ArticlePDF Available

Similar minds in the family: COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality

March 2023
Personal Relationships

DOI:10.1111/pere.12479

Authors:

Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik

Utrecht University

Cagla Aydin

Sabancı University

Maarten C Eisma

University of Groningen

We examined whether perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality (i.e., the extent to which one thinks of the pandemic as shaping current and future life) is associated with family relationship quality during the pandemic. Thinking that other family members are similar to oneself regarding the pandemic's centrality may improve the quality of family relationships. We collected data from Turkish family triads (i.e., mother, father, 18–25 years old child) and had 481 participants from 180 families. Participants rated their similarity in COVID-19 centrality with the other two family members and reported the general and daily quality of their relationship with them (relationship satisfaction, closeness, conflict). We analyzed the data using the Social Relations Model. We found that family members who, on average, perceived more similarity in COVID-19 centrality reported higher levels in positive attributes of general relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction and closeness). The effects on conflict and daily relationship quality were less conclusive. This research confirms that family members' reactions during the COVID-19 pandemic are interdependent. Perceiving that other family members are of similar minds about the centrality of the pandemic relates positively to some aspects of relationship quality.

Content uploaded by Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik

Content may be subject to copyright.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Similar minds in the family: COVID-19

centrality and relationship quality

Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik

| Cagla Aydin

Maarten C. Eisma

Psychology Program, Sabanci University,

Istanbul, Turkey

Department of Clinical Psychology and

Experimental Psychopathology,

University of Groningen, Groningen, The

Netherlands

Correspondence

Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik, Sabanci

University, Orta mah. Universite cd. No.

27, Tuzla, Istanbul, Turkey.

Email: asuman.buyukcan@

sabanciuniv.edu

Funding information

Türkiye Bilimsel ve Teknolojik Arastirma

Kurumu, Grant/Award Number: 120K428

Abstract

We examined whether perceived similarity in COVID-

19 centrality (i.e., the extent to which one thinks of the

pandemic as shaping current and future life) is associ-

ated with family relationship quality during the pan-

demic. Thinking that other family members are similar

to oneself regarding the pandemic's centrality may

improve the quality of family relationships. We col-

lected data from Turkish family triads (i.e., mother,

father, 18–25 years old child) and had 481 participants

from 180 families. Participants rated their similarity in

COVID-19 centrality with the other two family mem-

bers and reported the general and daily quality of their

relationship with them (relationship satisfaction, close-

ness, conflict). We analyzed the data using the Social

Relations Model. We found that family members who,

on average, perceived more similarity in COVID-19

centrality reported higher levels in positive attributes of

general relationship quality (i.e., satisfaction and close-

ness). The effects on conflict and daily relationship

quality were less conclusive. This research confirms

that family members' reactions during the COVID-19

Statement of Relevance: Do people consider how similar others are to themselves regarding the subjective

evaluations of the COVID-19 pandemic when assessing relationships with them? We aimed to answer this question

using a dataset collected from Turkish mothers, fathers, and their 18–25 years old child. Our results showed that

perceptions of similarity in COVID-19 centrality across family members are associated with relationship satisfaction and

closeness in families.

Received: 14 July 2022 Revised: 30 January 2023 Accepted: 6 February 2023

DOI: 10.1111/pere.12479

Pers Relationship. 2023;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pere 1

14756811, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pere.12479 by Sabanci University, Wiley Online Library on [03/03/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License

pandemic are interdependent. Perceiving that other

family members are of similar minds about the central-

ity of the pandemic relates positively to some aspects of

relationship quality.

KEYWORDS

COVID-19 pandemic, family, relationship quality, Social

Relations Model, the centrality of event

1|INTRODUCTION

High-quality family relationships, which could be defined as satisfying and close relationships

between family members with infrequent conflicts, have long been shown to be a source of

resilience, protecting both psychological and physiological health in the face of adversity

(e.g., Ge et al., 2009; Lyons et al., 1998; Patterson, 1988). For example, a high level of marital

quality mitigates possible post-traumatic stress symptoms after an earthquake (Marshall

et al., 2017). Maternal warmth buffers the harmful effects of stress due to daily hassles on

emerging adults' physiological reactions, such as the level of cortisol release (Lucas-

Thompson, 2014).

Recently, these findings on the role of family relationships in times of stress have been

extended to the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. It has been confirmed that psychological

and physiological health during the pandemic partly depends on high-quality relationships

(Daks et al., 2020; Pietromonaco & Overall, 2021; Sommerlad et al., 2021). Nevertheless, not

everyone has satisfying relationships with family members during the pandemic. While positive

experiences such as feeling closer to family members during the pandemic have been reported

for some families (Donker et al., 2021; Evans et al., 2020), intra-family conflicts and domestic

violence also showed an alarming increase since the pandemic started (Brown et al., 2020;

Buttell & Ferreira, 2020). Who is more likely to experience high-quality family relationships

during the pandemic? We aim to shed light on this question by considering the similarity of the

centrality of the COVID-19 pandemic across family members.

1.1 |COVID-19 centrality in families

In the present work, we adapt the concept of event centrality to assess the subjective evaluation

of the COVID-19 pandemic (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006). Recent studies showed that people vary

regarding their centrality evaluations for past, present, or anticipated future events (Demblon &

D'Argembeau, 2017; Rubin et al., 2019). The centrality of the COVID-19 pandemic, which we

will refer to as COVID-19 centrality, is defined as people's evaluation of how much the COVID-

19 pandemic shaped their understanding of the current world and expectations of future life.

People with high COVID-19 centrality are likely to perceive the pandemic as a turning point in

their lives that changed everything afterward and as an integral part of their identity

(Berntsen & Rubin, 2006). The COVID-19 pandemic differs slightly from other adverse events

studied in the literature on event centrality. First, rather than specific groups of victims, all peo-

ple worldwide are exposed to the consequences of the pandemic to varying degrees.

2BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

Additionally, COVID-19 centrality likely has daily interpersonal implications. For example, one

family member's COVID-19 centrality could be directly related to the other family members'

physical well-being and sense of safety through the (lack of) preventive health behaviors.

Previous studies on how people deal with adverse life events have linked event centrality

with positive and negative psychological outcomes. On the one hand, event centrality is linked

with increased anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms concurrently and longi-

tudinally (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Boelen, 2012; Gehrt et al., 2018). On the other hand, higher

event centrality can be related to post-traumatic growth. Post-traumatic growth includes per-

ceptions that the adverse event has led to more personal strength and better interpersonal rela-

tionships (Brooks et al., 2017; Groleau et al., 2013).

Interestingly, negative and positive outcomes of event centrality have been studied solely as

an intrapersonal process, and the interpersonal context in which it is experienced has been

largely neglected. For example, it is unclear whether people consider how similar others are to

themselves regarding event centrality when evaluating relationships with others. Research on

the Social Comparison Theory and emotional convergence showed that perceiving others as

similar in both negative and positive experiences has a significant effect on daily interactions,

closeness, cohesion, and satisfaction (e.g., Anderson et al., 2003; Gonzaga et al., 2007;

Schachter, 1959; Townsend et al., 2014). For example, married partners' similarity in negative

affect (e.g., sadness, worry) predicts their belief in successfully co-managing their daily lives and

solving problems together (Schade et al., 2020). Comparably, sharing negative thoughts through

mutual self-disclosure fosters closeness in interpersonal relationships (for a review, see

Rose, 2021). In this research, we expect to find the same beneficial impact of perceived similar-

ity in COVID-19 centrality on relationship quality.

Prime et al. (2020) emphasized the importance of going beyond dyads and considering the

relationships between all family members to understand relationship quality during the pan-

demic adequately. Their work draws on the Family Systems Theory (Cox & Paley, 1997,2003),

seeing families as a dynamic system composed of interacting subsystems (e.g., mother–father

relationship, mother–child relationship). For example, family functioning (e.g., discords), par-

enting behaviors, and family members' well-being during the pandemic are shown to be

interdependent (Daks et al., 2020). Based on this theoretical work, we focused on the percep-

tions of three family members (mother, father, and an 18–25 years old child) to investigate the

family relationships' quality during the pandemic.

1.2 |Perceived similarity and family relationships' quality

Previous work on the Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) showed that comparing one-

self with others helps people define and understand their feelings as well as decide on their

emotional and behavioral reactions, especially in unpredictable situations (Buunk, 1994; Gilbert

et al., 1995; Schachter, 1959). Furthermore, people make such comparisons even if they do not

intend to (Gilbert et al., 1995). So, would perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality between

the family members be associated with relationship quality?

