This longitudinal study identifies key predictors of wellbeing in adolescents after COVID-related school closures, suggesting vital support systems.
Introduction Research has shown that the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdowns led to increased loneliness and decreased life-satisfaction among adolescents. However, the impact was not uniform, suggesting that certain resources may have served as protective factors. This study adopts a resource-based perspective to identify predictors of adolescent well-being after and at the end of the second COVID-related lockdown, focusing on self-efficacy, social support, and religiosity, as well as the role of a disposition to help. Methods Using data from a longitudinal sample of 171 German-speaking adolescents aged 15–18 y., assessed at four time points over 6 months, we analyzed which resources during the lockdown period were associated with life-satisfaction and loneliness at the final assessment. Results Our findings indicate that self-efficacy and general social support were significant predictors of higher life-satisfaction, while peer support uniquely predicted reduced loneliness. Parental support also positively influenced life satisfaction when general social support was excluded from the analyses. Discussion The findings underscore the crucial role of peers and family as primary sources of support during the pandemic, even in contexts of physical distancing. This study highlights the need to differentiate between types of social support and distinct aspects of well-being, such as life-satisfaction and loneliness. It underscores self-efficacy and peer support as central resources for fostering resilience in adolescents during crises. These insights provide valuable guidance for developing targeted prevention and intervention programs to strengthen adolescents’ resources and support systems in preparation for future disruptions or lockdown scenarios.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Göllner et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: