Socio-Economic Status, Comparisons of Subjective Affectedness and Life Satisfaction During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany

Lohmann, Henning; Wang, Hequn; Egge s, Nico
A icle — Published Ve sion
Socio-Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e
A ec edness and Li e Sa is ac ion Du ing he COVID-19
Pandemic in Ge many
Social Indica o s Resea ch
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: Lohmann, Henning; Wang, Hequn; Egge s, Nico (2025) : Socio-Economic S a us,
Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness and Li e Sa is ac ion Du ing he COVID-19 Pandemic in
Ge many, Social Indica o s Resea ch, ISSN 1573-0921, Sp inge Ne he lands, Do d ech , Vol. 180,
Iss. 1, pp. 221-242,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11205-025-03623-9
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/330892
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Vol.:(0123456789)
Social Indica o s Resea ch (2025) 180:221–242
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s11205-025-03623-9
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e
A ec edness andLi e Sa is ac ion Du ing heCOVID‑19
Pandemic inGe many
HenningLohmann1 · HequnWang1,2 · NicoEgge s1
Accep ed: 7 May 2025 / Published online: 20 June 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Abs ac
This pape examines he ole o social compa isons in e alua ing he consequences
o he COVID-19 pandemic in Ge many be ween 2020 and 2022. Ou app oach d ew
on p e ious esea ch conce ning economic inequali ies and e e ence g oups, engaging
wi h he b oade li e a u e on compa isons and subjec i e well-being. We hypo hesized
ha indi iduals’ e alua ions o hei pe sonal economic a ec edness—wha we e m
“subjec i e a ec edness”—would be in luenced no only by objec i e ac o s such as
employmen and income changes bu also by hei socioeconomic s a us a he onse
o he pandemic. We p ima ily in es iga ed how indi iduals e alua e hei subjec i e
a ec edness in ela ion o o he s and how hese e alua ions a ied acco ding o hei
ini ial socioeconomic s a us. Addi ionally, we analyzed whe he hese compa isons
in luenced subjec i e well-being, speci ically li e sa is ac ion, du ing he pandemic.
Ou esul s show ha indi iduals gene ally iewed hemsel es as economically less
a ec ed han o he s, including hei immedia e social ci cle, o he people in Ge many,
and especially o he s in he EU. Howe e , lowe -s a us g oups pe cei ed bo h hem-
sel es and o he s as mo e a ec ed and we e mo e likely o assess hemsel es as mo e
a ec ed han o he s—e en in he absence o objec i e ac o s such as job o income
loss. Ou indings sugges ha indi iduals ely on pe sonal e e ence g oups, which
leads o biased e alua ions o o he s. Those who e alua ed hemsel es as mo e a ec ed
han o he s also epo ed lowe li e sa is ac ion. O e all, ou indings indica e ha
socioeconomic s a us played a c ucial ole in shaping e alua ions and social compa i-
sons du ing he pandemic.
Keywo ds Socioeconomic s a us· Social compa isons· E alua ions· Economic
a ec edness· Subjec i e well-being· COVID-19 pandemic
* Henning Lohmann
[email p o ec ed]
1 Uni e si y o Hambu g, Hambu g, Ge many
2 Uni e si é Ca holique de Lou ain, Lou ain-La-Neu e, Belgium
222
H.Lohmann e al.
1 In oduc ion
The COVID-19 pandemic and he measu es aken in esponse led o an economic shock
and signi ican changes in people’s day- o-day li es. F om he ea lies s ages o he pan-
demic, schola s ha e analyzed i s impac on li e sa is ac ion and o he aspec s o subjec i e
well-being. Many s udies ha e co obo a ed he gene al expec a ion ha he pandemic—
along wi h i s social and economic consequences—nega i ely a ec ed li e sa is ac ion o
mos (e.g., Delhey e al., 2023; Eas e lin & O’Conno , 2023; Möh ing e al., 2021; P a i &
Mancini, 2021; Zache & Rudolph, 2021). Howe e , looking back a he o e all impac s o
he pandemic, hese s udies also sugges ha such ad e se e ec s we e ela i ely modes
and—a leas o some ex en —diminished o e he cou se o he pandemic.