Research on adult relationships showed that perceived similarity with another person in

emotions, values, or attitudes has a multitude of benefits, such as feeling understood

(Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009) and prevention of loneliness (Bell, 1993) and stress (Townsend

et al., 2014). Additionally, on the interpersonal level, the perceived similarity is related to

experiencing low levels of conflict (Acitelli et al., 1993) and high levels of relationship

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.3

satisfaction (Gonzaga et al., 2007). The similarity in undesirable feelings (e.g., dysphoria, grief )

also contributes to the quality of interpersonal relationships (Buyukcan-Tetik et al., 2017;

Locke & Horowitz, 1990).

There is some evidence that the positive impact of perceived similarity on relationship qual-

ity extends to parent–child relationships. In one study, fathers' perceived similarity to their chil-

dren regarding physical and personality characteristics positively related to their parental

investment (Apicella & Marlowe, 2004). Heijkoop et al. (2009) showed that mothers, but not

fathers, who thought that they were similar to their children in their personality traits felt a

higher emotional closeness to their children than mothers who did not perceive such a similar-

ity. Another study, however, found the effect of similarity on closeness from the perspective of

both parents (Dolinska, 2013). Thus, despite mixed results across parents' gender, perceived

similarity plays a role in parent–child relationships.

A similar association was shown regarding the children's perspective toward parents

(Cheng & Grühn, 2016). For example, emerging adults who believed that they share similar

interests and behaviors with their fathers reported higher relationship quality and were likely

to rate their fathers' parental investment higher (Gallup et al., 2016). In sum, previous work

indicates that perceived similarity, both at the levels of parents and offspring, contributes to

relationship quality.

Particularly in the first year of the pandemic, family members spent more time with each

other than usual due to social isolation and lockdowns. It is conceivable that family members

more readily compared themselves with other family members on pandemic-related percep-

tions and behaviors in such contexts (cf. Gilbert et al., 1995). Building on the emotional conver-

gence research (Anderson et al., 2003) and the work on family resilience during the pandemic

(Prime et al., 2020), several benefits of perceiving similar COVID-19 centrality across family

members appear likely. First, it may help family members to coordinate their actions (e.g., all

family members wear masks in public places) and emotions (e.g., they can share their feelings).

For example, if people believe that they share particular sentiments with their family members

regarding the pandemic, they might use those members' reactions as a compass (a heuristic)

when they do not have the resources to deal with COVID-related cognitions. Second, it may

facilitate family members' understanding of each other's emotions and thoughts and thus can

be comforting (e.g., Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009; Townsend et al., 2014). Third, it may vali-

date people's emotions and behaviors because perceiving that the other family members feel

and act similarly may confirm that one's experiences in such a new and uncertain environment

are expected and acceptable. Lastly, family members may feel that they share their beliefs

regarding the pandemic, have a sense of togetherness and unitedness, and engage in the

meaning-making process during this adversity together (cf. Barboza et al., 2022). Therefore, we

propose that perceiving other family members as similar regarding COVID-19 centrality relates

positively to the quality of relationships with those family members.

1.3 |The present study

In this research, we aim to test the hypothesis that perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality

between family members positively relates to relationship quality for all family members. We

seek to investigate our question using a dataset that includes Turkish family triads (i.e., mother,

father, and an 18–25 years old child) residing in the same home. Additionally, we measured

daily relationship quality along with general relationship quality to reduce recall biases. Since

4BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

we did not think each of the three family members would respond well to intensive longitudinal

design procedures administered every day in the midst of a pandemic, we asked the participants

to evaluate their relationship with each family member on a preceding day (Kahneman

et al., 2004).

Please note that family members who perceive others as similar may report high-quality

relationships with them, and high-quality relationships would lead to a positive bias toward the

family members regarding their similarity (Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Selfhout et al., 2009). Thus,

considering the cross-sectional nature of our study, we examine the correlation between the

study variables without any directional assumptions.

Despite the developing individualistic values, Turkish culture can still be seen as collectivis-

tic. Family relationships in Turkey are characterized by higher levels of interdependence and

coherence than observed in individualistic cultures (Ka

gıtçıba¸sı,2007). Thus, keeping harmony

in the family and not diverging from other family members may be particularly critical in this

culture during the pandemic, further supporting the expectation of a positive association

between perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality.

2|METHOD

2.1 |Procedure and participants

In Turkey, the first COVID-19 cases were identified in March 2020. We collected data from

three members of Turkish families (mother, father, and an 18–25 years old child) between

August 2020 and October 2020, when there was no official lockdown. There were two inclusion

criteria: Children should be between the ages of 18 and 25, and all three family members should

reside in the same house during the pandemic. Targeting this specific age bracket (18–25 years)

had some practical reasons, such as relatively easier recruitment and data collection. Recruit-

ment was conducted mainly by reaching young adults via social media and university

announcement pages. Additionally, because the children were 18 or older, we did not need to

get separate permission from the parents for their children's participation in the study. During

our data collection, most universities were closed or offered only remote education; thus, many

children in this age range were living with their parents.

One member from each prospective family was expected to fill in an application form first.

Then, the research team called the other two family members by phone to confirm their will-

ingness and availability to participate in the study. All three family members received separate

emails with a family identification number and the survey link, and provided informed consent

at the beginning of the survey. Each family received either headphones or a board game based

on their preference in return for participation. The Research Ethics Council of the first author's

institution approved the research.

After screening the data (e.g., mistakes in quality check questions, inconsistencies in

reported family demographics such as the number of children across family members), we

excluded 41 participants and had 481 participants in total (see the Appendix S1 for the informa-

tion about excluded participants). Because some family members failed to complete the surveys

or were excluded, the final dataset comprised 133 families with three members, 35 families with

two members, and 12 families with one member (N=481, representing 180 families in total).

This sample size lies between the recommended medium (80 families) to large (200 families)

sample size for the Social Relations Model (SRM) studies (Kenny et al., 2006). The dataset

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.5

included 163 mothers, 152 fathers, and 166 children. Around 70% of the children were female.

Average ages of mothers, fathers, and children were 49.37 (SD =4.87), 53.66 (SD =5.69), and

21.27 (SD =1.92) respectively. Our sample included participants from 39 different cities in

Turkey. Education levels and employment statuses are presented in the Appendix S1. Only

three mothers and one child were previously diagnosed with COVID-19. Around 48% of

mothers, 40% of fathers, and 46% of children reported that at least one close other or acquain-

tance was infected with COVID-19.

2.2 |Measures

All family members considered their relationship with the other two family members separately

when they responded to the survey items (i.e., round-robin design). For example, mothers

reported similarities with their partner and child on each measure. Thus, there were six scales

for each study variable in the data (three family members * two reports about other family

members). However, only two were presented to each family member (their reports for the

other two family members). For all measures, we computed the averages across items.

2.2.1 | Perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality

To assess perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality, we used a modified version of the seven-

item Centrality of Event Scale (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Turkish adaptation: Boyacıo

glu &

Akta¸s, 2018; Egeci & Dogruyol, 2019). Specifically, we asked the participants to compare them-

selves with each family member and respond accordingly. For example, we instructed mothers

to report the extent of similarity to their child regarding how much COVID-19 changed their

lives using a scale from 1 (we are very different from each other)to5(we are very similar to each

other). For clarity: we did not use a difference-score between the two family members' centrality

levels, which would represent the actual similarity regarding COVID-19 centrality. Our focus

was on perceived similarity based on the literature showing that perceived similarity shows

stronger effects on relationship quality than actual similarity (Acitelli et al., 1993; Murray

et al., 2002; Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009). All six scales had acceptable to excellent Cronbach's

alpha levels ranging from .75 to .91 (see the Appendix S1 for the complete list).

2.2.2 | Relationship quality

We first measured participants' general assessment of relationship quality using four measures:

one for relationship satisfaction, two for closeness, and one for conflict. We also measured daily

relationship quality on the same attributes. Using several attributes to examine relationship

quality is recommended to gain a broad understanding of relationship quality, rather than

focusing on only one side of the story (e.g., Fincham & Linfield, 1997; Fink et al., 2020;

Totenhagen et al., 2012).

General relationship quality

Relationship satisfaction was measured using the Investment Model Scale's five-item relation-

ship satisfaction subscale (Rusbult et al., 1998; Turkish adaptation: Büyük¸sahin et al., 2005).

6BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

This scale was used in another Social Relations Model study with families previously (Branje

et al., 2008). A sample item for mothers was “My relationship with my child is close to ideal.”

The Likert scale had nine points, from 1 (completely incorrect)to9(totally correct). Cronbach's

alpha levels ranged between .94 and .97 across the six family relationships.

We measured closeness using two scales: Three items used in Hoyt et al. (2005) and the

Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOS; Aron et al., 1992). A sample item in Hoyt et al.'s scale

was “My child and I are close to each other.”The Likert scale had five points: 1 (strongly dis-

agree), 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach's alpha levels of the scale were between .64 and .87

across six family relationships. The one-item IOS Scale was composed of seven pairs of isolated

and interlocking circles representing different levels of closeness. The participants were asked

to select the option portraying their relationship. Higher scores (i.e., increasingly overlapping

circles) indicated higher levels of closeness.

