How Fear of COVID-19 Relates to Depression, Loneliness, and Life Satisfaction in Türkiye, Including Key Influences

Increased mobility facilitated by advanced transportation has accelerated the rapid global spread of the COVID‐19 virus (Borkowski et al. 2021; Saha et al. 2020). The media and communication channels swiftly disseminated potential adverse effects and scenarios of COVID‐19, inducing widespread fear and concern among the population (Bendau et al. 2021; Choi et al. 2020; Liu and Liu 2020). Government‐imposed restrictions, economic challenges, the isolation of the elderly, the closure of schools hindering young people's socialisation, and uncertainties surrounding the pandemic have collectively heightened societal psychological distress, adversely impacting mental health (Abuselidze and Mamaladze 2020; Jain et al. 2020; Kumar et al. 2021; Lakhan et al. 2020). Studies have shown varying levels of COVID‐19 fear, with some indicating higher fear in the elderly and others in the young (Hyland et al. 2020; Koçak et al. 2021). Across numerous studies on the psychological impact of COVID‐19, it was found that the elderly, young people, workers, refugees, and individuals with chronic diseases are at higher risk of infection and experience greater psychological effects such as depression and stress (Koçak et al. 2021; Salari et al. 2020; Shevlin et al. 2020). This sets the stage for the following hypothesis.Hypothesis 1There is a positive association between COVID‐19 fear and depression.

Loneliness, a negative emotion characterised by a sense of social detachment and uncertainty, arises when there is a disparity between actual and expected social relationships (Goossens et al. 2009; Lim et al. 2020; Loades et al. 2020). It is a multifaceted phenomenon with different causes and consequences for individuals (Killgore et al. 2020a, 2020b; Lim et al. 2020). Loneliness is often categorised into social and emotional types, with the absence of a social network contributing to social loneliness and a lack of close interaction leading to emotional loneliness (Goossens et al. 2009). Loneliness can trigger additional problems (Clair et al. 2021; Donovan and Blazer 2020). Despite being perceived as temporary, loneliness is a distressing experience with potentially far‐reaching effects on life satisfaction (Bozorgpour and Salimi 2012; Esen and Siyez 2011).

Both social and emotional loneliness can adversely impact the psychological and physical health of individuals (Holt‐Lunstad et al. 2015; Strizhitskaya et al. 2021). The COVID‐19 pandemic‐related restrictions exacerbated physical loneliness due to increased physical and social isolation. Paradoxically, individuals' fear of COVID‐19 reduced emotional loneliness, strengthening their emotional ties to relatives, families, and romantic partners (Strizhitskaya et al. 2021). While loneliness is often associated with perceived solitude or a lack of social support (Hawkley and Cacioppo 2010), studies during the pandemic revealed an increase in perceived social support (Strizhitskaya et al. 2021; Luchetti et al. 2020).

Contrary to initial expectations, emotional loneliness during COVID‐19 was found to be lower than before the pandemic in some studies (Strizhitskaya et al. 2021). Additionally, other research suggested that the pandemic did not significantly affect overall loneliness and even increased perceived social support (Luchetti et al. 2020). Importantly, during active periods of the pandemic, individuals, including students unable to attend school, middle‐aged individuals unable to work, and the elderly unable to go out, experienced a decrease in emotional loneliness as they united with their families to cope with the challenges (Killgore et al. 2020a). This evidence leads to the formulation of the following hypotheses.Hypothesis 2COVID‐19 fear has negative associations with family emotional loneliness (i), social loneliness (ii), romantic emotional loneliness (iii).

Earlier research typically showed a positive relationship between depression and loneliness (Erzen and Çikrikci 2018; Ge et al. 2017). Loneliness, a phenomenon individuals recognise and strive to overcome, experienced a shift during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The fear induced by the virus heightened individuals' perceived social support and concurrently reduced feelings of loneliness. However, this trend reverses for individuals experiencing depression, a severe psychological illness that adversely impacts emotions, thoughts, and behaviours (Conejero et al. 2018; Kupferberg et al. 2016; Rnic et al. 2016).

