Loneliness and trust issues reshape mental stress of expatriates during early COVID-19: a structural equation modelling approach

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2099709/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Loneliness and trust issues reshape mental stress of expatriates during early COVID-19: a structural equation modelling approach

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2099709/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 29 Apr, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Psychology →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Objectives: To explore the relationship of perceived stress (PSS) regarding loneliness (PLS) interpersonal (IPT) and institutional trust (IT) among the expatriates during the early COVID-19 period.

Methods: Using the COVIDiSTRESS global survey data for 21,439 expatriates, this study applied pairwise correlation, structural equation modelling (SEM) and hierarchical linear regression analysis (HLRA). Descriptive statistics were provided for the sample representation.

Results: Expatriates were mostly female (73.85%), married (60.20%), highly educated (47.76%), and employed (48.72%). Over 63% of them reported that the COVID-19 changed their life. Age, PSS, PLS, IPT and IT were moderately interrelated to each other at p<0.001. SEM evaluated that lack of trust enhances the loneliness of expatriates and loneliness increases the perceived stress. Trust in a person was more likely found to be associated with the stress whereas loneliness mediated trusts and perceived stress. HLRA was found an insignificant contributor of institutional trusts.

Conclusion: PSS can be reduced through trusting others and elucidating the loneliness where the loneliness can be reduced through trusting others. This chain of psychosocial facts can be established over in the society for migrants and expatriates for mental wellbeing.

Perceived stress

loneliness

interpersonal trust

institutional trust

structural equation modelling

hierarchical regression analysis

expatriates

global

Globalization of the 21^st century increased the cross-border assignments leading to the international collaboration of people around the world. With the pandemic engulfing the entire world, countries closed their borders and imposed lockdowns, people were advised to stay at home, public places, including schools and colleges, were closed and employees were asked to work from home. Therefore, psychosocial impact is widely found linking with the socio-demographic and many attributed factors (1, 2).

Perceived loneliness (PLS) referred to the deprivation in social relationships and degree of deficit social interaction (3). It is considered as a subjective phenomenon causing unpleasant and distressing situations (4). Besides, insufficient social connectedness such as lack of trust in close persons/interpersonal trusts (IPT), institutional trust (IT) boosts the experience of loneliness (5, 6). This degree of loneliness is situational, transient and varied over different chronic period that observed during this pandemic (7, 8). Subsequently, it creates several distressful events and perceived stress (PSS) resulting from the aversive state of mind (6, 9). Lonely people were more sensitive to social threats as the consequences of loneliness generate a lack of trust and make them paranoid (10–12), felt hypnotic like stressed, faultily evaluate others by declining optimism and self-esteem (9). Such behaviours are extended to mental disorders and suicidal tendencies (13). A recent review reported that the impact of loneliness in the form of social isolation and being alone can increase the mortality by 29–32% (14).

The way individuals construed and interpreted their experiences seems to matter more in predicting adverse effects associated with loneliness than the actual social network available to them (15). Evolved definition of loneliness refers to the discrepancy of one’s desired and actual relationships with individuals and circumstances (4) that make them self-isolated due to lack of trust (16–18). Primarily, the evolutionary theory of loneliness suggested it as an adaptive mechanism posited to produce an “aversive state” that elicited social pain of feeling unsafe, threat sensitivity and negative social information bias (9, 19) that deteriorating the social bond (19, 20). This model explicates that, loneliness integrates the unsafe feelings of a person and activates an anarchy mechanism inside of his/her mind.

This also incorporates the trust issues in the form of social connectedness as it connotes sensitivity to social contexts (17). Trust is crucial to psychosocial functioning of interactions with others that via a cognitive model and critical facet of personal relationships (21, 22). Weiss (5) distinguishes these emotional (absence of connection and trust in others) and social loneliness (a perception of a lack of interpersonal connections or a deficient social network). Various research of lead by Rotenberg support these loneliness classifications by adopting the mechanism of cognitive schema and social disengagement. Negative form of trusts affects the socio-emotional behavior and elevated the state of loneliness (cognitive schema) or low trusts incorporate to the ineffective social interactions reduced the social relationships (social disengagement) (16, 23–25). Therefore, loneliness can be negatively correlated to the trusts in forms of social disengagement and cognitive attachment of individuals. Contrarily, loneliness contains self or social alienation due to isolation, emotional pain and cognitive development (26). In this way, expatriates rely on and get attached to the people or organizations they may trust during important life events. Thus, a major factor in loneliness causing mental stress is a loss of faith in the people or institutions that one relies on.

Expatriates (or expats) are experiencing higher cultural diversity than others because of community level objective factors and cultural parameters including communication trusts (27–29). They optimized the cross-cultures serving their practical needs from survival to maintaining order, socio-economic viability, and communication pattern (30, 31). Therefore, they are mostly deal with the socio-cultural and psychological adjustment for mental wellbeing. It includes negotiation with the organizational and environmental trust or daily stress in the host culture (32, 33). There are evidence that expatriates felt loneliness when they faced acculturation and adaptation problems in the host country (34). Besides, the COVID-19 enhanced individual level of isolation integrated with socio-cultural isolation and impacts on their psychosocial wellbeing, perceived loneliness and stress (35, 36). One study found that social disconnectedness with increased stressors during pandemic reduce trusts from government institutions as well as business (35).