In con as , se e al s udies om he ea ly phases o he pandemic ound ha subjec i e
well-being inc eased o e all, o among speci ic g oups, despi e he COVID-19- ela ed bu -
dens (En inge e al., 2020; Ki i e al., 2021; Recchi e al., 2020). These s udies alluded
o shi s in e e ence poin s o e e ence g oups o explain hei unexpec ed indings. Some
a gued ha people who we e no di ec ly a ec ed by illness, unemploymen , o o he dis-
up ions compa ed hemsel es o hose who we e and hus a i ed a a mo e posi i e e alu-
a ion o hei own si ua ion. This pape aims o p o ide u he e idence o he signi icance
o such social compa isons.
We ocus speci ically on indi iduals’ e alua ions o hei own economic a ec edness
du ing he pandemic and he ole o social compa isons— ha is, compa isons wi h o h-
e s. Ea lie s udies ha e sugges ed ha such compa isons we e cen al o explaining is-
ing well-being a he beginning o he pandemic. Howe e , empi ical e idence on hei
longe - e m consequences and unde lying mechanisms emains sca ce, a gap ha ou s udy
in ends o add ess. We used a a ing scale o measu e indi iduals’ e alua ions o bo h hei
own economic a ec edness—wha we e e o as “subjec i e a ec edness”—and ha o
o he s. In addi ion, we elied on indica o s such as changes in employmen and income o
measu e objec i e a ec edness.
We analyzed how people e alua ed he impac o he pandemic on hei own economic
si ua ion, as well as on ha o hei immedia e social ci cle, o he s in Ge many, and o he s
ac oss he EU. Ou app oach was inspi ed by p e ious esea ch on economic inequali ies
and e e ence g oups wi hin he EU, pa icula ly wo k ha examined how people compa e
li ing condi ions in hei own coun ies wi h hose in o he coun ies (Delhey & Kohle ,
2006). We also d ew on he b oade li e a u e conce ning compa isons and subjec i e well-
being (Cla k & Oswald, 1996; Cla k & Senik, 2010; Schneide & Schupp, 2014; Wolb ing
e al., 2013). We analyzed he ex en o which c i ical changes in employmen and income
du ing he pandemic, along wi h indi iduals’ socioeconomic s a us a i s ou se , a ec ed
how hey e alua ed hei own economic si ua ion compa ed o o he s. Conside ing ha
indi iduals’ e alua ions o o he s o en ely on limi ed in o ma ion and a e subjec o cog-
ni i e biases (T e sky & Kahneman, 1974), we explo ed di e ences in hese e alua ions
ac oss socioeconomic s a us g oups in all analyses.
While he co e o his pape ocuses on sel -e alua ions and social compa isons, ou
s a ing poin was he coun e in ui i e inding om p e ious s udies (e.g., Ki i e al., 2021)
ha subjec i e well-being did no decline—and, in some cases, e en inc eased—du ing he
ea ly phase o he pandemic. Due o da a limi a ions, we canno p o ide a comp ehensi e
analysis o changes in subjec i e well-being ac oss he en i e pandemic. Ins ead, we in es-
iga ed he ex en o which li e sa is ac ion is associa ed wi h compa isons o a ec edness.
This o e s en a i e e idence ega ding whe he such compa isons migh help explain he
223
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness…
su p ising pa e ns in li e sa is ac ion epo ed in p io esea ch. Based on he concep o
ela i e dep i a ion (Me on & Rossi, 1968; Runciman, 1966), we hypo hesized ha indi-
iduals who pe cei ed hei economic si ua ion as wo se han ha o o he s would expe-
ience a sense o pe sonal dep i a ion. This, in u n, would nega i ely impac li e sa is-
ac ion. By con as , ega dless o whe he indi iduals expe ienced objec i e a ec edness
du ing he pandemic, hose who e alua ed hei si ua ion as be e han ha o o he s we e
expec ed o epo a highe deg ee o li e sa is ac ion. I mos indi iduals pe cei ed hem-
sel es as be e o — ha is, less a ec ed— his could help explain he posi i e well-being
ou comes ound in ea lie s udies.
We used a panel da ase comp ising ou wa es collec ed be ween 2020 and 2022 and
combined hese indi idual-le el da a wi h coun y-le el agg ega e da a o map egional
pandemic and labo ma ke de elopmen s. In addi ion o cap u ing po en ial changes o e
he cou se o he pandemic, we placed s ong emphasis on he ole o socioeconomic s a us
a i s ou se — ha is, a cons an ac o —in explaining e alua ions o economic a ec ed-
ness. Acco dingly, we p ima ily employed pooled analyses using andom-e ec s models.
