Does awareness of COVID-19 matter? Investigating the effect of fear of COVID-19 and stress on subjective well-being

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being via the mediating role of perceived stress. The moderating role of awareness of COVID-19 on the mediation model is also tested. This study employed a longitudinal correlation design with a three-wave data collection technique. The data were collected using a snowballing sampling technique where participants were recruited through online advertisements. Finally, 345 responses were included in the analysis after dropping participants who did not fully complete the study and failed the attention check items. The measures included fear of COVID-19, perceived stress, subjective well-being and awareness of COVID-19 and were administered using an online survey platform. The results suggested that fear of COVID-19 adversely impacted subjective well-being while perceived stress partially mediated the relationship. Additionally, awareness of COVID-19 moderated the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and perceived stress. The effect of fear of COVID-19 on perceived stress was more positive for those who had high awareness of COVID-19, consequently lowering subjective well-being. This study is among a few studies investigating a mechanism that explains the effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being.

Keywords:

• Awareness of COVID-19
• COVID-19
• fear of COVID-19
• mental health
• stress
• subjective well-being

1. Introduction

A challenging time such as the COVID-19 pandemic has provided an opportunity to learn more about human behaviours and mental health (Almeida et al., 2020; Ha, 2020; Khoo & Lantos, 2020; Rousseau & Miconi, 2020). COVID-19 has adversely impacted many parts of human life, become one of the major global threats, and negated mental health (Cullen et al., 2020; Pfefferbaum & North, 2020; Vindegaard & Benros, 2020). Unfortunately, the full extent of the mental health impact is still under investigation but is expected to be severe and enduring (Gavin et al., 2020). Although COVID-19 is evolving and less perceived as a threat by global society, scientists are still investigating the post-COVID-19 effects and the long-term consequences of the COVID-19 crisis on mental health (Leung et al., 2022; Penninx et al., 2022).

Empirical studies of subjective well-being during COVID-19 are crucial for scientists and policymakers. While a myriad of studies suggest that COVID-19 harms mental health (Lades et al., 2020; Wanberg et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021), evidence is still lacking on how COVID-19 influences subjective well-being. Many studies focused on the direct consequences of COVID-19 on mental health and psychological distress (De Kock et al., 2021; Rajmil et al., 2021; Shreffler et al., 2020). However, the mechanism by which COVID-19 influences subjective well-being still leaves some questions, as some population groups could improve their subjective well-being during the COVID-19 crisis (Shreffler et al., 2020). To develop effective interventions for promoting subjective well-being during and after the COVID-19 crisis, scholars must examine some theories that explain how the COVID-19 crisis impacts subjective well-being (Kanekar & Sharma, 2020).

Well-being is a broad concept of human positive and negative experiences of their day-to-day life, and it may relate to people’s hedonic and eugenic experience (Waterman, 1993). Well-being can cover many dimensions of human satisfaction, such as wealth, health, job, and achievements (Ryff, 1989; Warr, 1978; Waterman, 1993). Regardless of the objective measure of various life achievements (e.g., income), individuals develop their subjective experience by evaluating their lives (Ryff & Keyes, 1995; Ryff, 1989). Their subjective evaluation of life events and how they emotionally perceive their subjective evaluation determine their subjective well-being. Thus, subjective well-being can be defined as individuals’ cognitive and affective evaluation of their lives (Diener & Seligman, 2004; Diener et al., 1995, 2015). This subjective well-being has been the interest of many scientists and policymakers (Diener et al., 2015).

Psychological distress has been linked to subjective well-being (Denovan & Macaskill, 2017; Gillett & Crisp, 2017a; Karlsen et al., 2006; Sheffield et al., 1994; Skok et al., 2006). The association between psychological distress and the COVID-19 crisis became one of the concerns during the outbreak (Daly & Robinson, 2021; Margetić et al., 2021). Nevertheless, stress-related COVID-19 is not the only antecedent of poor subjective well-being. Fear is a reasonable response to an impending threat that prepares a person to react quickly to potential physical and mental harm (Pappas et al., 2009). Fear of COVID-19 also increases psychological distress and lowers subjective well-being (De Los Santos & Labrague, 2021; Erbiçer et al., 2021; Kumar & Nayar, 2021; Lathabhavan & Vispute, 2022; Siddique et al., 2021). Fear of COVID-19 also directly influences how people perceive their life satisfaction and well-being (Alyami et al., 2021; Lathabhavan & Vispute, 2022; Özmen et al., 2021).