We assessed the conflict between family members using the Brief Family Relationship Scale

(Fok et al., 2014). One of the six items on the scale was “I argue a lot with my child.”The items

were re-worded based on the target (e.g., “I argue a lot with my partner”). Following the appli-

cation in Beckmann (2020), we administered a four-point Likert scale: 1 (not true), 4 (totally

true). The scale had acceptable Cronbach's alpha levels ranging from .77 to .87 across the six

family relationships.

Daily relationship quality

Daily relationship quality was assessed using a modified version of the Day Reconstruction

Method (Kahneman et al., 2004). In our cross-sectional survey, we asked participants to list a

maximum of seven activities (e.g., having breakfast, watching a movie) with each of the other

two family members on the previous day. For each activity, participants responded to one-item

questions to rate their relationship satisfaction, closeness, and conflict with that family member

during that specific activity on a scale from 1 (not at all)to7(very much) (for similar applica-

tions, see Chopik & Lucas, 2019; Lawley et al., 2019). We computed daily relationship satisfac-

tion, closeness, and conflict levels by taking the averages of reports across all activities. Some

participants could not report any shared activity or their relationship quality level during the

activity. Therefore, the sample sizes for the daily variables were slightly smaller than the total

sample size, varying between 107 and 143 for the daily relationship quality variables across fam-

ily members in the data (three variables * three family members * two reports about other fam-

ily members).

2.3 |Data analysis

2.3.1 | Univariate analysis

We analyzed our data using the Social Relations Model (SRM; Cook & Dreyer, 1984; Kenny

et al., 2006) to handle the round-robin design (i.e., all family members rated the study variables

for each of the other two family members). In the SRM with three family members, each report

comprises three different sources of variance: Actor variance, partner variance, and relationship

variance. Given the number of observed variables exceeds the number of estimated latent vari-

ables in a three-family-member SRM, we had to drop one of the variances from the model and

thus did not estimate family variance for model identification purposes (Eichelsheim

et al., 2009). We selected to drop the family variance because the relationship variance was the

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.7

primary interest in our research. Additionally, it would be hard to interpret the actor variance

of a family member in the absence of that family member's partner variance (or vice versa).

Lastly, family variance, in general, explains the smallest percentage of variance among the SRM

components, and, thus, is the best candidate for dropping from the model (Eichelsheim

et al., 2009; Kenny et al., 2006).

To demonstrate these three sources of variance, we use relationship satisfaction as an exam-

ple. Actor variance shows, for instance, whether there is a variance across families regarding

family members' (e.g., mothers') general reports of relationship satisfaction toward the other

family members. That is, actor variance shows the distribution in average relationship satisfac-

tion reported by that family member across different family members. Partner variance assesses

whether there is a variance across families regarding family members' (e.g., mothers') general

relationship satisfaction ratings received from the other family members. That is, partner vari-

ance shows the distribution in average relationship satisfaction reported for the relationship

with that family member by the other family members. Finally, relationship variance shows

whether there is a variance across families regarding relationship satisfaction reported for each

relationship (e.g., mother–child relationship). We have six relationship variances in total

because the direction of the relationship is considered (e.g., the mother's report for her relation-

ship with the child as well as the child's report for their relationship with the mother). Non-

significant results for mothers in these three components of variances could, for example, mean

that all mothers in our data report similar levels of average relationship satisfaction with other

family members (actor variance), receive similar levels of average relationship satisfaction rat-

ings from other family members (partner variance), and report similar levels of satisfaction for

the relationship with a specific family member (e.g., child) (relationship variance).

Partitioning the variance into components is vital to get the complete picture of our study

variables and assess which components meet the precondition (i.e., a non-zero variance) to test

the proposed bivariate association between perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and

relationship quality. To partition the variance of study variables into actor, partner, and rela-

tionship variance, we conducted confirmatory factor analyses in which actor, partner, and rela-

tionship components were latent variables estimated by the standardized observed variables

(see Figure 1; Kenny et al., 2006). Our initial examinations revealed that the correlations

between the three positive attributes of relationship quality (i.e., relationship satisfaction and

two closeness measures; average r=.71, range =.51–.90) were different from their correlations

with the negative attribute of relationship quality (i.e., conflict; average r=.44, range =.60

.25). Therefore, estimating relationship quality using all four measures ended with either poor

fit or lack of convergence. Thus, we ran separate SRM models for positive attributes of relation-

ship quality and conflict. The latent variable for the positive attributes of relationship quality

was estimated using relationship satisfaction and two closeness measures. Conflict and per-

ceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality latent variables were estimated using two parcels made

of similarly loading items. We set the factor loadings as 1 to get the variances of SRM

components.

2.3.2 | Bivariate analysis

To examine the main research question, we assessed the associations between the SRM compo-

nents of perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality (i.e., positive attri-

butes of relationship quality and conflict). Our bivariate SRMs first examined the associations

8BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

between actor components of perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship

quality (actor–actor correlations). This analysis showed whether a family member's average per-

ception of other family members' similarity in COVID-19 centrality was related to that family

member's average relationship quality across all family relationships. Next, we correlated the

relationship components of perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship qual-

ity (intraindividual relationship correlations). That is, we examined whether perceived similarity

in COVID-19 centrality with a specific family member was related to relationship quality with

that family member. We used bivariate correlations rather than unidirectional paths in our ana-

lyses because our cross-sectional data could not speak to causality. Therefore, the association

between perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality could be bidirec-

tional (see the Discussion section).

2.3.3 | Analysis strategy

We analyzed the data using Mplus Version 7.4 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2017). Young and

Johnson (2013) compared five different methods (e.g., listwise deletion, multiple imputations)

in treating the interdependent data (e.g., couples, families) with missing participants and found

that the full maximum likelihood estimation method gives the most reliable estimates. This evi-

dence was also supported by Ledermann and Kenny (2017). We, therefore, used all available

data in our analysis by applying the full information maximum likelihood estimation with

robust standard errors. This means that although some reports could not be included in the esti-

mation of relationship effects (e.g., one family member did not participate in the study),

those families still contributed to actor and partner effect estimates.

FIGURE 1 Univariate social relations model. All factor loadings were fixed at 1. Second parcels/observed

variables loading on the same latent variables are not shown in the Figure for simplicity. M =Mother,

F=Father, C =Child. For example, MF =Mother's report for relationship quality in her relationship with the

father.

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.9

Considering the theoretical meanings of the reciprocities (e.g., one's perceived similarity is

associated with how much other family members perceive that family member as similar), our

models also included the univariate associations between the latent variables following the

SRM recommendations (i.e., generalized and dyadic reciprocities; Cook & Dreyer, 1984; Kenny

et al., 2006). We reported their results in the Appendix S1 because reciprocities were not the

focus of the current study. We set the negative variances (if any) in the initial examinations as

zero based on the applications in previous SRM studies (e.g., Cook, 1993). Finally, we added

theoretically meaningful associations between residual variances from the ones recommended

by MPlus. All final models had an RMSEA score lower than or equal to .06 and a CFI score

higher than .90 (see the details under the Tables). We present all data, input, and output files

on the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/m63vu/.

3|RESULTS

3.1 |Descriptive statistics

There was a long list of variables (i.e., six reports in the data for each variable). Additionally, we

had eight variables in total: four general relationship quality variables (1 for relationship satis-

faction, 2 for closeness, and 1 for conflict), three daily relationship quality variables (1 for rela-

tionship satisfaction, 1 for closeness, and 1 for conflict), and one perceived similarity in COVID-

19 centrality variable. For clarity, we present the descriptive statistics of these variables in the

Appendix S1. In summary, the mean level of perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality across

relationships was 3.43 on the 5-point scale. For all positive attributes of relationship quality, the

averages were above the mid-points on the measures. Conflict levels were low in general.

3.2 |Univariate SRM analysis results

Variance estimates in Table 1showed that almost all actor and partner variances were signifi-

cant (i.e., different from zero). These results revealed the variations in the data across the family

members with the same role in all study variables. For example, although some mothers

reported high levels of perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality, other mothers reported low

levels (mothers' actor variance). Comparably, almost all partner variances were significant,

showing that the levels of family members' being perceived as similar by other family members

varied across families. Three non-significant partner variance estimates in Table 1showed that

(a) the extent to which children were perceived as similar was not different across families, and

(b) all mothers and children received similar ratings of daily conflict across families. Relation-

ship variances did not show a consistent pattern across variables. Nevertheless, most relation-

ships had significant variance in perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality. This result, for

example, showed that some mothers reported that their partner was highly similar to them,

whereas other mothers thought that their partner was not that similar. None of the relation-

ships had significant variance in daily relationship quality, meaning that all relationships

showed similar daily relationship quality. Overall, these analyses revealed which SRM compo-

nents had a significant variance and thus could be used to examine the actor–actor and intra-

individual relationship correlations.

10 BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

3.3 |Bivariate SRM analysis results

The actor–actor and intraindividual relationship correlations were examined if the SRM compo-

nents of both the perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality variables

were significant (see the significance levels in Table 1). For example, it was not possible to

investigate the intraindividual relationship correlation for perceived similarity in COVID-19

centrality and relationship quality in mother–father relationships because none of the relation-

ship quality variables had a significant relationship variance for that relationship.

Actor–actor correlations in Table 2showed that perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality

was positively associated with positive attributes of general relationship quality for all three

family members. The correlations were moderate for mothers and children but relatively large

for fathers. This result indicates that family members who perceived that other family members

were similar in COVID-19 centrality reported higher relationship satisfaction and closeness

levels on average. Furthermore, fathers' perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality was linked

negatively to their levels of general conflict and positively to positive attributes of daily relation-

ship quality. Finally, mothers' perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality was negatively corre-

lated with their daily conflict level. These associations were moderate.

TABLE 1 Variance estimates from the social relations model analyses.

Component

Perceived

similarity

General relationship quality Daily relationship quality

Positive

attributes Conflict

Positive

attributes Conflict

Actor

Mother 0.26** 0.13* 0.44** 0.51** 0.71**

Father 0.40** 0.43** 0.33** 0.69** 0.56*

Child 0.35** 0.44** 0.27** 0.69** 0.34**

Partner

Mother 0.16** 0.13* 0.22** 0.16** 0.00

Father 0.18* 0.41** 0.21** 0.26** 0.19**

Child 0.13 0.25** 0.24** 0.20** 0.15

Relationship

MF 0.35** 0.15 0.00 0.09 0.00

MC 0.38** 0.33** 0.00 0.00 0.00

FM 0.16* 0.19* 0.00 0.00 0.00

FC 0.19* 0.00 0.17* 0.00 0.00

CM 0.00 0.32** 0.24** 0.00 0.00

CF 0.17 0.10 0.31* 0.00 0.00

Note: Because variances cannot be negative, significance tests for variances were conducted using one-tale z-tests. *p< .05,

**p< .01 (in bold). M =Mother, F =Father, C =Child. Perceived similarity =Perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality.

Because the daily conflict was assessed using only one item, its relationship variances include error variance. We have six

relationship variances in total because the direction of the relationship is considered (e.g., the mother's report for her

relationship with the child as well as the child's report for their relationship with the mother). RMSEA scores for the models of

five variables (perceived similarity, general positive attributes, general conflict, daily positive attributes, and daily conflict) on

the table were .01, .05, .04, .05, and .05 respectively. The models' CFI scores were 1.00, .97, .98, .98, and .97 respectively.

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.11

In terms of the intraindividual relationship correlations, we conducted three tests (i.e., there

were significant variances in both variables' SRM components only in three cases). Perceived

similarity in COVID-19 centrality was not correlated with positive attributes of general relation-

ship quality for the mother–child relationship (b=0.10, p=.05, r=.28), or for the father–

mother relationship (b=0.01, p=.83, r=.04). Additionally, perceived similarity in

COVID-19 centrality had a non-significant association with general conflict for the father–child

relationship (b=0.00, p=.94, r=.02). Together with the significant actor–actor correla-

tions reported above, these findings indicate that it is not the unique relationships that explain

the association between perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality,

but the actors' dispositions.

4|DISCUSSION

Uncovering the factors that help protect or increase individuals' well-being in challenging times

like a pandemic is critical. Previous work mostly neglected the family context and the fact that

family members' experiences and well-being are interdependent. To fill this void, in this study,

we examined the association between perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality (e.g., the

extent to which the pandemic is viewed as shaping current and future life) and relationship

quality in families and proposed a positive relation. We focused on triads of family members to

investigate each dyadic relationship in a family.

First, we found evidence for the between-family variation in family members' perceived sim-

ilarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality. Recall that we did not use difference-

scores between family members' COVID-19 centrality levels, but the family members' reports of

how similar they think the other family members are to them regarding COVID-19 centrality.

For example, significant actor variance for mothers implied that some mothers perceived more

similarity in COVID-19 centrality with family members than other mothers. There were also

differences in how similar mothers were perceived in COVID-19 centrality by other family

members, as indicated by the significant partner variance for mothers. Such differences held

across all 15 actor variances and 12 of 15 partner variances in our research. These findings on

actor and partner variances show that general dispositions (e.g., personality traits) shape family

TABLE 2 Actor–actor associations in the social relations model analyses.

General relationship quality Daily relationship quality

Perceived similarity

- positive attributes

Perceived similarity –

Conflict

Perceived

similarity -

positive

attributes

Perceived similarity

- conflict

bp rb p rbprb pr

Mother 0.08 .03 .49 0.03 .56 .10 0.08 .19 .22 0.14 .01 .32

Father 0.25 <.001 .64 0.16 <.001 .43 0.16 .01 .31 0.01 .94 .01

Child 0.10 .04 .30 0.03 .50 .08 0.07 .17 .14 0.01 .78 .04

Note: Perceived similarity =Perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality. RMSEA scores for the four models on the table were

.06, .03, .04, and .04 respectively. The models' CFI scores were .92, .97, .96, and .96 respectively. Bold text indicates statistical

significance with a p-value < .05.

12 BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

members' perceptions and how they are perceived. A significant actor variance is not surprising

based on an SRM review outlining that actor variance explains the highest portion of the vari-

ance in dependent variables (Eichelsheim et al., 2009). Although partner variance was not as

substantial as the actor variance in the SRM literature, there were significant partner variances

in some studies, comparable to those found in this paper (e.g., Buyukcan-Tetik et al., 2015). It is

conceivable that family members with different COVID-19 centrality levels could elicit different

perceptions in other family members due to the time spent together dedicated to observing each

other during voluntary social isolation and prior lockdowns.

Relationship variance (i.e., the variance due to the unique characteristics of a specific rela-

tionship regardless of the family members' dispositions; e.g., mother–child relationship) was sig-

nificant in most of the perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality examinations. This finding

means that family members go beyond their own and other family members' characteristics

when evaluating their similarity with another family member. They inspect their unique rela-

tionship and make necessary adjustments (e.g., one child may say, “On average, I do not per-

ceive family members as similar regarding COVID-19 centrality. My mother is not perceived as

similar by others either. Nevertheless, I believe my mother and I are similar”). Given that the

COVID-19 pandemic was an unknown situation, deviations in the perceptions across family

relationships in this regard may not be surprising.

Nevertheless, the evidence for relationship variances was limited for the relationship quality

variables: Specific family relationships (e.g., mother–child relationships) had a similar quality

across families. This lack of variance could be attributed to the hierarchical structure in Turkish

families. Both the parent–child relationship and father–mother relationship are likely colored

by a somewhat traditional authoritarian family system that limits the variability across families

(Ataca et al., 2005). Due to this lack of variance, we could not examine the association between

perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality for each family relation-

ship. Yet, co-occurring actor variances in perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and rela-

tionship quality allowed us to investigate their correlations, as explained below.

In line with the hypothesis, we found that those who perceived other family members as

more similar in COVID-19 centrality reported higher levels of positive attributes of general rela-

tionship quality (i.e., relationship satisfaction and closeness) than those who perceived others

as less similar. This result held across all family roles. This finding supported our idea that the

feeling that other family members are of the same minds about the centrality of the pandemic

is comforting and stress-reducing and connects family members (cf. Pollmann &

Finkenauer, 2009; Townsend et al., 2014).

Despite these associations between perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and general

assessments of positive attributes of relationship quality, investigations with the other three

relationship quality attributes (i.e., general and daily conflict, and daily positive attributes of

relationship quality) did not show a consistent pattern. We found that fathers, but not others,

who perceived similarity with other family members regarding COVID-19 centrality experi-

enced fewer conflicts and higher daily positive attributes of relationship quality. Combined with

the findings reported above, our results suggest that perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality

may matter, particularly for fathers. It has been argued that similarity with children is critical

for fathers because it reduces the father's internal uncertainty about fatherhood (Apicella &

Marlowe, 2004), albeit the evidence in this regard is mixed (Dolinska, 2013; Heijkoop

et al., 2009; Van Tuijl et al., 2005). Another possibility is that observing similar thoughts and

attitudes in other family members signals the father a success in normative authoritarian role

and value transmission, as typically expected from fathers in Turkish culture (Sunar, 2002).

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.13

Moreover, our research revealed that the influence of perceived similarity in COVID-19 cen-

trality on conflict was smaller than its influence on positive attributes of relationship quality.