Fo ime- a ying ac o s like changes in employmen and income, we also p o ided es i-
ma es om ixed-e ec s models. As li e sa is ac ion was measu ed only in he inal wa e o
ou da a, we examined he ela ionship be ween li e sa is ac ion and compa isons o a ec -
edness om a c oss-sec ional pe spec i e.
Ou esul s show ha , on a e age, indi iduals e alua ed hemsel es as less economi-
cally a ec ed by he pandemic han o he s—a pa e n ha pe sis ed ac oss he en i e obse -
a ion pe iod despi e some changes o e ime. None heless, clea di e ences eme ged by
socioeconomic s a us, wi h lowe -s a us g oups e alua ing no only hemsel es bu also
o he s as being mo e se e ely economically a ec ed. Al hough hese di e ences we e no
highly p onounced, he indings o e some suppo o he expec a ion ha indi iduals
ely on hei pe sonal e e ence g oups when making in e ences abou o he s’ si ua ions.
In addi ion, consis en wi h ea lie li e a u e (e.g., Wolb ing e al., 2013), we ound ha
indi iduals who e alua ed hei si ua ion as wo se han o he s exhibi ed lowe le els o
li e sa is ac ion. Howe e , his e ec was la gely d i en by hei e alua ion o hei own
a ec edness a he han by how hey e alua ed o he s. The e o e, ou indings do no nec-
essa ily suppo he claims ha compa isons wi h o he s help explain he unexpec ed ise
in subjec i e well-being du ing he pandemic. O e all, ou s udy con ibu es o he exis ing
li e a u e on he ou comes o he COVID-19 pandemic and highligh s he ole o social
compa isons in imes o c isis.
2 Re e ence G oups, Social Compa isons, andSubjec i e Well‑Being
The ole o social compa isons has been add essed ac oss a ious ields o esea ch, includ-
ing s udies on economic inequali ies in he EU (Delhey & Kohle , 2006), subjec i e social
s a us (E ans & Kelley, 2004), and, qui e ex ensi ely, li e sa is ac ion and subjec i e well-
being (Cla k & Oswald, 1996; Cla k & Senik, 2010; Schneide & Schupp, 2014; Wolb ing
e al., 2013). Wi hin hese domains, he e m “ e e ence g oup” is widely used, which led
us o adop he concep in examining how indi iduals compa ed hei own economic si ua-
ion du ing he COVID-19 pandemic o ha o o he s.
The idea o e e ence g oups was o iginally es ablished in sociology by Me on and
Rossi (1968) in hei discussion o he seminal s udy conduc ed by S ou e e al. (1949).
I was also in his con ex ha he concep o “ ela i e dep i a ion” eme ged, which was
224
H.Lohmann e al.
la e u he popula ized by Runciman (1966). In he economic li e a u e, he no ion o
“ ela i e income,” which sha es essen ial ea u es wi h a e e ence g oup pe spec i e, was
in oduced in he la e 1940 s (Duesenbe y, 1949). Addi ionally, he e a e s ong concep-
ual links be ween e e ence g oup heo y and social compa ison heo y (Fes inge , 1954).
B oadly speaking, social compa ison e e s o he common cogni i e p ocess h ough
which indi iduals e alua e hemsel es—ei he by compa ing hemsel es di ec ly o o he s
o , as e e ence g oup heo y sugges s, o hei e e ence g oups.
While hese ounda ions o e e ence g oup heo y ha e been emphasized in ea lie li -
e a u e on social compa isons and li e sa is ac ion (Cla k & Oswald, 1996: 361),1 he e m
e e ence g oup i sel has become ela i ely gene ic in ecen li e a u e and is o en used
wi hou explici e e ence o ea lie heo e ical wo k. As a esul , i s meaning has become
less speci ic and is equen ly used o e e mo e gene ally o any e e ence poin h ough
which indi iduals assess hei posi ion in ela ion o o he s. As Me on and Rossi (1968:
287) no ed, “Re e ence g oups a e, in p inciple, almos innume able.” S udies on social
compa isons and well-being ha e he e o e used a wide a ie y o e e ence g oups. Fo
some o hese g oups, esea ch has shown ha indi iduals who e alua e hemsel es nega-
i ely in compa ison o o he s end o epo lowe le els o well-being (e.g., Wolb ing
e al., 2013).