Fear of COVID-19 has a tremendous impact on people’s life and well-being (Alyami et al., 2021; De Los Santos & Labrague, 2021; Özmen et al., 2021). Individuals may not think clearly or reasonably when reacting to COVID-19 due to excessive levels of fear (Ahorsu et al., 2022). The fear of COVID-19 develops as people become more aware of the potential harm COVID-19 could carry. People are more likely to experience fear of COVID-19 as they receive high exposure to (COVID-19-related) media communication and interpersonal communication (Li, 2022; Melki et al., 2022).

Despite the critical role of awareness, fear, and stress on people’s subjective well-being, empirical evidence is still scarce. To provide a better understanding, this current study examines the role of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being via the mediating role of perceived stress at a different level of awareness. By understanding the predictors of subjective well-being during a crisis, scholars, practitioners, and policymakers can develop effective measures to contain any adverse impacts of the unprecedented crisis on the public’s subjective well-being.

2. Literature review and hypotheses

This study employs the subjective well-being theory (Biswas Diener et al., 2008), the conservation of resource (COR) theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001), and the situation awareness theory (Endsley, 1988, 1995) to develop a theoretical mechanism. Subjective well-being is defined as one’s cognitive judgement and affective experiences in their life (Diener & Seligman, 2004; Diener et al., 1995, 2015). Although subjective well-being is an individual-level analysis, some sociologists have started to view subjective well-being as a societal-level phenomenon (Diener et al., 2015; Gillett & Crisp, 2017a; Theodori, 2001; Tov & Diener, 2009). Subjective well-being is necessary to appraise life satisfaction at the individual and societal levels (Biswas Diener et al., 2008; Diener & Seligman, 2004).

According to the subjective well-being theory (Biswas Diener et al., 2008; Diener et al., 2006), subjective well-being depends on subjective views on a balance of pleasant over unpleasant experience (hedonistic theory), fulfilment of desire (desire theory), a reflection of one’s values, life satisfaction, and positive affect (authentic happiness theory), and an agreed-upon goal that properly structures one’s deliberations about how to live (eudemonistic theories). Subjective well-being theory emphasises how people evaluate and experience their life, fulfilment, and feeling.

Drawing from the above theory, subjective well-being can vary across individuals and communities (Biswas Diener et al., 2008; Diener & Seligman, 2004). Factors determining subjective well-being can vary (Biswas Diener et al., 2008). However, studies show that fear (Alyami et al., 2021; De Los Santos & Labrague, 2021; Özmen et al., 2021) and psychological distress (Denovan & Macaskill, 2017; Gillett & Crisp, 2017a; Karlsen et al., 2006) can have detrimental impacts on subjective well-being. Fear is a natural response to a threat of potential physical and mental harm (Pappas et al., 2009). People who experience fear also perceive a threat to their existing resources (e.g., physical fitness, mental health). Thus, a threat from COVID-19 creates unpleasant experiences, dissatisfaction, or negative affect, which reflect poor subjective well-being.

Stress occurs when people experience a need to conserve resources for survival (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Similarly, as people perceive stress, they also perceive threats to their resources (e.g., wealth, health), and they could have been lost some of the resources which are essential for their subjective well-being (Biswas Diener et al., 2008; Diener et al., 1995, 2013; Hobfoll et al., 2018). Thus, perceived stress can negate people’s subjective well-being. The above arguments lead to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1:

Fear of COVID-19 negatively predicts people’s subjective well-being

Hypothesis 2:

Perceived stress negatively predicts people’s subjective well-being

The CoR theory (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001) postulates that people are motivated to preserve their remaining resources and locate new resources when there is a potential threat to their resources. On a daily basis, people exert energy to execute their cognitive function, which allows them to perform a task (Hobfoll et al., 2018; Westman et al., 2004). However, if they perceive threats to their resources, they potentially allocate the energy to deal with the stressor making their resources scarce. According to the CoR theory, stress occurs when those key resources are potentially or actually lost, and individuals fail to gain critical resources following significant effort (Hobfoll et al., 2018).

Fear is a response to a threat (Pappas et al., 2009), and it can predict an individual’s stress. As a threat emerges and is perceived, people will regulate their responses to the threat. They will invest their energy in responding to the threat by engaging in cognitive tasks (i.e., problem-solving). However, if the resources are scarce, they will put significant effort into gaining new resources, such as allocating social support.

Fear signals people about the existence of threats that require an immediate response. Fear will lead to stress if people experience potential (or actual) resource loss and they are unable to restore new resources following significant effort. Although people perceive potential threats from the environment, this might not cause distress if they have adequate resources to eliminate them. People fear COVID-19 because it potentially harms physical and mental well-being (Alyami et al., 2021; Siddique et al., 2021; Özmen et al., 2021). Fear of COVID-19 signals potential threats to people’s physical and mental health. The greater the fear, the more likely people perceive threats to their resources which could drain their existing resources and require effort to prevent further resource loss. In this situation, fear might elicit people’s distress. The following hypothesis will be:Hypothesis 3: Fear of COVID-19 positively predicts people’s stress

As mentioned earlier, people who experience stress might also experience threats to their resources. This event is considered unpleasant, and it can elicit negative affect, reducing people’s subjective well-being. Although fear of COVID-19 could directly influence subjective well-being, it could also indirectly negate people’s subjective well-being by causing psychological distress. Fear of COVID-19 might increase stress which consequently reduces subjective well-being. The following hypothesis will be:

Hypothesis 4:

Fear of COVID-19 negatively predicts people’s subjective well-being through the mediating role of stress

Situation awareness theory proposes that people’s perception of their situation depends on their knowledge of the elements in the environment, comprehending current status by integrating knowledge from the elements, and their ability to project the action of the elements in the future (Endsley, 1988, 1995). This theory suggests that awareness can improve as people gain more knowledge related to the element in the environment and exert their comprehension of the elements to predict future actions of these elements (Endsley, 1995). The level of situation awareness depends on information richness and the individual ability to comprehend the elements (Endsley, 1995).

People during the COVID-19 crisis are exposed to myriads of COVID-19 information and news (Finset et al., 2020; Melki et al., 2022; Yassin et al., 2021). The more information is received, the more likely people are to be knowledgeable about the situation. Continuous exposure to information will allow people to develop some comprehension of the situation and eventually generate some predictions. Novices are more likely than experts to discard some elements and only focus on certain elements, leading to poor situation awareness (Endsley, 1988, 1995, 2015). People who have learned many elements about a situation will become more aware of the threats related to the situation.

Furthermore, COVID-19 is a negative event that could evoke people’s physiological, social and emotional responses stronger than positive ones (Taylor, 1991). Most people might be unwittingly focusing on the negative elements of COVID-19 such as mortality rate and economic challenges, more than the positive ones (e.g., work-from-home). Thus, as people are exposed to information related to the COVID-19 elements, they might tend to learn and focus on the adverse events or threats to their current resources. Consequently, people have become more aware of the negative consequences of COVID-19. As they receive more information, their awareness improves, potentially accentuating the threats displayed by the COVID-19 crisis. The threats require responses that also escalate the fear of COVID-19. Once the fear increases, so does the stress. This leads to the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5:

Awareness of COVID-19 moderates the positive relationship between fear of COVID-19 and stress. The effect of fear of COVID-19 will be stronger for those with high than low awareness of COVID-19.

As proposed earlier, psychological distress can lower people’s subjective well-being. Awareness of COVID-19 might exacerbate the threats coming from the COVID-19 crisis, which at the same time accentuates the fear of COVID-19. This fear can positively predict stress and subsequently deteriorates people’s subjective well-being. This leads to the last hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6:

Awareness of COVID-19 moderates the indirect effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being through stress. The indirect effect is stronger for those with high than low awareness of COVID-19.