Depression leads to diminished motivation, increased sadness and fatigue, and a range of problems affecting satisfaction with life (Busch et al. 2016; Koçak 2021a; Peres et al. 2017). Consequently, depressed individuals often withdraw from establishing relationships with their existing and potential social environments (DiTommaso et al. 2007). Unless they receive support or actively work to overcome depression, their loneliness is likely to intensify. Given that the impact of the COVID‐19 disease affects individuals of all ages, varying levels of depression are evident across different segments of the population (Dahlberg et al. 2022; DiTommaso et al. 2007). Studies (e.g., Lasgaard et al. 2011) revealed the connections between social and family loneliness with depression, while social and romantic loneliness were associated with social phobia (Lasgaard et al. 2011). Depressed individuals, therefore, have the potential to influence social, family, and romantic dimensions of loneliness, subsequently negatively impacting their overall life satisfaction (Gigantesco et al. 2019; Koçak 2021b; Mahmoud et al. 2012; Tomás et al. 2019). This context lays the foundation for the following hypotheses.Hypothesis 3Depression has a positive relationship with family emotional loneliness (i), social loneliness (ii), and romantic emotional loneliness (iii).Hypothesis 4Depression has a negative relationship with satisfaction with life.

Available evidence shows that loneliness is associated with a reduction in satisfaction with life (Bakalım and Muyan 2020; Clair et al. 2021; Kapıkıran 2016; Koçak 2021a; Ozben 2013; Şimşek et al. 2021; Wang and Yao 2020). However, there exists a research gap regarding the predictive power of loneliness when considering its social, family, and romantic dimensions about life satisfaction. Some studies have attempted to address this gap by employing the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults to investigate how different dimensions of loneliness predict various outcomes (DiTommaso et al. 2016; Salimi 2011). For example, research revealed a negative relationship between all sub‐dimensions of loneliness and life satisfaction, with family emotional and romantic emotional loneliness emerging as stronger predictors than social loneliness (Bozorgpour and Salimi 2012; Salimi 2011). Similarly, studies conducted in different cultures, such as Turkish and Polish cultures, demonstrated negative relationships between social and emotional loneliness and satisfaction with life (Adamczyk and Ditommaso 2014; Akgül 2020). These findings form the basis for the following hypotheses.Hypothesis 5Romantic emotional loneliness (i), social loneliness (ii), and family emotional loneliness (iii) have negative relationships with satisfaction with life.

The existing literature revealed a negative association between COVID‐19 fear and social and emotional loneliness (Luchetti et al. 2020; Strizhitskaya et al. 2021). Individuals experiencing challenges posed by the COVID‐19 pandemic have paradoxically felt a heightened social and emotional closeness to their relatives (Killgore et al. 2020b). Consequently, COVID‐19 fear appears to diminish social and emotional loneliness. However, if effective solutions cannot be proposed to address the issues deriving from COVID‐19 fear and those at risk of infection cannot access social support from their immediate environment, coping becomes challenging, potentially leading to depression. The symptoms of depression exacerbate feelings of loneliness, driving individuals further away from their social circles. Hence, it is evident from the literature that when COVID‐19 fear, left unmitigated, transitions into depression, social and emotional loneliness tend to intensify. This establishes a mediating link via depression between COVID‐19 fear and social and emotional loneliness. Similarly, it is anticipated that loneliness will mediate the negative association between depression and satisfaction with life. Based on these reasonings, the following hypotheses were generated.Hypothesis 6Depression has a mediator role between COVID‐19 fear and romantic emotional loneliness (i), social loneliness (ii), and family emotional loneliness (iii).Hypothesis 7Family loneliness (i), social loneliness (ii), and romantic loneliness (iii) have a mediation effect on the relationship between COVID‐19 fear and satisfaction with life.Hypothesis 8Depression and family loneliness (i), depression and social loneliness (ii), and depression and romantic loneliness (iii) have serial mediation effects in the associations between COVID‐19 fear and satisfaction with life.Hypothesis 9Family loneliness (i), social loneliness (ii), and romantic loneliness (iii) have a mediation effect on the relationship between depression and satisfaction with life.