In previous literature, the cross-cultural experiences of loneliness, stress and trust issues are loosely used and explored for expatriates subject to intercultural psychology (29). Besides, this relationship is not clearly explained yet during long term non-aversive situation that need another look during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, we developed a conceptual model of perceived stress, loneliness and trusts based on the previous literatures integrated with theory of loneliness and dynamics of attachment theory (See Fig. 1). Both models of perspective are posited a socio-cognitive perspective of loneliness (6). It can develop the cognitive stresses of a person affected by loneliness and the lack of trust manifested in their behavior (6, 9, 10, 16, 19). Therefore, we evaluate the psychological distress (PSS) subject to loneliness (PLS), interpersonal (IPT) and institutional trusts (IT) regarding expatriates’ cross-cutting the borders as well as the cultures. All these models indicate the trust issues of a person can contribute to their stress and loneliness correlates in both ways as a mediator. But this relationship is not clearly explained yet for expatriates and need another look during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, psychological distress (PSS) is needed to evaluate the subject to loneliness, IPT and IT regarding expatriates’ cross-cutting the borders as well as the cultures.

Study overview

People who are living outside of their country of origin or living in a foreign country (country of residence not by birth or originality) are considered as the primary respondents of this study (we used the term “expatriates” to refer this group). We used data from the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS global survey (COVIDiSTRESS global survey network, 2020—available at https://osf.io/2ftma/). The aims of this survey were to improve understanding on human experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic from the psycho-social perspectives. The survey collected data from March 30 to May 30, 2021 through an open science forum- an online platform. A total of 125,306 respondents aged 18 years and more voluntarily participated from 179 countries. The survey was conducted in 47 different languages and dialects with collaborators from 39 countries and regions. Details of the sampling procedure have been published elsewhere (37).

Sample

A total of 21,439 respondents were included in this study (See figure 2). The conditions of inclusion were: (i) respondents living outside of their country of origin, and (ii) provided responses to all items of the PSS scale (UDRA-UCLA PSS-10).

Ethical approval

The data collection was anonymous and ethical clearance for the COVIDiSTRESS was waived by the IRB legal department, Aarthus University, Denmark to conduct urgent data collection. The data was collected online using Qualtrics platform and individual participated voluntarily and gave informed consent. As required, the study was pre-registered in the OSF platform as a project (details given in https://osf.io/6ut4v).

[Insert the figure 2: Sample selection here]

Variables and Measures

Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10): Comprised of 10 items with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very often). Among the items, 4 items (items 4,5,7, and 8) were scored reversed as these were positively stated (38). Later, the PS score was formulated by aggregating all the items which range from 10 to 50. The Cronbach alpha 0.8736 indicated the good and accepted range of reliability.

Perceived loneliness scale (PLS-3): This scale is comprised of three items with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very often). The items are- How often have you (i) felt that you lacked companionship? (ii) felt left out? and (iii) felt isolated from others? The items were aggregated and comprised the score of individuals PLS (39). The higher the scores, the higher the degree of PLS. The Cronbach alpha (0.7448) indicated the accepted range of reliability.

Trust issues: Trust issues were divided into two categories- interpersonal trust and institutional trust. All these items were recorded using a scale of 10 equivalent distances ranging from 0 (do not trust) to 10 (have complete trust) on each of the items. Interpersonal trust has 2 items that aggregately constitute a composite score of trust on people ranging from 0 to 20 whereas institutional trust has 6 items that aggregately constitute a composite score ranging from 0 to 60. In both cases, the Cronbach alpha shows acceptable reliability of interpersonal (0.7612) and institutional trust (0.8959).

Statistical Analysis

Frequency distribution was reported for the sample characteristics of group data where descriptive statistics (i.e., mean, standard deviation and ranges) were used for the continuous variables. Besides pairwise correlation coefficients were also estimated between those continuous variables scores at <5% and <1% level of significance. We also used hierarchical linear regression analysis (HLRA) to estimate the final model and structural equation modeling (SEM) to confirm the relationships among the latent variables.

We used maximum likelihood estimation method (mlmv) performing SEM to confirm the relationship. Measurement errors of SEM were considered during the analyses. In the model, the PLS attribute was enacted as the mediator as well as the exogenous variable, whereas the institutional and IPT was the exogeneous variable for PSS (exogenous variable) (40). The goodness fit of SEM was evaluated by the likelihood ratio (Chi-square/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis fit index (TLI), the goodness of fit index (GFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). The acceptable threshold of RMSEA was ≤0.06, that of χ²/df was <3, and that of the rest of the indices such as CFI was≥0.95 (41).

