The effects of social isolation on well-being and life satisfaction during pandemic

Following the WHO’s March 2020 declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic, widespread stay-at-home orders created unprecedented physical and social isolation. Prior quarantine research indicated psychological stress from isolation, compounded during COVID-19 by fears of illness, loss of loved ones, caregiving burdens, and work-from-home challenges. Social isolation encompasses external (frequency of contact) and internal/perceived dimensions (loneliness, trust, satisfaction), and individuals may feel isolated even with frequent contacts. Most prior research focuses on older adults, but evidence suggests younger adults can experience higher loneliness despite larger social networks. Increased isolation is linked to decreased life satisfaction, higher depression, and poorer psychological well-being, with implications for physical health and mortality risk. This study aimed to document pandemic-related perceived social isolation across adulthood, identify contributing factors, and test associations with life satisfaction and trust in institutions. Hypotheses: perceived social isolation is not limited to older adults; isolation relates to coping during the pandemic; and isolation mediates life satisfaction and basic institutional trust across the adult lifespan. Research questions: (1) Are there age differences in perceived social isolation? (2) Do time spent distancing and perceived personal risk relate to perceived isolation? (3) Is perceived isolation related to life satisfaction? (4) Is perceived isolation associated with trust in institutions? (5) Do stressors and coping differ by isolation level?

The paper reviews evidence that social isolation is multidimensional, including external contact frequency and internal perceptions such as loneliness and trust. Prior work has largely focused on older adults due to greater risk of external isolation (retirement, mobility limitations) and shows that increased isolation is associated with decreased life satisfaction, higher depression, and reduced psychological well-being. Meta-analytic and epidemiological studies link isolation and loneliness to increased mortality risk and adverse physical health outcomes (cardiovascular, inflammatory, neuroendocrine, cognitive). During COVID-19, physical distancing intensified isolation among older adults and exposed younger adults to similar conditions, with some studies finding higher loneliness among younger adults despite larger networks. Environmental and resource-related factors (housing dissatisfaction, resource scarcity, job instability) contribute to isolation and poor well-being. Feelings of belonging and social connection are tied to life satisfaction, indicating that pandemic mitigation measures may have lingering mental and physical health effects, underscoring the need to document prevalence and correlates of perceived isolation across age groups.

Design: Descriptive quantitative survey study of perceived social isolation during early COVID-19 mitigation. Participants: Adults aged 18+ (no upper age limit), recruited across academic and non-academic settings. N = 309; age range 18–84 (M = 38.54, SD = 18.27). Data collected late March to early April 2020. At data collection: distancing mandates in place for 64.7%, voluntary for 34.6%, none for 0.6%. Average distancing duration M = 14.91 days (SD = 4.5), max 30 days. Sample characteristics (selected): 80.3% female, 17.8% male, 1.9% prefer not to answer; majority White (71.5%); most lived with others (only 12.1% lived alone); 20.5% had children under 18 at home; education skewed high (about two-thirds Bachelor’s or above); occupations diverse (students 23.2%, retired 11.1%, professionals 26.5%, service industry 7.5%, etc.). Measures: 42-item electronic survey including Likert-type items and open-ended questions: 20 Likert items (3 on a 3-point scale: 1 = Hardly ever to 3 = Often; 17 on a 5-point satisfaction scale: 1 = Not at all satisfied to 4 = Very satisfied, 0 = Don’t know), 11 multiple choice items (one with short response), and 11 short-answer items. Instruments: 27 items from Measures of Social Isolation (Zavaleta et al., 2017) assessing stress, trust (government, business, media), and life satisfaction (overall and domains such as food, housing, work, relationships). Three loneliness items from the Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale (Hughes et al., 2004). Twelve author-developed COVID-19 items: duration/compliance of distancing, news sources, voluntary vs mandated distancing, household size, work availability, communication methods, perceived personal risk of contracting COVID-19, behavior changes, coping methods, stressors, and presence of adult children in the home. Procedures: IRB approval (Cabrini University) obtained March 2020. Recruitment via professional contact lists using a snowball approach. Email invitations described the study and included a survey link. Participants provided informed consent electronically and completed the survey (~10 minutes). At completion, participants could provide an email for longitudinal follow-up and were asked to forward the survey to contacts.