This small effect on conflict may originate from the fact that expressing negative emotions is

discouraged in Turkish family relationships (Sunar, 2002). Even though perceived dissimilarity

with other family members may be distressing, family members could be accustomed to regulat-

ing or suppressing their negative emotions and enacting culturally appropriate behaviors

(Gross & Cassidy, 2019). Emotion regulation of this sort is particularly apparent in children's

behavior toward their parents in Turkish culture (Sunar, 2002). Confirming this last point, we

did not find any association between perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and conflict

in children.

Another finding that deserves attention is the differential bivariate association of perceived

similarity in COVID-19 centrality with general versus daily positive attributes of relationship

quality. Why is this association less pronounced in daily measures? One possible explanation is

that using only activities from a single day to assess average daily relationship quality was insuf-

ficient. Although the results of day reconstruction and experience sampling methods show

some level of agreement, the day reconstruction method could capture less information (Lucas

et al., 2021). Another possibility is that the direction of the association might be from relation-

ship quality to perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality, rather than vice versa. Perhaps fam-

ily members projected their general assessments about family relationships stemming from pre-

pandemic times onto their evaluations of those family members' similarities in pandemic times

(Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Selfhout et al., 2009). This direction of the association could explain

why the effect emerged only for general relationship quality but not for daily relationship qual-

ity. The lack of pre-pandemic data from the same participants prevented us from testing this

explanation. Thus, our findings do not speak to causality because of their correlational nature

and need to be replicated in follow-up longitudinal studies.

In conclusion, although perceiving an adverse event as more central appears harmful in

some respects (Berntsen & Rubin, 2006; Boelen, 2012; Gehrt et al., 2018), a perception of simi-

larity in COVID-19 centrality seems to have benefits within families. This finding requires fur-

ther examination to understand the exact mechanisms. The relative effects of possible

mediators of this association, such as feeling understood (Pollmann & Finkenauer, 2009) and

decreased levels of loneliness and stress (Bell, 1993; Townsend et al., 2014), should be clarified.

4.1 |Strengths, limitations, and implications

The principal strength and shortcoming of this research came from the nature of its sample.

Even though collecting data from three different family members adds to the scope and impact

of this research, we miss the sibling relationships due to including only one child. Because our

focus was a relatively easier recruitment process and targeting that age bracket (18–25 years)

was helpful due to social media attendance, finding families with two children at those ages

would limit the target population and reduce the ease of recruitment. Second, our results may

not be generalizable to the relationships between parents and younger children. Research has

shown that emerging adults have experienced a sharper increase in mental health problems in

the first year of the pandemic than other age groups (Pierce et al., 2020). Therefore, our

research, focusing on family relationships, would potentially inform interventions and be timely

in that sense. Nevertheless, future research could test this research question with younger chil-

dren. Third, our findings could be specific to the Turkish culture and await comparisons with

14 BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

results in other cultures. For example, in individualistic countries, because family members are

more open to expressing their negative emotions, the link between perceived similarity in

COVID-19 centrality and conflict may be more pronounced (Markus & Kitayama, 1991).

Fourth, participants might have given socially desirable responses (e.g., family members should

be similar) to our self-report measures. Fifth, we did not investigate the interactive effects of dif-

ferent family relationships. For example, perceiving that one family member is similar in

COVID-19 centrality may compensate for the effect of perceived non-similarity with another

family member on relationship satisfaction (cf. Prime et al., 2020). Sixth, we focused on the per-

ceived similarity in the COVID-19 pandemic's centrality. Other types of pandemic-related simi-

larities, such as pro- or anti-vaccine attitudes across family members, may influence the

relationship quality and await future research. Lastly, future studies should examine whether

our finding on the link between perceived similarity in the event centrality and relationship

quality applies to other adversity and crisis situations such as illnesses, political events, and nat-

ural disasters (Afifi et al., 2020; Westmaas & Silver, 2006).

We should also mention some issues stemming from our similarity measurement. We asked

the participants to report their perceived similarity. However, the results may differ across other

methods of similarity assessment, such as response surface analysis, difference-scores, and pro-

file similarity (Schönbrodt et al., 2018). Additionally, it is unclear whether participants who

reported high levels of perceived similarity thought they and their family members had high or

low levels of COVID-19 centrality. In the Appendix S1, we reported the correlations between

perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality and actual COVID-19 centrality levels. Given the

already complex analysis, we could not evaluate the interactive effects with participants' cen-

trality levels.

By highlighting the role of perceived similarity in COVID-19 centrality in families, our

research suggests that intervention and counseling efforts to maintain high-quality relation-

ships during the pandemic may target all family members' perceptions of the pandemic (Guo &

Slesnick, 2013). Nevertheless, a critical question would be whether the perception of similarity

between family members should be reinforced in interventions to increase relationship quality.

Previous studies pointed out that the similarity of undesirable feelings could be simultaneously

related to negative and positive consequences. For example, two family members with high

levels of COVID-19 centrality may co-ruminate and could thereby experience decreased mental

health and increased relationship quality (Rose, 2021). Therefore, from an applied perspective,

interventions and therapeutic methods had been shown to affect event centrality, such as

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (Boals & Murrell, 2016) and Cognitive Behavior Therapy

(O'Toole et al., 2018), may focus on reducing the COVID-19 centrality of all family members

jointly, which could provide benefits for both individual and relationship well-being.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by a grant from the Scientific and Technological Research Council

of Turkey to the first author (Grant number: 120K428).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data used in the research can be obtained at https://osf.io/m63vu/. The materials used in

the study are available upon request from the first author (asumanbt@sabanciuniv.edu).

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.15

ORCID

Asuman Buyukcan-Tetik https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0541-702X

Cagla Aydin https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3078-7065

Maarten C. Eisma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6109-2274

REFERENCES

Acitelli, L. K., Douvan, E., & Veroff, J. (1993). Perceptions of conflict in the first year of marriage: How important

are similarity and understanding? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,10,5–19.

Afifi, T. D., Zamanzadeh, N., Harrison, K., & Torrez, D. P. (2020). Explaining the impact of differences in voting

patterns on resilience and relational load in romantic relationships during the transition to the trump presi-

dency. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,37(1), 3–26.

Anderson, C., Keltner, D., & John, O. P. (2003). Emotional convergence between people over time. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,84(5), 1054–1068.

Apicella, C. L., & Marlowe, F. W. (2004). Perceived mate fidelity and paternal resemblance predict men's invest-

ment in children. Evolution and Human Behavior,25(6), 371–378.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interper-

sonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63(4), 596–612.

Ataca, B., Ka

gıtçıba¸sı, Ç., & Diri, A. (2005). The Turkish family and the value of children: Trends over time. In

G. Trommsdorff & B. Nauck (Eds.), The value of children in cross-cultural perspective. Case studies from eight

societies (pp. 91–119). Pabst Science.

Barboza, J., Seedall, R., & Neimeyer, R. A. (2022). Meaning co-construction: Facilitating shared family meaning-

making in bereavement. Family Process,61(1), 7–24.

Beckmann, L. (2020). Family relationships as risks and buffers in the link between parent-to-child physical vio-

lence and adolescent-to-parent physical violence. Journal of Family Violence,35(2), 131–141.

Bell, B. (1993). Emotional loneliness and the perceived similarity of one's ideas and interests. Journal of Social

Behavior and Personality,8, 273–280.

Berntsen, D., & Rubin, D. C. (2006). The centrality of event scale: A measure of integrating a trauma into one's

identity and its relation to post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Behaviour Research and Therapy,44(2),

219–231.

Boals, A., & Murrell, A. R. (2016). I am> trauma: Experimentally reducing event centrality and PTSD symptoms

in a clinical trial. Journal of Loss and Trauma,21(6), 471–483.

Boelen, P. A. (2012). A prospective examination of the association between the centrality of a loss and post-loss

psychopathology. Journal of Affective Disorders,137(1–3), 117–124.

Boyacıo

glu, _

I., & Akta¸s, Ç. (2018). The Centrality of Events Scale: A Study of Reliability and Validity. Turk

Psikoloji Yazilari,21(41), 27–29.

Branje, S. J., Finkenauer, C., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2008). Modeling interdependence using the social relations

model: The investment model in family relationships. In N. A. Card, J. P. Selig, & T. D. Little (Eds.), Model-

ing dyadic and interdependent data in the developmental and behavioral sciences (pp. 287–318).

Routledge/Taylor Francis Group.

Brooks, M., Graham-Kevan, N., Lowe, M., & Robinson, S. (2017). Rumination, event centrality, and perceived

control as predictors of post-traumatic growth and distress: The cognitive growth and stress model. British

Journal of Clinical Psychology,56(3), 286–302.

Brown, S. M., Doom, J. R., Lechuga-Peña, S., Watamura, S. E., & Koppels, T. (2020). Stress and parenting during

the global COVID-19 pandemic. Child Abuse & Neglect,110, 104699.