3. Methods and materials

3.1. Participants and procedure

This study employed a longitudinal correlation design, and the data were collected using a snowballing sampling technique. Participants were recruited through online advertisements by undergraduate students from the largest state university in the eastern part of Indonesia. The students were asked to advertise the study and received 15 (out of 100) credits in a research method class for recruiting more than 15 potential participants. The study’s advertisements were sent to three major social media groups (i.e., Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn), alumni association groups, and researchers’ personal email lists. Participants were also asked to advertise the study on their social networks. Participants must be 18 years old or older, have worked and lived in Indonesia since January 2020, and are not currently taking medical or psychological treatment from a healthcare provider.

This study employed a three-wave longitudinal data collection technique to reduce common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2003). The data collection was started in the second week of January 2021 and ended in the last week of March 2021. Participants completed the study with a two-week time interval between three surveys, and each survey was administered for two weeks. Participants received a plain language statement and concern form in the first wave. After submitting their agreement, they completed demographic questions (e.g., gender, age), fear of COVID-19 scale, and awareness of COVID-19 scale. At the end of this stage, each participant received a unique identifier (e.g., id0001) which they could use to log on to the following survey. On January 2021, Six hundred sixty-seven participants completed the first phase. In the second wave (February 2021), 551 participants completed the perceived stress scale, and 440 participants completed the subjective well-being scale in the third wave (March 2021).

Those who did not complete all survey phases were excluded from the analysis. At the end of the multi-wave survey, 440 participants completed the study. However, 95 participants were dropped because they failed two attention check questions. Finally, 345 responses were included in the final data analysis. The results from the G*Power calculator (Erdfelder et al., 2009; Faul et al., 2007) suggested that this sample size was sufficient and had power greater than 90%. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 64 years old (mean = 25, SD = 10). Most completed only senior high school (73%), while some held college degrees (20%). Participants were mostly female (68%), and 50% of them lived in a city, while others were in rural areas (27%) or villages (20%). For their income, 20% had a salary higher than the province’s minimum wage, 20% received an ordinary income, and 60% was lower than the minimum wage. The research ethics committee reviewed and approved this study as a minor risk study at the first author’s affiliation (reference number: 4098/UN.4.8.7/PT.01.01.2021).

3.2. Measures

3.2.1. Subjective well-being scale

Subjective well-being was measured using Lui and Fernando’s (2018) 29-item subjective well-being scale. The scale had five dimensions (i.e., financial, physical, social, eudemonic, and hedonic) and was administered using a six-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree to 6= strongly agree). “I believe I have the potential to reach my goals” is one of the items on the scale. This scale showed high reliability with Cronbach’s alpha of .93 for its composite score, and acceptable reliability for each dimension with Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .73 to .82.

3.2.2. Fear of COVID-19 scale

The fear of COVID-19 scale measured people’s fear of COVID-19. This scale was initially developed by Ahorsu et al. (2022). The scale had seven items (unidimensional) and was administered using a five-point Likert-type scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). One of the items was, “I am most afraid of coronavirus 19.” The scale reliability was satisfied with Cronbach’s alpha of .83 for internal consistency.

3.2.3. Perceived stress scale

Participants’ perceived stress was measured using a seven-item (unidimensional) perceived stress scale developed by Cohen et al. (1983). The scale was administered using a five-point Likert scale (0= never to 4 very often). One of the items is “in the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?” This scale was considered reliable, with Cronbach’s alpha of .77.

3.2.4. Awareness of the COVID-19 scale

Awareness of COVID-19 was measured using the Indonesian version of the awareness of COVID-19 scale developed by Mukhlis et al. (2022). This scale was developed based on the situational awareness theory (Endsley, 1995). The scale had 15 items (unidimensional) and was administered with a five-point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree). “I am aware that the COVID-19 virus is dangerous,” is one of the items. The scale was highly reliable for research purposes, with Cronbach’s alpha of .91.

3.2.5. Demographic and attention check questions

This study collected participants’ demographic information, including gender (male = 1, female = 0), age, location (e.g., city centre, rural areas), financial income, and education (e.g., high school, college degree). Since the study was administered using an online survey, the researchers detected careless responses by randomly inserting two attention check items into the survey (Huang et al., 2012). For example, “Please select agree if you have read and understood this item!”

3.2.6. Scale adaptation to Bahasa Indonesia

Except for the awareness of the COVID-19 scale, all other scales were adapted from English to Bahasa Indonesia using a systematic procedure for scale adaptation to a different culture (Brislin, 1970). The procedure included translating and back-translating, content validity checks by experts, and readability tests before they were used for the data collection.

4. Results

4.1. Measurement model analysis

This study employed the CFA technique to examine the measurement model analysis. As proposed, there were four variables (i.e., fear of COVID-19, perceived stress, subjective well-being, and awareness of COVID-19) in this study. The proposed theoretical model was tested against the alternative models (i.e., the two-factor and single-factor solution). The results showed that the proposed theoretical model (cmin/df = 2.63, RMSEA=.069, TLI=.71, and CFI=.72) was better than the other alternative models. The two-factor model was tested with two variables: the combination of fear of COVID-19 and awareness of COVID-19 and perceived stress and subjective well-being (cmin/df = 3.38, RMSEA=.83, TLI=.60, and CFI=.58). The single-factor model was constructed with all variables in one factor (cmin/df = 4.8, RMSEA=.10, TLI = 33, and CFI=.35).

The proposed theoretical model also yielded an Average Variance Extracted (AVE) higher than 47% for each variable, with discriminant validity (DV) ranging from .63 to .76 (see Table 1). Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff et al., 2003) also showed an AVE of 18% (lower than 50%), which indicated that the common method bias was not a serious issue in the data.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

Variable	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Age	24.93	9.96	—
2. Gender	.32	.47	.04	—
3. FoC	2.79	.72	−.03	−.11*	(.70)
4. AoC	3.98	.57	−.02	−.13*	.31***	(.76)
5. PS	2.01	.42	−.15**	−.10	.26***	.10	(.66)
6. SWB	4.68	.60	.12*	.10	.04	.22***	−.22***	(.63)

Note: N = 345, FoC= Fear of COVID-19, AoC= Awareness of COVID-19, PS= Perceived Stress, SWB= Subjective Well-Being, discriminant validity coefficients are in the bracket.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

4.2. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations

The following Table 1 shows the results of descriptive and bivariate correlation analysis. For the focal variables, fear of COVID-19 was positively associated with awareness of COVID-19 (r= .31, p < .001) and perceived stress (r= .26, p < .001). Surprisingly, a significant association between fear of COVID-19 and subjective well-being was not observed. Awareness of COVID-19 was positively associated with subjective well-being (r= .22, p < .001). As expected, perceived stress was negatively associated with subjective well-being (r= −.22, p < .001). The correlations also indicated that older employees could have lower stress (r= −.15, p < .01) and higher subjective well-being (r= .12, p < .05) than their younger counterparts.

4.3. Hypothesis testing

The study’s hypotheses were tested using a moderated-mediation regression technique (Hayes, 2013). In this analysis, the predictor variable (i.e., fear of COVID-19) and the moderator (i.e., awareness of COVID-19) were mean-centred to reduce the effect of multicollinearity. Fear of COVID-19 positively predicted people’s subjective well-being (β= .10, p < .001), which was the opposite of hypothesis 1 (hypothesis 1 was not supported). As expected, perceived stress negatively predicted subjective well-being (β= -.57, p < .001), supporting hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 3 was also confirmed as the fear of COVID-19 positively predicted perceived stress (β= .10, p < .001). The mediation model was also observed since hypotheses 2 and 3 were confirmed. Thus, fear of COVID-19 negatively predicted people’s subjective well-being through perceived stress (support for hypothesis 4). Please see Table 2 for more details.