In a simila ein, s udies conduc ed du ing he ea ly phase o he COVID-19 pandemic
sugges ed ha social compa isons may help explain he unexpec ed inc eases in li e sa -
is ac ion and o he aspec s o subjec i e well-being (En inge e  al., 2020; Ki i e  al.,
2021; Recchi e al., 2020). In a gene al sense, indi iduals who we e no di ec ly a ec ed
by illness, unemploymen , o o he pandemic- ela ed issues compa ed hemsel es o hose
who we e, esul ing in a mo e a o able e alua ion o hei own si ua ion. To desc ibe he
phenomenon o inc easing well-being in imes o c isis, Recchi e al. (2020) coined he
e m “eye o he hu icane pa adox.” Ki i e al. (2021) u he alluded o a c oss-na ional
compa a i e dimension in which e alua ions we e made compa ed o o he , mo e se e ely
a ec ed coun ies. This seems pa icula ly plausible in he con ex o he EU, whe e sup a-
na ional ins i u ions and o e a ching discou ses a ound Eu opean solida i y a e highly
salien (Bauh & Cha on, 2021). Al hough ea lie s udies posi ed ha such compa isons
con ibu ed o he ini ial ise in pe cei ed well-being du ing he pandemic, he e emains
limi ed empi ical e idence ega ding hei longe - e m consequences o he unde lying
mechanisms h ough which hey ope a e.
In ou pape , we p o ide an encompassing analysis o he ole o social compa isons
ac oss h ee yea s o he pandemic (2020–2022). Building on p e ious esea ch, we add ess
wo main ques ions. Fi s , how did indi iduals om di e en socioeconomic s a us g oups
e alua e hei own economic a ec edness du ing he pandemic in compa ison o o he s?
As in ea lie s udies, we adop ed a ela i ely b oad unde s anding o e e ence g oups bu
dis inguished be ween mo e p oxima e and mo e dis an g oups, including amily, iends,
and acquain ances, as well as o he people in Ge many and in he EU. This app oach d aws
inspi a ion om p io wo k on c oss-na ional compa isons, pa icula ly ha o Delhey and
Kohle (2006), which ound ha indi iduals’ e alua ions o hei coun y’s li ing s and-
a ds in ela ion o o he Eu opean coun ies in luenced hei li e sa is ac ion. Howe e , ou
s udy does no ocus on gene al li ing s anda ds bu a he on he economic a ec edness
1 No ably, Cla k and Oswald (1996) did no —a leas no di ec ly— acknowledge Me on and Rossi (1968),
a co e sociological con ibu ion. Howe e , hey did e e o S ou e e al. (1949) and Runciman (1966),
bo h o which a e closely ela ed o Me on’s and Rossi’s wo k.

225
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness…
o di e en s a us g oups due o he pandemic. While ou p ima y ocus was on subjec i e
a ec edness— ha is, indi iduals’ e alua ions o hei own economic si ua ion—we also
conside ed measu es o objec i e a ec edness, such as changes in income and employ-
men . Ge many was mode a ely a ec ed by he pandemic compa ed o many o he Eu o-
pean coun ies, especially in he ea ly s ages (Kowall e  al., 2021). Gi en his con ex ,
including “o he people in he EU” as a po en ial e e ence g oup is consis en wi h he
compa a i e assump ions o Ki i e al. (2021).
Second, do e alua ions o one’s own economic a ec edness and ela ed social compa i-
sons in luence ou comes such as li e sa is ac ion? P io esea ch on ela i e dep i a ion
(Runciman, 1966; Smi h e al., 2012) clea ly sugges s ha indi iduals who see hemsel es
as wo se o han o he s end o epo lowe li e sa is ac ion. In his pape , we analyze how
indi iduals’ sel -assessed a ec edness du ing he pandemic, ela i e o o he s, in luenced
hei li e sa is ac ion. While ou da ase includes epea ed measu es o economic a ec ed-
ness—which we used o add ess he i s ques ion—li e sa is ac ion was only conside ed in
he inal wa e o he panel. The e o e, ou analysis o his second ques ion is based solely
on c oss-sec ional da a.