- Correlations among UCLA Loneliness items: Feeling isolated correlated with lacking companionship (rs = 0.45, p < 0.001) and feeling left out (rs = 0.43, p < 0.001); lacking companionship correlated with feeling left out (rs = 0.39, p < 0.001). - Distribution of “I feel isolated from others”: Hardly ever 98 (32.0%), Sometimes 132 (43.1%), Often 76 (24.8%). - Time in required distancing was not related to perceived isolation: χ²(2) = 0.024, p = 0.98. - Age and perceived isolation: Significant relationship, χ²(2) = 27.36, p < 0.001; higher isolation associated with younger age. Post hoc: high isolation (Mdn age = 25) vs some (Mdn = 31, p < 0.001) and low (Mdn = 46, p = 0.002). - By age groups (18–29, 30–49, 50–69, 70+): χ²(3) = 13.78, p = 0.003. Youngest (18–29) reported higher isolation (Mdn = 2.4) than 50–69 (Mdn = 1.6, p = 0.004) and 70+ (Mdn = 1.57, p = 0.01); difference vs 30–49 not significant (p = 0.09). - Perceived personal risk and isolation: Those feeling at risk (61.2% of sample) reported higher isolation (Mdn = 2.0) vs not at risk (Mdn = 1.75); U = 9377, z = -2.43, p = 0.015. - Overall life satisfaction: Lower with greater isolation, χ²(2) = 50.56, p < 0.001. Post hoc: low isolation (Mdn = 3.47) > high (Mdn = 2.82, p ≤ 0.001) and some (Mdn = 3.04, p ≤ 0.001); some vs high not significant (p = 0.09). - Satisfaction with access to food: χ²(2) = 21.92, p < 0.001. High isolation least satisfied (Mdn = 3.28) vs some (Mdn = 3.46, p = 0.003) and low (Mdn = 3.69, p < 0.001). - Housing satisfaction: χ²(2) = 10.33, p = 0.006. High isolation (Mdn = 3.49) < low isolation (Mdn = 3.75, p = 0.006). - Work satisfaction: χ²(2) = 21.40, p < 0.001. High isolation (Mdn = 2.53) < low (Mdn = 3.27, p < 0.001) and moderate (Mdn = 3.03, p = 0.003). About 22% reported job loss. - Connection to community: χ²(2) = 13.97, p = 0.001. High isolation group (Mdn = 2.27) less connected than low isolation (Mdn = 2.93, p = 0.001). - Trust in institutions: • Central government: χ²(2) = 10.46, p = 0.005. Low isolation (Mdn = 2.91) > high (Mdn = 2.32, p = 0.008) and moderate (Mdn = 2.48, p = 0.03). • Local government: No significant difference, χ²(2) = 5.92, p = 0.052. • Business: χ²(2) = 9.58, p = 0.008. Low isolation (Mdn = 3.10) > high (Mdn = 2.62, p = 0.007). - Stressors: • Job loss: Those losing a job (n = 67) reported higher isolation (Mdn = 2.26) vs those without job loss (Mdn = 1.80); U = 5819.5, z = -3.66, p < 0.001. • Caring for elderly family member: Not significant; U = 4483, z = -1.28, p = 0.20. • Caring for a child: Not significant; U = 3568.5, z = -0.48, p = 0.63. - Coping strategies: • Substance use: Higher isolation among users (Mdn = 2.12) vs non-users (Mdn = 1.80); U = 6724, z = -2.01, p = 0.04. • Going outdoors: Not significant; U = 5416, z = -0.72, p = 0.47. • Exercise: Not significant. • Virtual communication: Not significant; U = 7839.5, z = -0.56, p = 0.58.

Findings demonstrate that during early COVID-19 physical distancing, perceived social isolation was widespread and particularly elevated among younger adults, addressing the first research question and extending prior literature that often focused on older adults. Isolation was robustly linked to poorer life satisfaction across domains (overall, food access, housing, work), lower connection to community, and reduced trust in central government and business, thereby answering questions regarding life satisfaction and institutional trust. Perceived personal risk for COVID-19 and job loss were associated with higher isolation, highlighting the role of pandemic-specific stressors. Positive coping strategies (exercise, outdoor time, virtual communication) were not associated with reduced isolation, while substance use was associated with higher isolation, suggesting a pattern of negative coping among more isolated individuals. These results suggest perceived isolation may mediate broad dissatisfaction and decreased trust, with implications for mental and physical health. Institutions considering remote work and public health strategies should account for social needs and target support toward groups at higher risk (e.g., young adults, those experiencing job loss, those perceiving high personal risk), while clinicians should assess and address coping strategies, particularly substance use.

Perceived social isolation is a key component of health-related quality of life during the pandemic and is not confined to older adults. Young adults experienced especially high isolation. Higher isolation was associated with reduced life satisfaction across domains, increased work-related stress, lower trust in central government and business, greater perceived personal risk from COVID-19, and greater substance use as a coping strategy. Assessing and reducing perceived isolation should be integral to wellness evaluations and public health responses, given potential impacts on health and immune function. The authors plan longitudinal follow-up over at least a year to track ongoing effects of SARS-CoV-2 on adult well-being. Future research should elucidate mechanisms linking isolation to satisfaction and trust, evaluate interventions to enhance social connection without compromising safety, and identify protective factors across age groups.

Generalizability is limited by sample characteristics: predominantly female and highly educated (majority with post-secondary degrees). It is also possible that some individuals reporting high perceived isolation were already isolated prior to the pandemic. The convenience/snowball sampling approach and self-report measures further limit causal inference and representativeness.