Table 2. Moderated-Mediation Model 7 using macro PROCESS by Hayes

Model 1	β	SE	LLCI	ULCI	R	R^2
FoC	.10***	.03	.03	.16	.25	.06***
AoC	.01	.04	−.07	.10
FoC*AoC	.13***	.05	.03	.22
Outcome: Perceived Stress Scale
Model 2	β	SE	LLCI	ULCI	R	R^2
FoC	.10***	.04	.02	.19	.40	.16***
PS	−.57***	.07	−.71	−.43
Outcome: Subjective Well-Being

Note: FoC= Fear of COVID-19, AoC= Awareness of COVID-19, PS= Perceived Stress, β= standardised regression weight, SE= Standard Error, LLCI= Lower level confidence interval, ULCI= Upper level confidence interval

N = 345, *p< .05. **p< .01. ***p< .001e:

The interaction between fear of COVID-19 and awareness of COVID-19 was also confirmed. This interaction positively predicted people’s perceived stress (β= .13, p < .001), in which the effect of fear of COVID-19 on perceived stress was stronger for those who had high awareness of COVID-19 (hypothesis 5 confirmed). As the mediation model was confirmed (hypothesis 4) and the interaction was observed, the moderated-mediation mechanism was also confirmed. Thus, the effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being through perceived stress was moderated by people’s awareness of COVID-19. The effect was stronger for those with high than those with low awareness of COVID-19 (hypothesis 6 was supported).

The conditional indirect effect of fear of COVID-19 on people’s subjective well-being via the role of perceived stress can be seen in Table 3. The effect was stronger for people with high (.17, p < .001) than those with medium (.09, p < .001) and low (.02, p > .05) awareness of COVID-19. The interaction term is illustrated in Figure 1. The moderated-mediation mechanism suggested that people’s fear of COVID-19 would be stronger if they had higher awareness of the COVID-19 crisis. As the fear became stronger, so was their perceived stress which consequently reduced their subjective well-being.

Figure 1. Conditional effect of fear of COVID-19 on perceived stress.

A line graph shows the correlations of fear of COVID-19 with perceived stress at three levels of awareness of COVID-19 (i.e., low, medium, and high).

Table 3. Conditional effects of FoC at different AoC

AOC	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
Low	.02	.05	−.08	.12
Medium	.09***	.03	.03	.16
High	.17***	.04	.09	.24

Note: FoC= Fear of COVID-19, AoC= Awareness of COVID-19, SE= Standard Error, LLCI= Lower level confidence interval, ULCI= Upper level confidence interval

N = 345, ^*p< .05. ^**p< .01. ^***p < .001

The following Figure 2 illustrates the indirect effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being through perceived stress in which people’s awareness of COVID-19 moderates the relationship.

Figure 2. The moderated-mediation mechanism.

Note: A relationship chart shows the effect of Fear of COVID-19 directly on subjective well-being, and indirectly via perceived stress, where the effect is determined by the awareness of COVID-19.

5. Discussion

This study confirmed the conditional effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being via the mediating role of perceived stress. The results also suggested that people who possessed high awareness of COVID-19 tended to fear the COVID-19 situation, leading to stress and consequently lowering their subjective well-being. The findings confirmed the application of CoR theory, situation awareness theory, and subjective well-being theory. The following will elaborate more on the results.

Firstly, this study found contrasting evidence as the fear of COVID-19 increased subjective well-being. Some empirical findings have suggested the negative consequences of fear of COVID-19 on life satisfaction and subjective well-being (Alyami et al., 2021; De Los Santos & Labrague, 2021; Özmen et al., 2021) and the negative correlations between COVID-19 and mental health (Leung et al., 2022; Penninx et al., 2022; Pfefferbaum & North, 2020), this study showed different effects of fear of COVID-19. Fear indicates threats to resources (Pappas et al., 2009), but it could also signal people about potential threats and possible precautions necessary to cope with the threats (Hobfoll, 1989; Pappas et al., 2009). For some people, comprehending a threat and their existing resources may benefit their resource conservation and prevention tactics. These tactics might prevent unpleasant feelings, which might preserve their subjective well-being.

This is perhaps the area where fear could help people to prepare some steps to prevent the negative effects of a threat. For example, to reduce the adverse impact of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being, some countries implement practical measures to contain the cascading impact of COVID-19 on psychological distress, anxiety, and overall mental health. They developed a guideline for emerging psychological crises (e.g., psychoeducational intervention) and established systematic procedures and responses (Orrù et al., 2020). Therefore, preparing for a threat to come potentially provide resource security and eliminate threats to their subjective well-being.