3 Socioeconomic S a us andE alua ions o Economic A ec edness
Du ing heCOVID‑19 Pandemic
A s a ing poin o unde s anding di e ences ac oss socioeconomic s a us g oups in hei
subjec i e economic a ec edness du ing he COVID-19 pandemic is hei objec i e a ec -
edness. The impac s o he pandemic on employmen (e.g., emo e wo k, sho - ime wo k,
and unemploymen ) we e socially selec i e and o en accompanied by income losses,
which, hough la gely abso bed by edis ibu i e measu es, we e unequally dis ibu ed
(e.g., Adams-P assl e al., 2020; Blom & Möh ing, 2021; Ch is l e al., 2023; Cla k e al.,
2021; G abka, 2021). Consequen ly, indi iduals’ pe sonal c isis expe iences a ied ma k-
edly ac oss popula ion g oups, con ibu ing o he ein o cemen o p e-exis ing inequali-
ies. Fo ins ance, indi iduals wi h a lowe socioeconomic s a us a he ou se we e mo e
likely o expe ience job o income loss du ing he pandemic.
Beyond hese di ec impac s, i is also necessa y o conside how lowe -s a us g oups
may ha e been indi ec ly a ec ed by he pandemic, as hey gene ally had ewe economic
esou ces o cope wi h he consequences o he c isis. Ea lie esea ch on he indi idual-
le el impac o na u al disas e s, such as ea hquakes and hu icanes, has shown ha indi-
iduals wi h lowe socioeconomic s a us a e pa icula ly ulne able in such si ua ions ( o
a e iew, see Bolin & Ku z, 2018). In addi ion o incu ing di ec ma e ial losses, lowe -
s a us g oups end o pe cei e g ea e isk and h ea , be less p epa ed, and ace mo e chal-
lenges du ing eco e y and econs uc ion. These ulne abili ies a e likely o be ele an in
he con ex o a p olonged c isis like he pandemic— o example, addi ional heal h- ela ed
expenses and he cos o p o ec i e measu es may ha e posed u he di icul ies o lowe -
s a us g oups as hey a emp ed o eo ganize and no malize hei li es unde lockdown
condi ions.
How do hese objec i e aspec s o a ec edness ansla e in o e alua ions o subjec i e
a ec edness and compa isons wi h o he s? I i we e possible o assess a ec edness “objec-
i ely,” one migh expec lowe -s a us g oups o e alua e hemsel es as mo e a ec ed han
o he s and highe -s a us g oups as less a ec ed. Howe e , i emains unclea how indi idu-
als a i e a such e alua ions o o he s and o wha ex en hese assessmen s may be biased.
226
H.Lohmann e al.
In a se ies o pape s published in he 1970 s, T e sky and Kahneman (1973, 1974)
s essed ha indi iduals employ wha hey e med “judgmen al heu is ics” as cogni i e
sho cu s o e alua e complex issues. In essence, indi iduals o en base hei e alua ions o
la ge g oups o socie y a la ge on speci ic cases hey ecall, which can lead o sys ema ic
cogni i e biases. People end o e alua e socie y based on in o ma ion om hose closes
o hem— ha is, hei e e ence g oups, such as amily, iends, o neighbo s (e.g., C uces
e al., 2013; E ans & Kelley, 2004). Mo eo e , indi iduals may also o m biased assess-
men s when compa ing di e en e e ence g oups (H idbe g e al., 2023), he eby u he
compounding he biases p esen in hei b oade social e alua ions.
This pape builds on hese p e ious indings and conside a ions o in es iga e how indi-
iduals assessed he economic a ec edness o o he s du ing he pandemic. To his end, we
p opose ha indi iduals d aw on a b oade se o e e ences when e alua ing hei a ec ed-
ness h ough social compa isons. These include no only close pe sonal con ac s— am-
ily, iends, and acquain ances—bu also mo e dis an g oups, such as ellow compa io s
o indi iduals ac oss he EU. Fo hese mo e dis an g oups, i is likely ha people sup-
plemen in e ence wi h in o ma ion ob ained om he media (Boomgaa den e al., 2011;
Mu z, 1992). F equen media consume s, in pa icula , a e mo e likely o make compa i-
sons wi h mo e dis an g oups (Cla k & Senik, 2010).