Buttell, F., & Ferreira, R. J. (2020). The hidden disaster of COVID-19: Intimate partner violence. Psychological

Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,12(S1), 197–198.

Buunk, B. P. (1994). Social comparison processes under stress: Towards an integration of classic and recent per-

spectives. European Review of Social Psychology,5(1), 211–241.

Buyukcan-Tetik, A., Finkenauer, C., Schut, H., Stroebe, M., & Stroebe, W. (2017). The impact of bereaved par-

ents' perceived grief similarity on relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology,31(4), 409–419.

Buyukcan-Tetik, A., Finkenauer, C., Siersema, M., Vander Heyden, K., & Krabbendam, L. (2015). Social relations

model analyses of perceived self-control and trust in families. Journal of Marriage and Family,77(1),

209–223.

16 BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

Büyük¸sahin, A. Y. D. A., Hasta, D., & Hovardao

glu, S. (2005). _

Ili¸ski istikrarıölçe

gi (_

IÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik

çalı¸sması.Türk Psikoloji Yazıları,8(16), 25–35.

Cheng, Y., & Grühn, D. (2016). Perceived similarity in emotional reaction profiles between the self and a close

other as a predictor of emotional well-being. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,33(6), 711–732.

Chopik, W. J., & Lucas, R. E. (2019). Actor, partner, and similarity effects of personality on global and experi-

enced well-being. Journal of Research in Personality,78, 249–261.

Cook, W., & Dreyer, A. (1984). The Social Relations Model: A new approach to the analysis of family-dyadic

interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family,46, 679–687.

Cook, W. L. (1993). Interdependence and the interpersonal sense of control: An analysis of family relationships.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,64(4), 587–601.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology,48, 243–267.

Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current Directions in Psychological Science,12,

193–196.

Daks, J. S., Peltz, J. S., & Rogge, R. D. (2020). Psychological flexibility and inflexibility as sources of resiliency

and risk during a pandemic: Modeling the cascade of COVID-19 stress on family systems with a contextual

behavioral science lens. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science,18,16–27.

Demblon, J., & D'Argembeau, A. (2017). Contribution of past and future self-defining event networks to personal

identity. Memory,25(5), 656–665.

Dolinska, B. (2013). Resemblance and investment in children. International Journal of Psychology,48(3),

285–290.

Donker, M. H., Mastrotheodoros, S., & Branje, S. (2021). Development of parent-adolescent relationships during

the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of stress and coping. Developmental Psychology,57(10), 1611–1622.

Egeci, _

I. S., & Dogruyol, B. (2019). A new look at the factor structure of the Centrality of Event Scale. Elektronik

Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi,18(71), 1040–1050.

Eichelsheim, V. I., Dekovi

c, M., Buist, K. L., & Cook, W. L. (2009). The Social Relations Model in family studies:

A systematic review. Journal of Marriage and Family,71(4), 1052–1069.

Evans, S., Mikocka-Walus, A., Klas, A., Olive, L., Sciberras, E., Karantzas, G., & Westrupp, E. M. (2020). From ‘it

has stopped our lives’to ‘spending more time together has strengthened bonds’: The varied experiences of

Australian families during COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology,11, 588667. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.

2020.588667

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations,7(2), 117–140.

Fincham, F. D., & Linfield, K. J. (1997). A new look at marital quality: Can spouses feel positive and negative

about their marriage? Journal of Family Psychology,11(4), 489–502.

Fink, E., Browne, W. V., Kirk, I., & Hughes, C. (2020). Couple relationship quality and the infant home language

environment: Gender-specific findings. Journal of Family Psychology,34(2), 155–164.

Fok, C. C. T., Allen, J., Henry, D., & Team, P. A. (2014). The Brief Family Relationship Scale: A brief measure of

the relationship dimension in family functioning. Assessment,21(1), 67–72.

Gallup, G. G., Ampel, B. C., Matteo, D. Y., & O'Malley, E. E. (2016). Behavioral resemblance and paternal invest-

ment: Which features of the chip off the old block count? Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences,10(1), 1–9.

Ge, X., Natsuaki, M. N., Neiderhiser, J. M., & Reiss, D. (2009). The longitudinal effects of stressful life events on

adolescent depression are buffered by parent–child closeness. Development and Psychopathology,21(2),

621–635.

Gehrt, T. B., Berntsen, D., Hoyle, R. H., & Rubin, D. C. (2018). Psychological and clinical correlates of the Cen-

trality of Event Scale: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review,65,57–80.

Gilbert, D. T., Giesler, R. B., & Morris, K. A. (1995). When comparisons arise. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology,69(2), 227–236.

Gonzaga, G. C., Campos, B., & Bradbury, T. (2007). Similarity, convergence, and relationship satisfaction in dat-

ing and married couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93(1), 34–48.

Groleau, J. M., Calhoun, L. G., Cann, A., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2013). The role of centrality of events in post-

traumatic distress and post-traumatic growth. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,

5(5), 477–483.

Gross, J. T., & Cassidy, J. (2019). Expressive suppression of negative emotions in children and adolescents: The-

ory, data, and a guide for future research. Developmental Psychology,55(9), 1938–1950.

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.17

Guo, X., & Slesnick, N. (2013). Family versus individual therapy: Impact on discrepancies between parents' and

adolescents' perceptions over time. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,39(2), 182–194.

Heijkoop, M., Semon Dubas, J., & van Aken, M. A. (2009). Parent–child resemblance and kin investment: Physi-

cal resemblance or personality similarity? European Journal of Developmental Psychology,6(1), 64–69.

Hoyt, W. T., Fincham, F. D., McCullough, M. E., Maio, G., & Davila, J. (2005). Responses to interpersonal trans-

gressions in families: Forgivingness, forgivability, and relationship-specific effects. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology,89(3), 375–394.

Ka

gıtçıba¸sı, Ç. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: Theory and applications. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for charac-

terizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science,306(5702), 1776–1780.

Kenny, D. A., & Acitelli, L. K. (2001). Accuracy and bias in the perception of the partner in a close relationship.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,80(3), 439–448.

Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

Lawley, K. A., Willett, Z. Z., Scollon, C. N., & Lehman, B. J. (2019). Did you really need to ask? Cultural variation

in emotional responses to providing solicited social support. PLoS One,14(7), e0219478.

Ledermann, T., & Kenny, D. A. (2017). Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equa-

tion modeling: A tale of two methods. Journal of Family Psychology,31(4), 442–452.

Locke, K. D., & Horowitz, L. M. (1990). Satisfaction in interpersonal interactions as a function of similarity in

level of dysphoria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,58, 823–831.

Lucas, R. E., Wallsworth, C., Anusic, I., & Donnellan, M. B. (2021). A direct comparison of the day reconstruc-

tion method (DRM) and the experience sampling method (ESM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy,120(3), 816–835.

Lucas-Thompson, R. G. (2014). Relationship quality with parents, stressful life events, and cortisol production in

emerging adulthood. Emerging Adulthood,2(2), 92–104.

Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships,15(5), 579–605.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.

Psychological Review,98(2), 224–253.

Marshall, E. M., Kuijer, R. G., Simpson, J. A., & Szepsenwol, O. (2017). Standing on shaky ground? Dyadic and

longitudinal associations between post-traumatic stress and relationship quality postearthquake. Journal of

Family Psychology,31(6), 721–733.

Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., Bellavia, G., Griffin, D. W., & Dolderman, D. (2002). Kindred spirits? The benefits

of egocentrism in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82(4), 563–581.

Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2017). Mplus User's Guide. 8th Edition. Muthén & Muthén.

O'Toole, M. S., Watson, L., Rosenberg, N. K., & Berntsen, D. (2018). Changes in perceived centrality of anxious

events following cognitive behavioral therapy for social anxiety disorder and panic disorder. Journal of

Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry,59, 150–156.

Patterson, J. M. (1988). Families experiencing stress: I. the family adjustment and adaptation response model:

II. Applying the FAAR model to health-related issues for intervention and research. Family Systems Medi-

cine,6(2), 202–237.

Pierce, M., Hope, H., Ford, T., Hatch, S., Hotopf, M., John, A., Kontopantelis, E., Webb, R., Wessely, S., &

McManus, S. (2020). Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal probability

sample survey of the UK population. The Lancet Psychiatry,7(10), 883–892.

Pietromonaco, P. R., & Overall, N. C. (2021). Applying relationship science to evaluate how the COVID-19 pan-

demic may impact couples' relationships. American Psychologist,76(3), 438–450.

Pollmann, M. M., & Finkenauer, C. (2009). Investigating the role of two types of understanding in relationship

well-being: Understanding is more important than knowledge. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

35(11), 1512–1527.

Prime, H., Wade, M., & Browne, D. T. (2020). Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pan-

demic. American Psychologist,75(5), 631–643.

Rose, A. J. (2021). The costs and benefits of co-rumination. Child Development Perspectives,15(3), 176–181.