Finally, HLRA estimates the best-fitted model from the theoretical aspects. It is one of the best tools to explore the theoretical assumptions in psychology, counselling and social science (42). A detailed advantages and disadvantages with possible remedies were discussed in other studies (43, 44). HLRA provide the best fitted model based on the significant changes in R² and its corresponding changes in F statistics and p values (44). One of the very assumptions of the use of hierarchical multiple regression is multicollinearity which is also addressed using the variation influence factor (VIF) with an acceptable cut-off point (45)(Hair et al., 2009). All analyses were conducted in statistical software STATA 14 (StataCorp, 2015)

Sample characteristics

The average age of the respondents is 40.39 (SD: 13.72) (Table 1). Most of the expatriates were female (73.85%). Around 78% expatriates had college-level degrees, among them 30.01% continued to short college degrees (i.e., diploma), 11.41% completed 12 years of education and 9.83% completed doctoral degree. Expatriates are mostly employed which constitutes full time (48.72%), part-time (10.13%) and self-employed (9.86%). Around 14% expatriates were students. Majority of them were married/cohabiting (60.20%) at the time of the survey followed by the single (29.09%) and divorced/widowed (7.11%). Around 63% of the expatriates reported they were in risk of getting the COVID-19, though changed themselves narrowly (58.23%) or put them in isolation (37.32%).

The mean score of perceived stress (PSS), perceived loneliness (PLS), interpersonal trust (IPT) and institutional trust (IT) were 25.48, 7.38, 14.15 and 40.40 with standard deviation (7.25), (2.86), (3.36) and (12.37), respectively. The mean overall trust score was estimated at 54.64 with a 14.28 standard deviation.

[Insert the Table 1. Sample characteristics of the expatriates here]

Table 1. Sample characteristics of the expatriates

Variables	n (%)	µ(SD), Range
Age		40.39 (13.72), 18-110
Gender
Male	5407 (25.22%)
Female	15833 (73.85%)
Prefer not to say/Others	199 (0.93%)
Education
Up to 12-year schooling	2446 (11.41%)
College, bachelor and master	10240 (47.76%)
College/short cont. education	6434 (30.01%)
PhD/Doctorate	2108 (9.83%)
Other (Uninformative/NA/None)	211 (0.98%)
Employment
Not employed	1775 (8.28%)
Part-time employed	2171 (10.13%)
Self-employed	2114 (9.86%)
Full-time employed	10445 (48.72%)
Student	3074 (14.34%)
Retired	1701 (7.93%)
NA	159 (0.74%)
Marital status
Single	6237 (29.09%)
Married/cohabiting	12907 (60.20%)
Divorced/widowed	1524 (7.11%)
Other (Uninformative/NA)	771 (3.59%)
COVID-19 risk
Yes	13602 (63.45%)
No	6092 (28.42%)
Not sure/NA	1745 (8.14%)
Isolation type
No isolated	767 (3.58%)
Minor changes	12485 (58.23%)
Isolated	8000 (37.32%)
Others (Uninformative/NA)	187 (0.87%)
Perceived stress (PSS)		25.48 (7.25), 10-50
Perceived loneliness (PLS)		7.38 (2.86), 3-15
Interpersonal trust (IPT)		14.15 (3.36%), 0-20
Institutional trust (IT)		40.40 (12.37%), 0-60
Overall trust		54.64 (14.28), 0-80

Note: NA- Not available, PSS- perceived stress, PLS- perceived loneliness, IPT- interpersonal trust, IT- institutional trust

n- frequency, %- percentage, µ- mean, SD- standard deviation.

Correlation Matrix

The PSS was found to be negatively correlated with age (r=-0.2875, p<0.001), IPT (r=-0.3050, p<0.001), IT (r=-0.2545, p<0.001) were found to be negatively correlated whereas the PLS (r=0.5729, p<0.001) moderately had a positive correlation with PSS significantly. Loneliness found slightly and negatively correlated with age (r=-0.2023, p<0.001), interpersonal (r=-0.2126, p<0.001) and IT (r=-0.1623, p<0.001). Respondent’s age was positively correlated with the interpersonal (r=0.2283, p<0.001) and IT (r=0.1180, p<0.001). The IPT and IT was moderately positively correlated to each other (r=0.4911, p<0.001). All of these are significantly correlated at <1% level of significance (See table 02).

[Insert the Table 2. Pairwise correlation estimates here]

Table 2. Pairwise correlation estimates (N- Number of respondents, r- correlation coefficient)

Variables	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)
(1) Age (r) (N)	1.00 21439
(2) PSS (r) (N)	-0.2875*** 212439	1.00
(3) PLS (r) (N)	-0.2023*** 21301	0.5729*** 21301	1.00
(4) IPT (r) (N)	0.2283*** 20613	-0.3050*** 20613	-0.2126*** 20483	1.00
(5) IT (r) (N)	0.1180*** 19898	-0.2545*** 19898	-0.1623*** 19774	0.4911*** 19811	1.00

Note: *** indicates the p<0.001, r-correlation coefficients, N-number of observations

PSS- Perceives stress scale, PLS- Perceived loneliness scale, IPT- Interpersonal trust and IT- Institutional trust

Structural equation modelling

Figure 3 showed the structural equation modelling of the PSS score, PLS and trust issues- IPT and institutional trust were correlated to each other whereas the overall goodness of fit and covariances were also provided in Table 03. We estimated a significant covariance between PSS with loneliness (ρ <0.001), PSS with trust in people (ρ <0.001) and loneliness with trust in people (ρ <0.05) (See Figure 1). Further, the PLS directly and positively contributed to the PSS (0.66, SE, 0.0116) whereas the IPT (-0.131, SE, 0.006) and IT (-0.034, SE, 0.004) directly contributed to the PLS. We also found an indirect but negative impact of IPT (-0.087, SE, 0.004) and IT (-0.022, SE, 0.003) on PSS (see table 3a). Overall, model fitting statistics were indicating a good fit of the model based on the RMSEA (0.044), CFI (0.963), TLI (0.956) and GFI (0.962).