In his con ex , biases in e alua ions can be concep ualized as wo old. Fi s , indi iduals
may o m biased assessmen s o hei pe sonal e e ence g oup by ecalling speci ic—and
possibly un ep esen a i e—cases. Second, hei e alua ions o mo e dis an g oups may, in
u n, be biased by hei pe cep ions o pe sonal e e ence g oups. Media in o ma ion, espe-
cially o e alua ions o mo e dis an g oups, may help mi iga e such biases—assuming, o
cou se, ha misin o ma ion is no in ol ed. In his pape , we aimed o iden i y po en ial
biases by compa ing indi iduals’ e alua ions o hei own a ec edness wi h hei e alu-
a ions o o he s’. In an unbiased popula ion sample, he mean e alua ions o one’s own
a ec edness and o o he s’ a ec edness a e no expec ed o di e ; any di e ence be ween
he wo would indica e biases in he e alua ions.2
F om hese heo e ical conside a ions, we de i ed se e al hypo heses ega ding he o -
ma ion and ou comes o economic a ec edness e alua ions in he con ex o social com-
pa isons ac oss di e en socioeconomic g oups, as p esen ed in Fig.1. We use he e m
“subjec i e a ec edness” o desc ibe indi iduals’ sel -assessmen o economic a ec edness
as dis inc om objec i e indica o s such as changes in employmen o income. We speci i-
cally ocused on h ee ypes o dependen a iables: e alua ions o a ec edness o sel and
o he s, subjec i e a ec edness in compa ison o o he s, and li e sa is ac ion.
Fi s , we hypo hesized ha indi iduals wi h a lowe socioeconomic s a us would e alu-
a e hemsel es as being mo e economically a ec ed by he pandemic (H1). As discussed
abo e, his expec a ion es s on he ac ha lowe -s a us g oups we e mo e likely o expe-
ience sho - ime wo k, job loss, and income loss du ing he pandemic.3 Addi ionally, we
also expec ed ha socioeconomic s a us would ha e a di ec impac on subjec i e a ec ed-
ness. Rega dless o indi idual c isis expe iences du ing he pandemic, lowe -s a us g oups
gene ally had ewe esou ces and mo e signi ican obs acles o cope wi h he s ains o
he pandemic. In his con ex , we u he hypo hesized ha he ela ionship be ween
2 Using a simila ins umen , Delhey and Kohle (2006: 132) demons a ed ha he mean e alua ion o o h-
e s’ li ing condi ions was lowe han he mean o one’s own li ing condi ions, al hough he di e ences hey
obse ed we e ela i ely small.
3 Sho - ime wo k is he li e al ansla ion o he e m o he Ge man job e en ion scheme Ku za bei .
227
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness…
socioeconomic s a us and subjec i e a ec edness would be pa ially media ed by objec i e
a ec edness in e ms o job o income loss—in o he wo ds, indi iduals om lowe -s a us
g oups we e mo e likely o expe ience objec i e a ec edness du ing he pandemic (H1a),
and would he e o e e alua e hemsel es as being mo e a ec ed (H1b).
Second, we examined he ela ionship be ween socioeconomic s a us and bo h he
e alua ions o o he s’ a ec edness and he e alua ion o pe sonal a ec edness compa ed
o o he s. Building on he li e a u e ega ding judgmen al heu is ics and cogni i e biases,
we assumed ha e alua ions o o he s’ a ec edness would be biased due o he limi ed
knowledge indi iduals possess abou he expe iences o di e en e e ence g oups du ing
he pandemic. These e alua ions a e ele an because hey shape how indi iduals pe cei e
hei own a ec edness ela i e o o he s. Speci ically, indi iduals may be mo e likely o
e alua e hei own a ec edness as highe when hey assess ei he hei own a ec edness as
g ea e o he a ec edness o o he s as lesse . A key ques ion, he e o e, is which speci ic
g oup indi iduals d aw on as he e e ence poin when making his compa ison.
