For ordered logit, categories 0–5 were used (aggregating 0–5 into lower groups to ensure ≥3% per cell). COVID-19 severity: Total confirmed cases per 100,000, normalized at provincial level, measured up to June 30, 2021 (day before 2021 fieldwork start), sourced from KawalCOVID19 (Ministry of Health-based). Macroeconomic data: Provincial poverty rates and Gini from BPS. Estimation strategy:
• Full-sample Main and Interaction Models.
• Moderation tests via interaction terms.
• Subgroup Main Models by gender, residence type, and region (Sumatera, Java–Bali, Other) to assess heterogeneity. Model diagnostics: Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) around 0.037–0.041; LR tests favored multilevel over single-level ordered logit (p<0.001).

Descriptive context: Average happiness was stable nationally (7.78 in 2017 vs 7.76 in 2021) but varied across provinces; half increased, half decreased. Women averaged slightly higher happiness than men pre-pandemic but saw a small decline during the pandemic (-0.06), whereas men slightly increased (+0.03). Urban residents were happier than rural in general, but urban happiness fell (-0.15) and rural rose (+0.08) from 2017 to 2021. COVID-19 severity varied widely (e.g., DKI Jakarta 5,210 cases per 100k vs North Sumatera 246 per 100k). Main associations (all observations):

• COVID-19 severity (log cases per 100k) negatively associated with happiness: −0.023 (SE 0.002), p<0.01.
• Women associated with higher happiness: +0.160 (SE 0.011), p<0.01.
• Urban residence associated with higher happiness: +0.094 (SE 0.011), p<0.01.
• Provincial inequality (Gini) negatively associated with happiness (e.g., about −4.4, p<0.01). Provincial poverty rate generally not significant. Interactions (moderation by COVID-19 severity):
• Woman × log(COVID-19): negative (≈ −0.039 to −0.040, SE 0.003), p<0.01, indicating women’s happiness advantage shrank with greater severity.
• Urban × log(COVID-19): negative (≈ −0.020, SE 0.003), p<0.01, indicating the urban happiness advantage diminished with severity. Subgroup heterogeneity:
• COVID-19 severity negatively linked to happiness for men (−0.011, p<0.01) and women (−0.031, p<0.01).
• By residence: strong negative association in urban subsample (−0.042, p<0.01); not statistically significant in rural subsample.
• By region: strongest negative association in Java–Bali (−0.043, p<0.01); not significant in Sumatera; modest negative in Other regions (−0.010, p<0.01). Other covariates: U-shaped age-happiness (turning point around age 49); marriage and higher education associated with higher happiness; higher household income bands associated with higher happiness. Employment associated with higher happiness among men but lower among women (consistent with potential double burden).

Findings support reactivity theory: higher provincial COVID-19 exposure reduced happiness via health anxiety, economic disruption (job/income losses), social isolation, and deteriorated mental health. Severity moderated traditional advantages—women’s and urban residents’ happiness advantages diminished as case rates rose, consistent with women’s increased caregiving burdens, job instability, and stress, and urban economies’ higher exposure to restrictions and sectoral shocks (e.g., tourism). Provincial poverty rates generally did not predict individual happiness, potentially due to within-province heterogeneity, but provincial income inequality was consistently harmful for happiness, aligning with national and international evidence that rising inequality lowers SWB. Regional nuances emerged: Java–Bali showed a clear poverty-happiness negative link and the strongest COVID-19 severity effects, while Sumatera’s patterns differed, suggesting context-specific social structures and expectations may influence SWB responses to macro conditions.

Using two waves of nationally representative SPTK data (2017 pre-pandemic; 2021 during pandemic) and multilevel ordered logistic models, the study shows: (1) higher provincial COVID-19 severity reduced happiness; (2) the pandemic eroded women’s historical happiness advantage over men; (3) it also diminished the urban happiness premium; and (4) provincial income inequality was negatively associated with happiness, whereas poverty rates were generally not. Policy implications include urgent mental health support, targeted economic assistance, strengthened public health measures, risk communication and education, and community-based social support. Given disproportionate adverse effects on women and urban residents, tailored programs (support for caregiving burdens, school-home coordination, and bolstering neighborhood and religious networks) are advised. Future research should add qualitative fieldwork (interviews, focus groups), broaden SWB metrics (life satisfaction, positive/negative affect), and incorporate subsequent SPTK waves to assess pre-, during-, and post-pandemic trajectories.

• Single-item happiness measure (0–10 Cantril ladder) may not capture multidimensional well-being (e.g., life satisfaction, positive/negative affect).
• Data restricted to provincial identifiers; lack of precise district-level location limits finer-grained analysis and necessitates use of provincial poverty and inequality.
• No interview date information in SPTK 2021; COVID-19 severity aligned to a June 30, 2021 cutoff for all respondents, limiting temporal matching to local epidemiological dynamics.
• While interactions and subgroup analyses mitigate some concerns, cross-sectional snapshots (2017 vs 2021) cannot establish causality; 2021 SPTK was not designed specifically to measure pandemic effects.
• Category aggregation for ordered outcomes (ensuring ≥3% per cell) may reduce granularity at the lower end of the scale.