Table 3. Overall fitted results of structural equation modelling^3,4using the maximum likelihood method with missing values (n=21439 expatriate)

Fit statistics	Estimates		Reference⁵
Likelihood ratio
Chi-square MS (177)	7517.488
p>chi2	0.000
Chi-square/df	47.18		<3.00
Chi-square BS (210)	197829.153
NFI	0.962		>0.95
NNFI	0.955		>0.95
Population error
RMSEA	0.044		<≈0.06
90% CI	0.043-0.045
Pclose	1.000	P(RMSEA)<=0.05
Information criterion
AIC¹	1391196.27
BIC¹	1391794.24
Baseline comparison
CFI	0.963		>0.95
TLI	0.956		>0.95
GFI	0.962
Size of residuals
CD	0.993
SRMR²	Not reported

Notes: MS- model vs saturated; BS- baseline vs saturated; RMSEA- root mean squared error of approximation; CI- confidence interval; CFI- Comparative fit index; TLI- Tucker-Lewis index; GFI- goodness of fit index; CD- coefficient of determination and SRMR- standardized root-mean-square residuals; NFI- Normed fit index; NNFI- Non-normed fix index

¹Akaike’s and Bayesian information criteria (AIC and BIC) were ignored (Huang, 2017).

²SRMR is not reported due to missing values.

³Method: mlmv; Log-likelihood: -695523.13

⁴Endogenous latent variable: PSS and exogenous latent variable: PLS, IPT and IT

⁵Reference values were provided in the third column (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2015)

Table 3a: Direct, indirect and total effects

	Direct effect		Indirect effect		Total effect
	Coef. (SE)	Std coef	Coef. (SE)	Std coef	Coef. (SE)	Std coef
PSS ← PLS	0.662 (0.0116)***	.717023			0.662 (0.0116)***	.717023
PSS ← IPT	-0.040 (0.0043)***	-.091940	-0.087 (0.0041)***	-.202215	-0.127 (0.0049)***	-.294154
PSS ← IT	-0.013 (0.0029)***	.041804	-0.022 (0.0027)***	.070015	-0.036 (0.0033)***	-.111820
PLS ← IPT	-0.131 (0.0060)***	-.282020			-0.131 (0.0060)***	-.282020
PLS ← IT	-0.034 (0.0041)***	-.097647			-0.034 (0.0041)***	-.097647

Hierarchical regression analysis

The hierarchical regression model (Table 04) indicated model 3 was the best-fitted model which relates the PSS with age, PLS and trust in people. Changes in R² was increased until the third model significantly (p<0.01). In model 1, the relationship between PSS and age (β= -0.153, SE=0.0035, ρ<0.001) (with constant) was significant (F₍₁,₂₁₄₃₇₎=1931.69, ρ<0.001) that was found to be explained 8.26% of the PSS. Integrating the PLS (β=1.359, SE= 0.1124, ρ<0.001) with age (β= -0.095, SE=0.003, ρ<0.0010) in the model, increased the variation of PSS explanation 27.6% (F_(2,21298)=5965.84, ρ<0.001) and adjusted R²= 0.3590. After adding the IPT (β=1.239, SE= 0.014, ρ<0.001) with age (β= -0.095, SE=0.003, ρ<0.001) and PLS (β= 1.286, SE=0.015, ρ<0.001) in the model 2 significantly increased the variation of explanation by 2.3% (F_(3,267)=54.31, ρ<0.001) with adjusted R²=0.3822. Therefore, the best-fitted model (model 3) included age, PLS and IPT that described 38.22% of the overall variation of PSS among the expatriates.

Table 4. Hierarchical regression parameters

Model	B(SE)	p-value	95% CI	Model summary
*Model 1*				F (1, 21437) = 1931.69; p<0.001 R² = 0.0827, adj R² = 0.0826, RMSE = 6.9427
Age	-153(0.0035)	<0.001	-.159 to -.145
Constant	31.617 (.147)	<0.001	31.328 to 31.906
*Model 2*				F (2, 21298) = 5965.84, p<0.001 R² = 0.3591, adj R² = 0.3590, RMSE = 5.8029
Age	-.0950 (.003)	<0.001	-.101 to -.089
Perceived loneliness	1.359 (.014)	<0.001	1.332 to 1.387
Constant	19.288 (.179)	<0.001	18.938 to 19.638
*Model 3*				F (3, 20479) = 4224.72, p<0.001 R² = 0.3823, adj R² = 0.3822, RMSE= 5.7066
Age	-.079 (.003)	<0.001	-.085 to -.073
Perceived loneliness	1.286 (.015)	<0.001	1.258 to 1.314
Trust (People)	-.353 (.012)	<0.001	-.377 to -.329
Constant	24.185 (.248)	<0.001	23.700 to 24.670
*Model 4*				F (4, 19683) = 3150.44, p<0.001 R² = 0.3903, adj R² = 0.3902, RMSE = 5.6441
Age	-.079 (.003)	<0.001	-.085 to -.073
Perceived loneliness	1.276 (015)	<0.001	1.247 to 1.305
Trust (People)	-.245 (.014)	<0.001	-.274 to -.217
Trust (Institute)	-.058 (.004)	<0.001	-.066 to -.051
Constant	25.026 (.261)	<0.001	24.515 to 25.537
Difference between models
Models	R²Change	F (df) change		p-value
Model 1
Model 2	0.276	9166.596 (1, 21298)		0.000
Model 3	0.023	336.461 (1, 20479)		0.000
Model 4	0.008	-354.820 (1, 196830		1.000

