Refine
Document Type
- Article (2)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- social identity approach (2) (remove)
Institute
The COVID-19 pandemic has triggered health-related anxiety in ways that undermine peoples’ mental and physical health. Contextual factors such as living in a high-risk area might further increase the risk of health deterioration. Based on the Social Identity Approach, we argue that social identities can not only be local that are characterized by social interactions, but also be global that are characterized by a symbolic sense of togetherness and that both of these can be a basis for health. In line with these ideas, we tested how identification with one’s family and with humankind relates to stress and physical symptoms while experiencing health-related anxiety and being exposed to contextual risk factors. We tested our assumptions in a representative sample (N = 974) two-wave survey study with a 4-week time lag. The results show that anxiety at Time 1 was positively related to stress and physical symptoms at Time 2. Feeling exposed to risk factors related to lower physical health, but was unrelated to stress. Family identification and identification with humankind were both negatively associated with subsequent stress and family identification was negatively associated with subsequent physical symptoms. These findings suggest that for social identities to be beneficial for mental health, they can be embodied as well as symbolic.
We propose that resilience effectively helps people cope with stress, thus predominantly reducing the negative. However, we argue that individuals’ social identification has the potential to contribute to their well-being, thus fostering the positive. A two-wave survey study of 180 students shows that resilience is more strongly (negatively) associated with ill-health (i.e. stress and depression), whereas social identification is more strongly (positively) related to well-being (i.e. satisfaction and work engagement). We believe that it is necessary to see these two routes to improving people’s health as complementary, both in future research and for therapy and interventions.