Secondly, this study found that fear of COVID-19 positively predicted perceived stress and perceived stress negatively predicted subjective well-being. This also suggested a partial mediating effect of perceived stress on the relationship. Fear of COVID-19 might not directly lower subjective well-being, but perceiving stress due to excessive fear of COVID-19 could cause adverse impacts on one’s subjective well-being (Denovan & Macaskill, 2017; Gillett & Crisp, 2017b; Karlsen et al., 2006). This study has illuminated our understanding of a mechanism that can predict subjective well-being. The level of fear-related COVID-19 determines subjective well-being in two different ways. People might have lower subjective well-being if they perceive stress caused by their fear of COVID-19. However, the direct effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being tends to be positive if they do not experience stress due to their fear. Stress drains people’s energy and elicits an unpleasant psychological state and dissatisfaction, lowering subjective well-being (Hobfoll, 1989, 2001).

Stress occurs when an individual experiences a need to conserve resources for survival (Hobfoll et al., 2018). The existence of threats to health, income, and loved ones can trigger psychological distress as people will prevent resource loss and restore new resources to deal with the stressor (Hobfoll, 1989; Westman et al., 2004). The correlation between psychological distress and subjective well-being tended to be negative, although an effective coping strategy could reverse the relationship (Karlsen et al., 2006). Many recent studies have discovered that COVID-19-related distress negatively influenced mental health and subjective well-being (Arslan & Allen, 2022; Daly & Robinson, 2021; Krok et al., 2021; Möhring et al., 2021).

Thirdly, this study also examines how awareness of COVID-19 could exacerbate the effect of fear of COVID-19 on stress and subsequently decreased subjective well-being. Information related to COVID-19 determines people’s awareness of COVID-19. Awareness of COVID-19 can leverage as people are exposed to various information related to COVID-19. Unfortunately, information exposure can also make the threats related to COVID-19 more salient. Drawing from situation awareness theory (Endsley, 1995), excessive information from the surrounding can lead to high demand and stress (Agrawal & Peeta, 2021; Parush et al., 2017; Wickens, 2002). The fear becomes more salient as people consume more information and become aware of the threats, leading to stress. In this circumstance, people need some anticipation to deal with the threats, and if they do not find themselves in a resource-secure situation, the fear of COVID-19 transforms into stress which adversely impacts subjective well-being.

Being aware of a crisis might benefit people in developing measures to cope with the stressor. In this study, awareness of COVID-19 was positively related to subjective well-being, indicating that awareness might be necessary for improving subjective well-being. People who develop awareness also comprehend the elements of threat, which allows them to predict potential threats in the future. This situation elicits stressors related to COVID-19 and can magnify perceived stress. Thus, receiving information about the potential threat of COVID-19 can raise the public’s awareness, but at the same time, the information might magnify fear of COVID-19 and lower compliance with officials’ regulations (Finset et al., 2020). Nevertheless, fear is a normal response to a COVID-19 situation, and it should not be ignored but instead needs to be acknowledged (Finset et al., 2020).

This study was among the few studies investigating a complex mechanism of subjective well-being amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Although many empirical studies have discussed subjective well-being in a time of crisis (Kanekar & Sharma, 2020; Lathabhavan & Vispute, 2022; Wanberg et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021; Özmen et al., 2021), literature related to a mechanism that predicts subjective well-being during COVID-19 is still scarce. Thus, this study has illuminated our understanding of factors and their mechanism that determine the dynamic of subjective well-being in a society.

In terms of contribution to literature, this study has initiated a new discussion on subjective well-being. Subjective well-being theories emerged from the psychological (Diener et al., 1995, 2006; Diener, 2009) as well as the sociological theories (Ouweneel, 2002; Pacek & Radcliff, 2008; Tov & Diener, 2009). This current study viewed the link between the COVID-19 phenomenon and subjective well-being as a social-psychological case. The formation of awareness in a society is also relative to their groups, determining how they perceive threats. Thus, understanding well-being in a society is more complex than assessing subjective well-being.