Note: B: regression coefficient, SE: Standard error, CI: confidence interval, RMSE: Root mean square error

The present study investigated the role of the perceived loneliness between the perceived stress and trust issues (considering both interpersonal and IT) among the expats during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Initial correlation analysis supported the relationship among age, perceived stress (PSS), perceived loneliness (PLS), interpersonal trust (IPT) and institutional trust (IT). Our fitted model supports the impact of IPT and IT on PSS through the PLS. A person’s responsibility depends on their age that is directed to modify the stresses. As the age increases, coping resource effectiveness improved, and life satisfaction elevated (46). Besides, older adults get benefitted from their past experiences compared to the younger people (47).

Our findings suggested a negative effect, i.e., a decrease to a certain extent; of both trusts (more likely to the interpersonal trust) with expatriate’s loneliness. Similar findings were expressed for university students (48) and marital couples (49). The insecure attachment is oriented by responsiveness in the relationship and convert the self-centred preferences into pro-relationship motivations. This type of motivation is inferred from the interpersonal trust (21). Another multi-modal study explains the cognitive effect i.e., acute loners have significantly less interpersonal trust compared to non-acute loners (50). They are less likely involved in social interactions as they increased the interpersonal distances due to safety behavior (10). This mostly prevails among the marginalized individuals (i.e., expatriates) because of their weakened social immune system and social inflammation (6, 51, 52). All these sensitize the social stimuli to avoid hostile conspecifics and allied to trusted ones while vulnerable (52). Therefore, integrated and compromised trusts effectively contribute to loneliness and ineffective social interactions of expatriates (50) and as social disengagement (17, 53). For example, for old people when the neighbours are trustworthy, the loneliness reduces significantly (54). IPT interacted and mediated the social and family loneliness (55) in a way that IPT mediated between attachment and relationship quality whereas the relationship quality mediated between loneliness and attachment (49).

Our analysis found a reverse relationship of interpersonal trust and perceived stresses because of perceived threat (56), negative social interactions (57) and psychological discomfort (58). Studies also found that trust can moderate distressful events by eliminating those threats and discomforts (56, 59). Higher trusts increased the positive expectations and confidence of others by mitigating psychological discomfort (59). Besides, depressive symptoms are linked to reduced engagement with the community where interpersonal trust is implicative to more social engagement (15). Nickerson and others (2019) found this relationship for the settled refugees in other countries (60). Though online engagement is promoted to reduce loneliness by increasing trusted interactions, studies showed that online is not a definite solution of it (61, 62).

In our sample, most of the expatriates were students and labour/jobholders who were dependent on their respective organizations. Besides, international organizations integrated with national agencies of different countries channeling the latest and updated news with measures of reduce transmission and adverse impact. Expatriates are mostly relied on these social, national and international organizations as well as their working places. It exhibits the organizational dynamics of attachments including institutional trusts (63). Besides, the relationship between students and their respective academic institutions were largely strained in lockdown and isolated situation during pandemic. It is due to changing institutional regulations and restrictions by time being and some regulations creates distinctive situation that make them feel disconnected with their academic institutions (64). Controlling the individual and cultural diversifications, institutional trusts can influence the expat’s stresses and stress factors. On the other hand, loneliness in the workplace resulted from the trust in organizational leaders, because trust in leaders creates a space of social interactions with the organizations (65). COVID-19 period creates job recession, prioritize locales rather than migrants, change strategies and policies defeating COVID-19 and restraint the organizational and political economy; that reliably influenced their trusts to organizations influencing their psychological distress (63). We found institutional trusts more likely to influence an individual’s stress rather than loneliness. Slight relations with loneliness occurred due to isolation and movement controls, and frequent decision changes that pose expatriates more to stay idle and alone (65, 66).

We found positive, direct and extended relationship among the loneliness and stress whereas these mediates other biopsychosocial outcomes (ref). Many recent studies have supported this relationship related to pandemics (61, 67-69). During this pandemic, Landmann and Rohmann integrated the physical dimension of loneliness which is occurred mostly during this pandemic due to preventive protocols. Though in the study, emotional and social loneliness predicted a presumably low level of psychological wellbeing and enhanced stress factors, physical loneliness significantly reduced positivity regarding mind and body, joyfulness, connectedness and enhanced worries. Emotional loneliness, on the other hand, resulted in a physical distance as well as losing frequent contacts and social loneliness reduced the social networks (68). Besides the impact of a pandemic, our results supported the relationship of loneliness and stress of expatriates like other studies conducted on the general population and students (6, 9-12).