18 BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.

Rubin, D. C., Berntsen, D., Deffler, S. A., & Brodar, K. (2019). Self-narrative focus in autobiographical events:

The effect of time, emotion, and individual differences. Memory and Cognition,47(1), 63–75.

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level,

satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships,5(4), 357–387.

Schachter, S. (1959). The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford

University Press.

Schade, H. M., Drewelies, J., Hülür, G., Hoppmann, C. A., Ram, N., & Gerstorf, D. (2020). I feel you, we can do

this: Partner similarity in emotional experience and dyadic mastery in older couples. GeroPsych: The Journal

of Gerontopsychology and Geriatric Psychiatry,33(3), 125–137.

Schönbrodt, F. D., Humberg, S., & Nestler, S. (2018). Testing similarity effects with dyadic response surface anal-

ysis. European Journal of Personality,32(6), 627–641.

Selfhout, M., Denissen, J., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: Perceived, actual, and peer-

rated similarity in personality, communication, and friendship intensity during the acquaintanceship pro-

cess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,96(6), 1152–1165.

Sommerlad, A., Marston, L., Huntley, J., Livingston, G., Lewis, G., Steptoe, A., & Fancourt, D. (2021). Social rela-

tionships and depression during the COVID-19 lockdown: Longitudinal analysis of the COVID-19 social

study. Psychological Medicine,1-10, 3381–3390. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721000039

Sunar, D. (2002). Change and continuity in the Turkish middle class family. In E. Ozdalga & R. Liljestrom

(Eds.), Autonomy and dependence in family: Turkey and Sweden in critical perspective (pp. 217–237). Swedish

Research Institute.

Totenhagen, C. J., Serido, J., Curran, M. A., & Butler, E. A. (2012). Daily hassles and uplifts: A diary study on

understanding relationship quality. Journal of Family Psychology,26(5), 719–728.

Townsend, S. S., Kim, H. S., & Mesquita, B. (2014). Are you feeling what I'm feeling? Emotional similarity buffers

stress. Social Psychological and Personality Science,5(5), 526–533.

Van Tuijl, C., Branje, S. J., Semon Dubas, J., Vermulst, A. A., & Van Aken, M. A. (2005). Parent–offspring simi-

larity in personality and adolescents' problem behaviour. European Journal of Personality,19(1), 51–68.

Westmaas, J. L., & Silver, R. C. (2006). The role of perceived similarity in supportive responses to victims of nega-

tive life events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32(11), 1537–1546.

Young, R., & Johnson, D. (2013). Methods for handling missing secondary respondent data. Journal of Marriage

and Family,75(1), 221–234.

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section

at the end of this article.

How to cite this article: Buyukcan-Tetik, A., Aydin, C., & Eisma, M. C. (2023). Similar

minds in the family: COVID-19 centrality and relationship quality. Personal

Relationships,1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12479

BUYUKCAN-TETIK ET AL.19

Cultural humility in international relationship research: Perspectives from an International Section Peer Mentor

Article

Jul 2024

Cimmiaron F. Alvarez

Personal Relationships is dedicated to publishing international scholarship. Scholars can submit their work to the International Section if their manuscript reports on data that were collected outside of North America or they examine cross‐cultural investigations. For the last 2 years, I have had the privilege of being an International Section Peer Mentor for Personal Relationships . Working with international scholars conducting international research introduced me to the concept of cultural humility. Cultural humility is a perspective for intercultural interactions that embrace lifelong learning, self‐evaluation, and critique to redress power imbalances. In this commentary, I discuss my experiences as a peer mentor, introduce the concept of cultural humility, and explain lessons that I have learned.

EFFECTS OF FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS IN VIETNAMESE CULTURE ON MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS AMONG ADULTS DURING THE COVID-19 LOCKDOWN

Article

Jan 2024

Objective. Globally, previous research has shown the negative influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health. In fact, Vietnamese culture emphasizes traditional values, and family relationships have an important influence on well-being. However, fewer studies have examined the correlation between family relationships and mental health problems in crises. Hence, this study aims to evaluate the correlation between family relationships and mental health problems among adults during the COVID-19 lockdown in Vietnam. Material and methods. A sample of 640 adults aged from 18 to 52 (71.9% female) completed an online survey on mental health from August to September 2021. The survey measured depression, anxiety, stress, family relationships, and socio-demographic and epidemiological factors. Multiple linear regressions were conducted. Results. Prevalence rates of depression, anxiety, and stress were 31.4%, 43.4%, and 25.2%, respectively. Multiple linear regression indicates that 12% to 14% of the variations in common mental health problems can be explained by the family relationship. In particular, family conflicts were significantly related to higher depression, anxiety, and stress (Beta from 0.14 to 0.16, p<0.01); in contrast, an increase in family expressiveness was linked to a decrease in mental health problems (Beta from -0.27 to -0.20, p<0.01). Conclusions. The mental health of Vietnamese adults was affected due to family conflict and family expressiveness, particularly in crises. The current study provides evidence for the prevention strategy of adult mental health problems by reducing conflict and enhancing emotional expressiveness skills for family members, particularly in crisis situations. Keywords: family relationship, Vietnamese culture, mental health problem, and the COVID-19 lockdown.

Development of Parent-Adolescent Relationships During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Stress and Coping

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2021

The extensive measures to prevent spread of COVID-19 have had a major impact on families’ daily lives. Changes in family routines and experiences of COVID-19-related stress might negatively impact the quality of parenting and the parent-adolescent relationship. However, using active coping strategies might be associated with limited negative or even positive changes in the parent-adolescent relationship. This longitudinal, multi-informant, and pre-registered study used data of 240 mostly Dutch parents (85% mothers; Mage = 44.2 years old) and adolescents (50% girls; Mage = 11.4 years) from diverse SES backgrounds. Using Latent Change Score models, we examined how parent-reported parenting (i.e., positive parenting and discipline practices) and adolescent-reported relationship quality (i.e., support and negative interaction) changed from pre-COVID-19 (Fall 2019) to the COVID-19 period (Spring 2020). Moreover, we investigated whether parents’ and adolescents’ level of COVID-19-related stress was associated with the change in relationships, and whether active coping moderated the association between stress and changes in relationships. Results showed average decreases in support, positive parenting, and negative interactions between parents and adolescents. COVID-19-related stress was not a direct predictor of relationship changes and there was little evidence of moderating effects. Only adolescents’ use of active coping strategies moderated the effect of stress on positive parenting. For high active coping adolescents, the link between stress and change in positive parenting was negative, whereas for low active coping adolescents this link was positive. The findings suggest that parent-adolescent relationships during a pandemic need attention, especially for adolescents with high stress levels and using active coping strategies.

Social relationships and depression during the COVID-19 lockdown: longitudinal analysis of the COVID-19 Social Study

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2021

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to measures that reduced social contact and support. We explored whether UK residents with more frequent or supportive social contact had fewer depressive symptoms during March−August 2020, and potential factors moderating the relationship. Methods A convenience sample of UK dwelling participants aged ⩾18 in the internet-based longitudinal COVID-19 Social Study completed up to 22 weekly questionnaires about face-to-face and phone/video social contact frequency, perceived social support, and depressive symptoms using the PHQ-9. Mixed linear models examined associations between social contact and support, and depressive symptoms. We examined for interaction by empathic concern, perspective taking and pre-COVID social contact frequency. Results In 71 117 people with mean age 49 years (standard deviation 15), those with high perceived social support scored 1.836 (1.801–1.871) points lower on PHQ-9 than those with low support. Daily face-to-face or phone/video contact was associated with lower depressive symptoms (0.258 (95% confidence interval 0.225–0.290) and 0.117 (0.080–0.154), respectively) compared to no contact. The negative association between social relationships and depressive symptoms was stronger for those with high empathic concern, perspective taking and usual sociability. Conclusions We found during lockdown that those with higher quality or more face-to-face or phone/video contact had fewer depressive symptoms. Contact quality was more strongly associated than quantity. People who were usually more sociable or had higher empathy had more depressive symptoms during enforced reduced contact. The results have implications for COVID-19 and potential future pandemic management, and for understanding the relationship between social factors and mental health.

From “It Has Stopped Our Lives” to “Spending More Time Together Has Strengthened Bonds”: The Varied Experiences of Australian Families During COVID-19

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2020

The present study uses a qualitative approach to understand the impact of COVID-19 on family life. Australian parents of children aged 0–18 years were recruited via social media between April 8 and April 28, 2020, when Australians were experiencing social distancing/isolation measures for the first time. As part of a larger survey, participants were asked to respond via an open-ended question about how COVID-19 had impacted their family. A total of 2,130 parents were included and represented a diverse range of family backgrounds. Inductive template thematic analysis was used to understand patterns of meaning across the texts. Six themes were derived from the data, including “Boredom, depression and suicide: A spectrum of emotion,” “Families are missing the things that keep them healthy,” “Changing family relationships: The push pull of intimacy,” “The unprecedented demands of parenthood,” “The unequal burden of COVID-19,” and “Holding on to positivity.” Overall, the findings demonstrated a breadth of responses. Messages around loss and challenge were predominant, with many families reporting mental health difficulties and strained family relationships. However, not all families were negatively impacted by the restrictions, with some families reporting positive benefits and meaning, including opportunities for strengthening relationships, finding new hobbies, and developing positive characteristics such as appreciation, gratitude, and tolerance.