Similar to wars and socio‐political changes, pandemics have caused significant influence over the economic and political fabric of societies. The COVID‐19 pandemic, in a similar vein, poses a threat to the economic well‐being of all societies at both the state and individual levels (Brodeur et al. 2021; Ceylan et al. 2020). Prolonged periods of restrictions, business closures, and escalating unemployment have introduced severe social and economic risks on a global scale. Numerous industry, service, and retail entities have been compelled to cease operations, facing unprecedented challenges (Brodeur et al. 2021; Vidya and Prabheesh 2020).

Despite government efforts to provide social and economic support, these measures have proven insufficient. Economic downturns in various sectors have translated into both tax losses for the state and income loss for individuals (Goodell 2020; Padhan and Prabheesh 2021). Global supply chain disruptions, alongside shrinking consumer demands, have prompted sectors to curtail investments and downsize their workforce (Davidescu et al. 2021; Goodell 2020; Vidya and Prabheesh 2020). Particularly vulnerable are low‐income and low‐skilled workers who face the constant threat of job loss (Deb et al. 2020; Kawohl and Nordt 2020).

Financial struggles within families have, in turn, caused the inability to meet the daily needs of university students. The stress experienced by middle‐aged workers and students working during the COVID‐19 pandemic has not been adequately alleviated, often evolving into prolonged periods of depression over time (Bocchino et al. 2021; Lee et al. 2021). Moreover, the literature indicated that during the COVID‐19 period, single and female individuals tended to experience higher levels of stress compared to their married counterparts (Khademian et al. 2021; Ustun 2021). However, conflicting findings also exist, with some studies reporting no significant differences between single and married individuals or between males and females (Khademian et al. 2021).Hypothesis 10There are differences in the psychological consequences of COVID‐19 fear according to economic conditions, marital status and gender.

The study employed a snowball sampling method to recruit participants. Inclusion criteria required individuals to be at least 15 years old, fluent in Turkish, and willing to participate voluntarily. Exclusion criteria included individuals who did not meet these requirements. Given the widespread susceptibility of individuals of all ages to the COVID‐19 disease, our study included a total of 1702 participants aged 15 and above (M = 26.10; SD = 9.24). The majority of participants were recruited through health science students, resulting in a predominantly female and youthful demographic. Among the participants, 68% were female, and 32% were male. The findings revealed that 21.1% of respondents reported no known infections among their families or relatives, while 63.7% had experienced a COVID‐19 infection, and 14.7% had died due to the disease. The demographic information of the participants is given in Table 1.

The COVID‐19 Fear Scale (FCV‐19S), originally developed by Ahorsu et al. (2020) and adapted to Turkish by Bakioğlu et al. (2020), was used to measure fear related to COVID‐19 in this study. The FCV‐19S includes seven items. Responses were collected on a five‐point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The reliability and validity of the adapted version were satisfactory. In our current study, the Cronbach's Alpha value for the FCV‐19S was 0.866.

The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale‐21 (DASS‐21) was initially developed by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995) and adapted to Turkish by Yılmaz et al. (2017). The DASS‐21 assesses depression, stress, and anxiety with seven items each. The scale has a four‐point Likert scale ranging from 0 = not suitable for me to 3 = completely suitable for me. The depression sub‐factor, used in this study to measure the symptoms of depression, demonstrated a Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of 0.877.

The Social and Emotional Loneliness Scale for Adults (SELSA) used in our research was developed by DiTommaso and Spinner (1993), and its Turkish adaptation was conducted by Akgül in 2020. The SELSA comprises 15 items, divided into three sub‐dimensions: social loneliness, emotional loneliness, and romantic loneliness. Responses were collected on a seven‐point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). In the current study, the Cronbach Alpha values for the social, family, and romantic loneliness sub‐dimensions were 0.90, 0.89, and 0.87, respectively.

The Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS), originally developed by Diener et al. (1985) and adapted to Turkish by Dağlı and Baysal (2016), was used to measure life satisfaction. This SWLS consists of five items, and each item is rated on a seven‐point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7), with a Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient of 0.88 in the Turkish adaptation. In our current study, the internal consistency value for the SWLS was 0.861.