We found that lack of trust enhances the loneliness of expatriates and the loneliness increases the perceived stress. Besides, trust in a person is more likely associated with stress and loneliness compared to trust in institutions. Our results concrete the previous study of the adverse relationship of stress with trusts issues and cooperated with loneliness (70). Therefore, loneliness here mediated trust and stresses in our fitted model. Alike this yields, other studies also supported loneliness as a mediating factor between stress and other variables (71, 72). Primarily, the evolutionary theory of loneliness suggested it as an adaptive mechanism posited to produce an “aversive state” that elicited social pain of feeling unsafe, threat sensitivity and negative social information bias (9, 19) that deteriorating the social bond (19, 20). This model explicates that, loneliness integrates the unsafe feelings of a person and activates an anarchy mechanism inside of his/her mind. Therefore, they also heightened their sensitivity to threats and attacks (10). This incorporates the trust issues in the form of social connectedness as it connotes sensitivity to different socio-cultural contexts (17, 23, 26, 73, 74).

Strengths and limitations

Study results have several strengths and a few limitations. We connect the social and cognitive psychology of the expatriates. This type of relationship is neither found in literature nor theory, especially for expatriates. Though findings reflect during the crisis without socio-economic adjunction, the novelty of these findings underlie the social-cognitive psychology of expatriates during any situation as their psycho-social adjustment is a continuum process. Besides, our study integrates the attachment component of adults with the cognitive and evolutionary perspective of loneliness to output.

Expatriate’s mental wellbeing entirely relates both on recent circumstances and impacted psychological attributes due to the circumstances. The dynamics of the attachment and evolutionary cognitive theory of loneliness aggregately describe the yields. Interventions related to increase trust factors indirectly precipitate stress through behavioral acts of submerged loneliness. As it is the first study conducted, more empirical studies may be required to establish these facts for migrants and people who are more likely lived in different culture with challenging situations.

Ethics approval and consent to participate: The data collection was anonymous and ethical clearance for the COVIDiSTRESS was waived by the IRB legal department, Aarthus University, Denmark to conduct urgent data collection. The data was collected online using Qualtrics platform and individual participated voluntarily and gave informed consent. As required, the study was pre-registered in the OSF platform as a project (details given in https://osf.io/6ut4v). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication: Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials: The data was openly available in the open science forum (OSF)—available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z39US

Competing interest: None

Funding details: This work was not supported by any external or internal funding agency.

Author’s contribution: MAB designed the study, done data acquisition, performed the statistical data analysis; MNK provided the methodological, statistical and writing support. MAB drafted the manuscript and MNK, SA reviewed and modified the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements: We acknowledged to the Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Development to allow us to conduct this study with possible guidelines and we are also thankful to the Open Science Forum (OSF) that provides us with the opportunity to extract the global level of data on psychological attributes (COVIDiSTRESS global survey network, 2020—available at https://osf.io/2ftma/).).

Geolocation information: Globally 179 countries.