5.1. Practical implications

Having considered the above findings, this study proposes three practical implications. Firstly, subjective well-being is essential for individuals and society. Thus, all the determining factors of subjective well-being are vital. Fear and stress are two predictors of subjective well-being. Fear can increase psychological distress, which later negates subjective well-being. Therefore, people must learn how fear and stress develop and what effective coping strategies are for dealing with threats or stressors.

Secondly, awareness is also critical during a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. However, people in a society are at risk of overwhelming themselves with threats as they are aware of the detrimental effect of COVID-19 on their lives. High awareness of COVID-19 might not directly thwart the negative effect of COVID-19. People should learn how to harness their knowledge and information and find the best solutions to the COVID-19 situation. Therefore, as people in a society are exposed to rich information related to COVID-19 and its dangerous consequences, they also must couple the awareness with additional knowledge and perspectives. Here the government must educate the society and walk them through to develop psychological safety, and other essential acts to contain the health and psychological effects of the pandemic.

Lastly, subjective well-being must not only be viewed as a psychological phenomenon but rather as a complex social-psychological event, especially during the COVID-19 situation. The findings in this study have proposed that subjective experience (e.g., fear, well-being) emerges from people’s interaction with their society and groups. The exposure of information is inevitable, making the awareness of a crisis also enriched. Therefore, governments or policymakers must implement some controls to nudge behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs, which might help improve their subjective well-being in a crisis.

5.2. Limitations and future research directions

This study was not without some limitations. The first limitation was related to the generalisation of the study. The data were collected conveniently using a snowballing sampling technique by undergraduate students. Although the participants came from various backgrounds (e.g., locations, gender, and education), they might not represent the Indonesian population. Thus, future studies should consider a better study design where participants were randomly recruited from a population. Secondly, subjective well-being greatly depends on an individual’s cognitive evaluation. Other factors might influence an individual’s evaluation, such as cognitive flexibility and psychological capital (i.e., hope, optimism, resilience, and efficacy). Thus, future researchers should examine the role of these factors in fear and subjective well-being relationship. Lastly, this study was designed to measure individual-level variables. In some studies, collecting group-level data could provide a different perspective. Thus, researchers should discover ways to collect or compile data from groups or units to provide a better understanding of the group-level analysis.

6. Conclusion

Subjective well-being is essential for people and their nations as this construct informs scholars and practitioners on how individuals in society evaluate their life satisfaction and achievement. Therefore, all variables that determine the dynamic of subjective well-being must be well-comprehended. This study found that subjective well-being was determined by fear of COVID-19, perceived stress, and awareness of COVID-19. There was an interaction between fear of COVID-19 and awareness of Covid-19, leading to perceived stress and lower subjective well-being. People who were highly aware of the COVID-19 crisis were more likely to develop the fear, causing stress and consequently degrading their subjective well-being. Fear of COVID-19 adversely impacts subjective well-being only if that fear causes stress. There is a potential positive effect of fear of COVID-19 if people use their fear to anticipate the upcoming threats caused by COVID-19 and secure their remaining resources. In order to reduce the stress caused by fear of COVID-19, proper education must be coupled with crisis-related information in society.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee (the ethical clearance was approved by the first author’s affiliation) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants in the study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to some restrictions but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Additional information

Funding

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

Notes on contributors

Hillman Wirawan

Hillman Wirawan is a lecturer and researcher of Industrial and Organisational Psychology at the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia. He is also a current PhD (Psychology) candidate at the School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. His current research focuses on the role of toxic leadership and dark personalities on employees’ well-being.

Hasbi Hasbi

Hasbi Hasbi is a Professor of Sociology at the Department of Sociology, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, Indonesia. His current research interest is societal well-being and factors affecting subjective well-being.

Muhammad Ahsan Samad

Muhammad Ahsan Samad is a lecturer and researcher at the Department of Public Administration, Universitas Tadulako, Palu, Indonesia. He is also a current PhD student at the Department of Environmental Management, at the National University of Malaysia. Lastly.

Novina Sabila Zahra

Novina Sabila Zahra is a student and research assistant at the Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Negeri Makassar, Makassar, Indonesia.