Psychological Flexibility and Inflexibility as Sources of Resiliency and Risk during a Pandemic: Modeling the Cascade of COVID-19 Stress on Family Systems with a Contextual Behavioral Science Lens

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2020

Background The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the historic economic shutdown and stay-at-home efforts to slow its spread have radically impacted the lives of families across the world, completely disrupting routines and challenging them to adjust to new health risks as well as to new work and family demands. The current study applied a contextual behavioral science lens to the spillover hypothesis of Family Systems Theory to develop a multi-stage mechanistic model for how COVID-19 stress could impact family and child functioning and how parents’ psychological flexibility could shape those processes. Methods A total of 742 coparents (71% female; 84% Caucasian, 85% married, M = 41 years old) of children (ages 5-18, M = 9.4 years old, 50% male) completed an online survey from March 27th to the end of April, 2014. Results Path analyses highlighted robust links from parent inflexibility to all components of the model, predicting: greater COVID-19 stress, greater coparenting discord and family discord, greater caustic parenting, and greater parent and child distress. Parent flexibility was associated with greater family cohesion, lower family discord and greater use of constructive parenting strategies (inductive, democratic/autonomy supportive, positive). Results further suggested that COVID-19 stressors predicted greater family and coparent discord, which in turn predicted greater use of caustic parenting (reactive, inconsistent, aggressive), which in turn predicted greater child and parent distress. Conclusions: The current results highlight parental flexibility and inflexibility as key points of intervention for helping families navigate the current global health crisis, highlighting the crucial role they play in the lives of families.

Applying Relationship Science to Evaluate How the COVID-19 Pandemic May Impact Couples’ Relationships

Article

Full-text available

Jul 2020

The coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has profoundly altered people’s daily lives and created multiple societal challenges. One important challenge of this unique stressor is maintaining well-functioning intimate relationships, which are inextricably tied to emotional and physical health. Yet research on romantic relationships shows that external stressors such as economic hardship, demanding jobs, and disasters can threaten the quality and stability of couples’ relationships. Research within relationship science investigating how external stressors and existing vulnerabilities shape couple functioning can inform predictions about how the current pandemic will impact couples’ relationships and which couples in which contexts may be most at risk for adverse relationship consequences. Drawing on theory and research from relationship science, the presented conceptual framework, adapted from the vulnerability-stress-adaptation model (Karney & Bradbury, 1995), suggests that facing COVID-19-related external stress is likely to increase harmful dyadic processes (e.g., hostility, withdrawal, less responsive support), which will undermine couples’ relationship quality. These harmful effects are likely to be exacerbated by the broader preexisting context in which couples’ relationships are situated (e.g., social class, minority status, age), and their individual vulnerabilities (e.g., attachment insecurity, depression). The framework presented identifies the essential factors that need to be addressed in order to mitigate the potential adverse effects of the current crisis on relationships, and offers key directions for future research.

The hidden disaster of COVID-19: Intimate partner violence

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2020

The hidden and often unspoken impact of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV). This commentary addresses this issue and highlights a study undertaken to address this public health issue by generating empirical research on the relationship between COVID-19 and IPV. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

The Costs and Benefits of Co‐Rumination

Article

Aug 2021

Amanda Rose

A common belief is that talking about problems makes us feel better. In fact, seeking social support is related to well‐being. However, if taken to a perseverative extreme, talking about problems can become problematic. The construct of co‐rumination was developed to address this idea. Co‐rumination refers to talking excessively about problems and is characterized by rehashing problems, speculating about problems, and dwelling on negative feelings. Co‐rumination is typically studied in children’s and adolescents’ friendships and has adjustment trade‐offs. Like rumination, co‐rumination is associated with internalizing symptoms. However, co‐rumination also is associated with having high‐quality relationships, presumably due to social sharing. In this article, I review what it means to co‐ruminate; how co‐rumination is assessed; the roles of age, gender, and relationship context; associations with adjustment; and the role of interpersonal stress and problems. I close by considering directions for research and applied implications.

Meaning Co‐Construction: Facilitating Shared Family Meaning‐Making in Bereavement

Article

May 2021

Meaning-oriented approaches to grief therapy have made substantial contributions by defining the internal processes of meaning-making and, more recently, clinical scholars have introduced relational approaches as means for continuing bonds with the deceased and increasing social support for the bereaved. However, the complicated interactive processes of interpersonal meaning-making pose added challenges as family members attempt to coregulate each other's grief experiences. While systemic therapists have consistently emphasized the essential role of familial relationships in fostering resilience through interpersonally constructed meaning, there remains a need for clarity in terms of the specific processes by which this occurs. The Meaning Reconstruction Model and Emotionally Focused Therapy provide process-oriented therapeutic strategies for facilitating interpersonal interactions that foster deep relational connection and self-identity transformation. In this article, we explore how these models can be integrated and applied to the dynamic needs of families who are adjusting to loss. Future clinical and research directions are also discussed.

Stress and Parenting during the Global COVID-19 Pandemic

Article

Aug 2020
CHILD ABUSE NEGLECT

Background: Stress and compromised parenting often place children at risk of abuse and neglect. Child maltreatment has generally been viewed as a highly individualistic problem by focusing on stressors and parenting behaviors that impact individual families. However, because of the global coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), families across the world are experiencing a new range of stressors that threaten their health, safety, and economic well-being. Objective: This study examined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to parental perceived stress and child abuse potential. Participants and setting: Participants included parents (N = 183) with a child under the age of 18 years in the western United States. Method: Tests of group differences and hierarchical multiple regression analyses were employed to assess the relationships among demographic characteristics, COVID-19 risk factors, mental health risk factors, protective factors, parental perceived stress, and child abuse potential. Results: Greater COVID-19 related stressors and high anxiety and depressive symptoms are associated with higher parental perceived stress. Receipt of financial assistance and high anxiety and depressive symptoms are associated with higher child abuse potential. Conversely, greater parental support and perceived control during the pandemic are associated with lower perceived stress and child abuse potential. Results also indicate racial and ethnic differences in COVID-19 related stressors, but not in mental health risk, protective factors, perceived stress, or child abuse potential. Conclusion: Findings suggest that although families experience elevated stressors from COVID-19, providing parental support and increasing perceived control may be promising intervention targets.

Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population

Article

Jul 2020

Background The potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health is of increasing global concern. We examine changes in adult mental health in the UK population before and during the lockdown. Methods In this secondary analysis of a national, longitudinal cohort study, households that took part in Waves 8 or 9 of the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) panel, including all members aged 16 or older in April, 2020, were invited to complete the COVID-19 web survey on April 23–30, 2020. Participants who were unable to make an informed decision as a result of incapacity, or who had unknown postal addresses or addresses abroad were excluded. Mental health was assessed using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Repeated cross-sectional analyses were done to examine temporal trends. Fixed-effects regression models were fitted to identify within-person change compared with preceding trends. Findings Waves 6–9 of the UKHLS had 53 351 participants. Eligible participants for the COVID-19 web survey were from households that took part in Waves 8 or 9, and 17 452 (41·2%) of 42 330 eligible people participated in the web survey. Population prevalence of clinically significant levels of mental distress rose from 18·9% (95% CI 17·8–20·0) in 2018–19 to 27·3% (26·3–28·2) in April, 2020, one month into UK lockdown. Mean GHQ-12 score also increased over this time, from 11·5 (95% CI 11·3–11·6) in 2018–19, to 12·6 (12·5–12·8) in April, 2020. This was 0·48 (95% CI 0·07–0·90) points higher than expected when accounting for previous upward trends between 2014 and 2018. Comparing GHQ-12 scores within individuals, adjusting for time trends and significant predictors of change, increases were greatest in 18–24-year-olds (2·69 points, 95% CI 1·89–3·48), 25–34-year-olds (1·57, 0·96–2·18), women (0·92, 0·50–1·35), and people living with young children (1·45, 0·79–2·12). People employed before the pandemic also averaged a notable increase in GHQ-12 score (0·63, 95% CI 0·20–1·06). Interpretation By late April, 2020, mental health in the UK had deteriorated compared with pre-COVID-19 trends. Policies emphasising the needs of women, young people, and those with preschool aged children are likely to play an important part in preventing future mental illness. Funding None.