The research was designed as cross‐sectional and quantitative. The study followed a structured approach, with data collection conducted online to reach a diverse sample efficiently using the Survey Monkey online platform. After explaining why the research was conducted at the beginning of the online form, the consent of the participants was obtained. The study initially gathered data from a total of 1820 participants across various cities in Turkey. Following the completion, instances with missing responses were excluded, resulting in a final sample size of 1702. To uphold privacy, no personal information or IP numbers were collected, and participants retained the option to withdraw from the research at any point. The average response time for the survey was determined to be between 10 and 20 min. The research protocol adhered to the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by Istanbul University—Cerrahpaşa (reference number: E‐74555795‐050.01.04‐546847).

The study employed confirmatory factor analysis using the IBM AMOS 24 statistical program to evaluate the proposed measurement model. After implementing five covariances identified in the modification indices, model fit values were found to be consistent with Kline's recommended criteria (CIMIN/df < 5, TLI, IFI, CFI, GFI, CFI, NFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.80) (Kline 2016). The measurement model exhibited high values (see Table 2).

After determining the suitability of the measurement model, a new SPSS file was produced with the factors by performing data imputation. Correlations, averages, standard deviations, Cronbach's alpha, skewness, and kurtosis values of the factors were determined in the analyses (see Table 3). It was understood that all of the correlation values of the factors were significant at the p < 0.01 level. Cronbach's Alpha values were above 0.75, and skewness and kurtosis values were among the normal distribution values.

Following the confirmation of the appropriateness of the measurement model ascertained through normality and reliability tests, an SEM path analysis was conducted. As presented in the results, it showed statistically significant direct associations as well as indirect relationships between the study variables (see Table 4).

The findings of the mediation analysis demonstrated that COVID‐19 fear was associated with increased depression and a decrease in family, social, and romantic loneliness. Depression and various forms of loneliness—social, family emotional, and romantic emotional—exhibited negative associations with life satisfaction. The study also identified that depression served as a mediator in the relationships between COVID‐19 fear and the sub‐factors of loneliness: family loneliness, social loneliness, and romantic loneliness. Additionally, the mediation effect of these loneliness sub‐factors was observed in the relationship between depression and life satisfaction. The analysis showed that 38% of the variance in life satisfaction, 25% in family loneliness, 18% in social loneliness, and 10% in romantic loneliness could be accounted for by the studied variables. The findings predominantly support the hypotheses posited in the study (see Table 5).

The study affirmed the positive relationship between COVID‐19 fear and depression (H1), as well as the negative associations with three sub‐factors of loneliness—family loneliness (H2i), social loneliness (H2ii), and romantic loneliness (H2iii). Therefore, hypotheses H1, and H2i–iii were supported. The global spread of the COVID‐19 pandemic, driven by widespread societal mobility (Borkowski et al. 2021; Saha et al. 2020), prompted preventive measures that negatively impacted various facets of societies, ranging from economics, social dynamics, health, and education to employment (Yıldırım and Özaslan 2022). This, in turn, contributed to increased levels of psychological problems such as stress, anxiety, and depression among individuals (Abuselidze and Mamaladze 2020; Jain et al. 2020; Koçak 2021b; Kumar et al. 2021; Lakhan et al. 2020). Additionally, the prolonged enforcement of preventive measures, particularly affecting young and middle‐aged working individuals, intensified symptoms of depression among people (Giorgi et al. 2020; Koçak 2021b; Koçak et al. 2021). The escalating severity of measures in response to the increasing COVID‐19‐related fatalities, extensively covered in daily media reports, further exacerbated the adverse effects on people (Bendau et al. 2021; Choi et al. 2020; Liu and Liu 2020). In light of these negative circumstances, it is evident that COVID‐19 fear contributes to an increase in individuals' depression.