Algarni MA, Alzahrani MS, Alatawi Y, Alasmari RA, Alsaab HO, Almalki AH, et al. Perception of Threat and Psychological Impact of COVID-19 among Expatriates in Makkah Region, Saudi Arabia. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(12):6650.
Baburajan PK. Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic among expatriate residents in the UAE. Avicenna. 2021;2021(1).
Kupshik GA, Kupshik GA, Murphy PM. Loneliness, Stress and Well-Being: A Helper's Guide: Routledge; 2006 2006/05/19/. 137 p.
Perlman D, Peplau LA. Towards a social psychology of loneliness. In: Duck S, Gilmour R, editors. Personal relationships: Personal relationships in disorder. 3. London: Academic Press; 1981. p. 31-56.
Weiss RS. Loneliness: The experience of emotional and social isolation. Cambridge, MA, US: The MIT Press; 1973 1973. xxii, 236 p.
Ernst JM, Cacioppo JT. Lonely hearts: Psychological perspectives on loneliness. Applied and Preventive Psychology. 1999;8(1):1-22.
Allen JP, Hauser ST, Bell KL, O'Connor TG. Longitudinal Assessment of Autonomy and Relatedness in Adolescent-Family Interactions as Predictors of Adolescent Ego Development and Self-Esteem. Child Development. 1994;65(1):179.
Chan SH, Qiu HH. Loneliness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment of migrant workers: empirical evidence from China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management. 2011;22(5):1109-27.
Cacioppo JT, Hawkley LC, Ernst JM, Burleson M, Berntson GG, Nouriani B, et al. Loneliness within a nomological net: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Research in Personality. 2006;40(6):1054-85.
Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness matters: a theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med. 2010;40(2):218-27.
Lamster F, Lincoln TM, Nittel CM, Rief W, Mehl S. The lonely road to paranoia. A path-analytic investigation of loneliness and paranoia. Compr Psychiatry. 2017;74:35-43.
Lamster F, Nittel C, Rief W, Mehl S, Lincoln T. The impact of loneliness on paranoia: An experimental approach. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2017;54:51-7.
Stickley A, Koyanagi A. Loneliness, common mental disorders and suicidal behavior: Findings from a general population survey. J Affect Disord. 2016;197:81-7.
Campagne DM. Stress and perceived social isolation (loneliness). Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2019;82:192-9.
Bogaerts S, Vanheule S, Desmet M. Feelings of Subjective Emotional Loneliness: An Exploration of Attachment. soc behav pers. 2006;34(7):797-812.
Rotenberg KJ. Loneliness and Interpersonal Trust. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1994;13(2):152-73.
Rotenberg KJ, Addis N, Betts LR, Corrigan A, Fox C, Hobson Z, et al. The relation between trust beliefs and loneliness during early childhood, middle childhood, and adulthood. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2010;36(8):1086-100.
Wang LS, editor The Relationship between Interpersonal Trust and Loneliness of University Students: The Mediating Role of Personality Hardiness. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 3RD CONFERENCE ON EDUCATION AND TEACHING IN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (CETCU 2017); 2017 2017. Titan, China: Atlantis Press.
Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S, Boomsma DI. Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cogn Emot. 2014;28(1):3-21.
Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S, Capitanio JP, Cole SW. The neuroendocrinology of social isolation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015;66(1):733-67.
Simpson JA. Psychological Foundations of Trust. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016;16(5):264-8.
Simpson S, Furlong M, Giebel C. Exploring the enablers and barriers to social prescribing for people living with long-term neurological conditions: a focus group investigation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1230.
Rotenberg KJ, MacDonald KJ, King EV. The relationship between loneliness and interpersonal trust during middle childhood. J Genet Psychol. 2004;165(3):233-49.
Rotenberg KJ, Manley E, Walker KM. The relation between young adults' trust beliefs in others and interpersonal hostility. Aggress Behav. 2021;47(5):544-56.
Rotenberg KJ, Sharp C, Venta A. Trust Beliefs in Significant Others, Interpersonal Stress, and Internalizing Psychopathology of Adolescents with Psychiatric Disorders. Child Psychiatry Hum Dev. 2021.
Rokach A. The Relation of Cultural Background to the Causes of Loneliness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1998;17(1):75-88.
Carr DC, Kail BL, Matz-Costa C, Shavit YZ. Does Becoming A Volunteer Attenuate Loneliness Among Recently Widowed Older Adults? J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018;73(3):501-10.
Lasgaard M, Armour C, Bramsen RH, Goossens L. Major Life Events as Predictors of Loneliness in Adolescence. J Child Fam Stud. 2015;25(2):631-7.
Zysberg L. Social, Interpersonal and Emotional Antecedents of Loneliness. In: Rudolf L, editor. Psychology of loneliness: new research. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc; 2017. p. 95-119.
Fiske ST, Taylor SE. Social Cognition: from brains to culture. 2nd edition ed. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2013 2013. 580 p.
Nesi J, Widman L, Choukas-Bradley S, Prinstein MJ. Technology-Based Communication and the Development of Interpersonal Competencies Within Adolescent Romantic Relationships: A Preliminary Investigation. J Res Adolesc. 2017;27(2):471-7.
Ward C, Kennedy A. Coping with Cross-Cultural Transition. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2016;32(5):636-42.
Ward C, Kennedy A. Where's the "Culture" in Cross-Cultural Transition? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2016;24(2):221-49.
Neto F, Pinto da Costa M. Loneliness among Romanian Immigrants Living in Portugal. In: Rudolf L, editor. Psychology of loneliness: new research. Sychology of emotions, motivations and actions. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc; 2017. p. 123-39.
Clair R, Gordon M, Kroon M, Reilly C. The effects of social isolation on well-being and life satisfaction during pandemic. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2021;8(1):28.
Tripathi CM, Singh T. Sailing through the COVID-19 pandemic: managing expatriates' psychological well-being and performance during natural crises. JGM. 2021;10(2):192-208.
Yamada Y, Cepulic DB, Coll-Martin T, Debove S, Gautreau G, Han H, et al. COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak. Sci Data. 2021;8(1):3.
Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983;24(4):385-96.
Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655-72.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Fourth edition ed. New York: The Guilford Press; 2016 2016. 534 p.
Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999;6(1):1-55.
Cohen BH. Explaining psychological statistics. Fourth Edition ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley; 2013 2013. 817 p.
