During the COVID-19 pandemic, a focus on isolation and loneliness is important, especially as social distancing policies (which for some groups involve self-isolation or quarantine) are likely to accentuate these experiences and affect mental health. This study focuses on socio-economic inequalities in social network, loneliness and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two-hundred and fourteen residents of Wandsworth, a South West London Borough in the United Kingdom completed an online cross-sectional survey on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health. Data were analysed using independent samples t-tests and multiple regression. Middle-aged people reported a less strong social network and more loneliness, anxiety and depression than younger people. People with a long-term health condition reported a less strong social network, more loneliness, more general practitioner (GP) and hospital visits, and poorer mental health than those with no long-term health conditions. People receiving State financial benefits reported less use of public spaces, a less strong social network, more loneliness, more GP and hospital visits and poorer mental health than those not receiving benefits. Greater neighbourhood identification was associated with a stronger social network and better mental health outcomes. Multiple regression analyses showed that, over and above loneliness, perceived personal risk of COVID-19 constitutes an additional precipitant for both depression and anxiety when controlling for other variables. As a novel stressor associated with the pandemic, the situational and involuntary perception of being at risk of COVID-19 may be stimulating anxiety and depressive symptomatology, which will need to be managed effectively as resurgences of the disease are predicted and communicated to the general public under growing mistrust and uncertainty.

This paper describes a model of identity resilience developed within social psychology and derived specifically from the basic tenets of Identity Process Theory (IPT). Identity resilience refers to the extent to which an individual possesses an identity structure that: facilitates adaptive coping in the face of threat or uncertainty, can absorb change while retaining its subjective meaning and value, and is perceived to be able to cope with threat or trauma without experiencing permanent undesired change. Identity resilience is defined as a relatively stable self-schema based on self-esteem, self-efficacy, positive distinctiveness and continuity. This paper describes how identity resilience can be measured. It presents findings from two empirical studies: one on gay men of recollecting negative coming out experiences; the other on COVID-19 fear and perceived personal risk. Both provide evidence that greater identity resilience is associated with more adaptive reactions, less undesired identity change, and less negative affect after thinking about aversive experiences.

The COVID-19 pandemic produced threats not only to physical and psychological health but also to the very fabric of family, work and social life. Individuals differ markedly in their ability to cope with such threats. Drawing on Identity Process Theory, our study examines identity processes that shape emotional and attitudinal responses to COVID-19. Survey data were collected from 251 adults in the UK during July 2020. Identity resilience, trust in science and scientists, fear of COVID-19 and perceived own risk of infection were measured. Respondents then watched a video clip designed to focus their thinking further upon the disease. Immediately after, levels of feeling afraid, uncertainty about self-protection, mistrust of anyone offering COVID-19 advice, and perceptions of identity change were indexed. A structural equation model of the relationship between these variables was tested and proved a good fit for the data. Identity resilience is negatively related to fear of COVID-19, which in turn is positively related to perceived own risk of COVID-19. Higher identity resilience is associated with greater uncertainty and feeling more afraid. Greater identity change is associated with higher mistrust, uncertainty and feeling more afraid. Trust in science and scientists correlates positively with perceived own risk of COVID-19 and negatively with mistrust of those offering advice on preventive behaviour. This study shows the usefulness of the identity resilience concept in modelling responses to health hazards. It also illustrates that focusing, even for a short time, on the characteristics of such a hazard can elicit perceived identity changes. Arousing fear is unlikely to initiate self-protection in those who are already fearful or who have less identity resilience. Fostering greater general trust in science and scientists, though difficult, will be valuable, particularly in encouraging public acceptance of mass vaccination against the virus when misinformation and conspiracy theories about it abound.

Two samples of 227 and 214 adults completed surveys of social support, perceived risk of COVID-19 and COVID-19 preventive activity – in Study 1 likelihood of testing was examined and in Study 2 likelihood of both testing and vaccination were examined during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Path analysis showed, in Study 1, that access to help (as an indicator of social support) had a direct effect on likelihood of testing and indirect effects through self-efficacy, perceived risk and preventive behavior; and, in Study 2, that neighborhood identification (as an indicator of social support) had a direct effect on likelihood of testing and indirect effects on likelihood of both testing and vaccination through the mediators of strength of social network, loneliness, perceived risk of COVID-19, and preventive activity. Both studies suggest that level of social support (conceptualized in different ways) is an important determinant of COVID-19 testing and Study 2 shows it is also a determinant of likelihood of vaccination. As resurgences of COVID-19 occur, it will be necessary to monitor the likelihood of COVID-19 testing and vaccination behaviors and, especially, to promote confidence in the latter in individuals with decreased access to social support.

Monitoring compliance with, and understanding the factors affecting, COVID-19 preventive behaviors requires a robust index of the level of subjective likelihood that the individual will engage in key COVID-19 preventive behaviors. In this article, the psychometric properties of the COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors Index (CPBI), including its development and validation in two samples in the United Kingdom, are described. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed on data from 470 participants in the United Kingdom who provided demographic information and completed the Fear of COVID-19 Scale, the COVID-19 Own Risk Appraisal Scale (CORAS) and the CPBI. Results showed that a unidimensional, 10-item model fits the data well, with satisfactory fit indices, internal consistency and high item loadings onto the factor. The CPBI correlated positively with both fear and perceived risk of COVID-19, suggesting good concurrent validity. The CPBI is a measure of the likelihood of engaging in preventive activity, rather than one of intention or actual action. It is adaptable enough to be used over time as a monitoring instrument by policy makers and a modeling tool by researchers.

Aspects of the relationship between mistrust, uncertainty and risk responses are examined. Identity Process Theory and Social Representation Theory are used to explain risk responses. The operation of mistrust, defined here as an active state of uncertainty about whether a source or its assertions are to be believed, is examined. Mistrust can also be a cognitive or emotional trait of a person, associated with being habitually suspicious, doubtful, or sceptical, and, as such, can be a preferred strategy for coping with threats to identity. The relationship between mistrust and uncertainty in shaping responses to health risks is examined. An illustration using media reporting of MMR vaccine hesitancy during 2019 is described. This indicated: politicians and health experts sometimes mistrust the public’s reaction to risk guidance; uncertainty once established is resilient against remediation; and, targeting of mistrust and blame is purposive.