The analysis revealed a negative relationship between COVID‐19 fear and loneliness sub‐factors, indicating that COVID‐19 fear diminishes individuals' inclination toward negative thoughts and situations related to loneliness. These findings contrasted with the usual positive association between psychological problems (e.g., fear) and loneliness in the extant literature. The findings show a distinctive pattern during extraordinary circumstances, such as the COVID‐19 pandemic. The existing literature recognises a difference between the sense of loneliness induced by the COVID‐19 pandemic and that experienced in other periods (Killgore et al. 2020a; Luchetti et al. 2020; Strizhitskaya et al. 2021). The challenges posed by the pandemic required individuals to confront unforeseen circumstances, prompting a desire to strengthen emotional connections with family, relatives, and close friends. Consequently, individuals experienced a reduction in loneliness during the COVID‐19 period as they actively strengthened emotional and social bonds with their immediate social circles (Campbell 2020; Yoosefi Lebni et al. 2021). Thus, the challenges of the COVID‐19 period led individuals to reevaluate and enhance their relationships with family, relatives, close friends, and neighbours as a collective strategy to cope with these unprecedented challenges.

The findings also revealed a positive relationship between depression and three dimensions of loneliness—family, social, and romantic—along with a negative relationship with satisfaction with life. Consequently, hypotheses H3i–iii, and H4 have been supported. Given that depression is a severe psychological problem, it exerts a detrimental impact on individuals' attitudes and thoughts (Conejero et al. 2018; Kupferberg et al. 2016; Rnic et al. 2016). Consistent with the existing literature, the current study found that depression positively predicts loneliness (Busch et al. 2016; Koçak 2021a; Peres et al. 2017).

The majority of participants were young and literature indicated that young people, especially during the COVID‐19 pandemic, experienced heightened future anxiety (Yıldırım et al. 2023) due to disruptions in education, socialisation, work, and career planning, leading to manifestations of depression and loneliness (Cruwys et al. 2021; Okruszek et al. 2020; Varma et al. 2021). In line with this, the study supported hypothesis 4, revealing a significant negative relationship between depression and satisfaction with life. The literature highlights that stress, anxiety, and depression are associated with decreased levels of quality of life and satisfaction with life (Huang and Zhang 2022; Lim and Putnam 2010; Zheng et al. 2019). Thus, the current study emphasises that the elevated negative symptoms, such as depression experienced by young individuals during the COVID‐19 pandemic period, have contributed to a reduction in their satisfaction with life.

Furthermore, in this study, hypothesis H5i–iii received support, as it was established that romantic, social, and family dimensions of loneliness exhibited significant negative associations with satisfaction with life. The findings are consistent with previous research indicating negative associations between loneliness and satisfaction with life (Adamczyk and Ditommaso 2014; Clair et al. 2021; Wang and Yao 2020). Consistent results have also been reported in studies conducted in Türkiye (Akgül 2020; Bakalım and Muyan 2020; Kapıkıran 2016; Ozben 2013; Şimşek et al. 2021). Importantly, the present study makes a significant contribution to the field by examining the associations between loneliness, with its diverse dimensions of family, romantic, and social, and satisfaction with life. While existing literature acknowledges the negative impact of loneliness on life satisfaction, few studies explore the dimensions of loneliness in this context. The focus on family, romantic, and social dimensions in this study enhances our understanding of the relationship between loneliness sub‐factors and life satisfaction. Particularly, emotional and social loneliness can hinder the development of fulfilling and high‐quality social relationships over an extended period, ultimately diminishing individuals' satisfaction with life (Hawkley and Cacioppo 2010; Heu et al. 2021; Lee and Ishii‐Kuntz 2016; Mushtaq et al. 2014).

This study highlights the psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic by emphasising the significant role of fear, depression, and loneliness in influencing individuals' life satisfaction. It suggests how the fear of COVID‐19, although not directly lowering life satisfaction, indirectly diminishes it through depression and loneliness, particularly in vulnerable demographic groups such as young people, middle‐aged individuals, and those from lower‐income families. The economic impacts of COVID‐19 restrictions, including job loss, financial instability, and isolation, have exacerbated these psychological challenges. The findings emphasise the need for policies tailored to support disadvantaged populations, particularly the youth, during such unprecedented times. Social, educational, and economic interventions must be designed with an understanding of the psychological dynamics revealed in this study, ensuring they are adaptable to evolving societal needs. Targeted measures in sectors such as education, healthcare, and social support are necessary to mitigate the psychological effects of global crises like pandemics and to ensure the well‐being of those most affected.