Lewis M, editor Stepwise versus Hierarchical Regression: Pros and Cons. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association; 2007 2007/02/07/. San Antonio, TX.
Petrocelli JV. Hierarchical Multiple Regression in Counseling Research: Common Problems and Possible Remedies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 2019;36(1):9-22.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7 ed: Prentice Hall; 2009 2009.
Hamarat E, Thompson D, Zabrucky KM, Steele D, Matheny KB, Aysan F. Perceived stress and coping resource availability as predictors of life satisfaction in young, middle-aged, and older adults. Exp Aging Res. 2001;27(2):181-96.
Stawski RS, Sliwinski MJ, Almeida DM, Smyth JM. Reported exposure and emotional reactivity to daily stressors: the roles of adult age and global perceived stress. Psychol Aging. 2008;23(1):52-61.
Kurt Dz, Sayd M, Kindap Tepe Yz. The Relation between Parental Psychological Control and Late Adolescents' Loneliness: The Mediator Roles of Interpersonal Trust and Attachment. TURK PSIKOLOJI DERGISI. 2013;28(71):105-19.
Givertz M, Woszidlo A, Segrin C, Knutson K. Direct and indirect effects of attachment orientation on relationship quality and loneliness in married couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2013;30(8):1096-120.
Lieberz J, Shamay-Tsoory SG, Saporta N, Esser T, Kuskova E, Stoffel-Wagner B, et al. Loneliness and the Social Brain: How Perceived Social Isolation Impairs Human Interactions. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2021;8(21):e2102076.
Cassidy J, Asher SR. Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child Dev. 1992;63(2):350-65.
Leschak CJ, Eisenberger NI. Two Distinct Immune Pathways Linking Social Relationships With Health: Inflammatory and Antiviral Processes. Psychosom Med. 2019;81(8):711-9.
Nyqvist F, Victor CR, Forsman AK, Cattan M. The association between social capital and loneliness in different age groups: a population-based study in Western Finland. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):542.
Yang J, Moorman SM. Beyond the Individual: Evidence Linking Neighborhood Trust and Social Isolation Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2021;92(1):22-39.
Qualter P, Quinton SJ, Wagner H, Brown S. Loneliness, Interpersonal Distrust, and Alexithymia in University Students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2009;39(6):1461-79.
Minzi MCRd, Sacchi C. Variables moderadoras del estrés. Revista latinoamericana de psicología. 1999;31(2):355-66.
Lakey B, Tardiff TA, Drew JB. Negative Social Interactions: Assessment and Relations to Social Support, Cognition, and Psychological Distress. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1994;13(1):42-62.
Morrison EW, Milliken FJ. Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World. The Academy of Management Review. 2000;25(4):706.
Dong XT, Chung YW. The Mediating Effect of Perceived Stress and Moderating Effect of Trust for the Relationship Between Employee Silence and Behavioral Outcomes. Psychol Rep. 2021;124(4):1715-37.
Nickerson A, Liddell BJ, Keegan D, Edwards B, Felmingham KL, Forbes D, et al. Longitudinal association between trust, psychological symptoms and community engagement in resettled refugees. Psychol Med. 2019;49(10):1661-9.
Boursier V, Gioia F, Musetti A, Schimmenti A. Facing Loneliness and Anxiety During the COVID-19 Isolation: The Role of Excessive Social Media Use in a Sample of Italian Adults. Front Psychiatry. 2020;11:586222.
Nowland R, Necka EA, Cacioppo JT. Loneliness and Social Internet Use: Pathways to Reconnection in a Digital World? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018;13(1):70-87.
Achdut N, Refaeli T. Unemployment and Psychological Distress among Young People during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Psychological Resources and Risk Factors. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):7163.
Vaterlaus JM, Shaffer T, Pulsipher L. College student interpersonal and institutional relationships during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative exploratory study. The Social Science Journal. 2021:1-14.
Arslan A, Yener S, Schermer JA. Predicting workplace loneliness in the nursing profession. J Nurs Manag. 2020;28(3):710-7.
Rapolienė G, Aartsen M. Lonely societies: low trust societies? Further explanations for national variations in loneliness among older Europeans. Eur J Ageing. 2021.
Kalaitzaki A, Tsouvelas G, Koukouli S. Social capital, social support and perceived stress in college students: The role of resilience and life satisfaction. Stress Health. 2021;37(3):454-65.
Landmann H, Rohmann A. When loneliness dimensions drift apart: Emotional, social and physical loneliness during the COVID-19 lockdown and its associations with age, personality, stress and well-being. Int J Psychol. 2022;57(1):63-72.
Xu Z, Zhang D, Xu D, Li X, Xie YJ, Sun W, et al. Loneliness, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder among Chinese adults during COVID-19: A cross-sectional online survey. PLoS One. 2021;16(10):e0259012.
Yarcheski A, Mahon NE, Yarcheski TJ. Stress, hope, and loneliness in young adolescents. Psychol Rep. 2011;108(3):919-22.
Cao Q, Liang Y. Perceived social support and life satisfaction in drug addicts: Self-esteem and loneliness as mediators. J Health Psychol. 2020;25(7):976-85.
Crespo-Sanmiguel I, Zapater-Fajari M, Pulopulos MM, Hidalgo V, Salvador A. Loneliness Mediates the Relationship Between Early Life Stress and Perceived Stress but not Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Adrenal Axis Functioning. Front Psychol. 2021;12:647265.
Mayseless O, Popper M. Reliance on leaders and social institutions: an attachment perspective. Attach Hum Dev. 2007;9(1):73-93.
Rokach A, Neto F. Age, Culture, and the Antecedents of Loneliness. soc behav pers. 2005;33(5):477-94.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 29 Apr, 2023

Read the published version in BMC Psychology →

Editorial decision: Major revision
03 Jan, 2023
Reviews received at journal
18 Nov, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
08 Nov, 2022
Reviews received at journal
27 Oct, 2022
Reviewers agreed at journal
26 Oct, 2022
Reviewers invited by journal
05 Oct, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
30 Sep, 2022
Editor invited by journal
30 Sep, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
30 Sep, 2022
First submitted to journal
24 Sep, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Loneliness and trust issues reshape mental stress of expatriates during early COVID-19: a structural equation modelling approach

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Background Of The Study

Methods And Materials

Study overview

Sample

Ethical approval

Variables and Measures

Statistical Analysis

Results

Sample characteristics

Correlation Matrix

Structural equation modelling

Hierarchical regression analysis

Discussion

Strengths and limitations

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1