On he one hand, i indi iduals use people hey know pe sonally as hei e e ence
g oup, we assumed ha hese g oups would be ela i ely homogeneous and simila in soci-
oeconomic s a us. As a esul , e alua ions o he economic a ec edness o amily, iends,
and acquain ances should b oadly align wi h sel -e alua ions, leading o no subs an ial di -
e ences in compa a i e sel -e alua ions ac oss socioeconomic g oups. Howe e , since we
expec ed lowe -s a us g oups o assess hei own a ec edness as highe (as s a ed in H1),
we should also see a simila g oup di e ence in hei e alua ions o he a ec edness o
“o he s.” The e o e, we hypo hesized ha e alua ions o he economic a ec edness o o h-
e s would be highe among lowe -s a us g oups han among highe -s a us g oups (H2).
On he o he hand, indi iduals may also compa e hemsel es wi h mo e dis an g oups,
such as people in Ge many o he EU. We assumed ha e alua ions o hese b oade g oups
ely mo e hea ily on media ep esen a ions han on pe sonal expe iences. The e o e, such
e alua ions should be less aligned wi h indi iduals’ assessmen s o hei own a ec edness.
In his case, bo h lowe - and highe -s a us g oups would ecei e simila in o ma ion abou
he a ec edness o people in Ge many o he EU, and he e alua ion o one’s own eco-
nomic a ec edness compa ed o o he s ac oss di e en s a us g oups would a y p ima ily
acco ding o he e alua ion o one’s own a ec edness. Gi en ha indi iduals om lowe -
s a us g oups may be mo e likely o pe cei e hemsel es as being mo e a ec ed (H1), we
hypo hesized ha hey a e mo e likely o e alua e hei own economic a ec edness as
highe han ha o o he s (H3).
Fig. 1 Socioeconomic s a us, compa a i e a ec edness, and li e sa is ac ion
228
H.Lohmann e al.
Finally, building on heo ies o social compa ison and ela i e dep i a ion, we posi ed
ha he compa ison made by indi iduals in e alua ing hei economic a ec edness due o
he pandemic u he in luenced hei li e sa is ac ion. We expec ed ha indi iduals eel
ela i ely dep i ed when hey pe cei e hemsel es as being mo e a ec ed han o he s, hus
being less sa is ied wi h hei li es in gene al. This leads o ou las hypo hesis, namely ha
indi iduals exhibi a lowe le el o li e sa is ac ion when hey e alua e hemsel es as being
mo e economically a ec ed han o he s (H4).
4 Da a andMe hods
Fo he main analysis, we used su ey da a om ou panel wa es conduc ed be ween 2020
and 2022, collec ed h ough wo esea ch p ojec s in Ge many (Beblo e al., 2024). The
i s wa e ook place be ween 6 and 31 Ma ch 2020, a he onse o he pandemic in Ge -
many. The second wa e was conduc ed om 23 June o 12 July 2020, he hi d om 12 o
28 Ap il 2021, and he inal panel wa e om 15 July o 10 Augus 2022. A o al o 1,535
esponden s pa icipa ed in he i s panel wa e, who we e ec ui ed h ough an online
access panel ia quo a sampling based on gende , age, educa ion, and income. O he o igi-
nal sample, 1,304 esponden s (85%) pa icipa ed in Wa e 2, 1,034 (67.5%) in Wa e 3,
and 896 (58.4%) in he inal panel wa e.4 Fo ou analysis, we used an unbalanced panel
(Wa es 2 o 4) comp ising 2,625 alid obse a ions, wi h Wa e 1 in o ma ion on ini ial
socioeconomic s a us included in all analyses.5
In ou analysis, we used h ee g oups o dependen a iables, comp ising a o al o eigh
a iables. Summa y s a is ics o all a iables a e p o ided in TableA1. The i s g oup
consis ed o ou a iables measu ing subjec i e economic a ec edness due o he pan-
demic, which we e su eyed in each wa e om he summe o 2020 onwa ds. Respond-
en s we e asked o e alua e he economic a ec edness o hemsel es, hei social ci cle
(i.e., amily, iends, and acquain ances), people in Ge many, and people in he EU using a
he mome e scale (see Figu eA1). Values anged om 0 (“no economic a ec edness”) o
100 (“s ong economic a ec edness”). The second g oup o dependen a iables included
h ee dummy a iables de i ed om hese me ic a iables, indica ing whe he espond-
en s a ed hei own a ec edness as highe han ha o each espec i e g oup. Ou inal
ou come a iable was a s anda d measu e o gene al li e sa is ac ion anging om 0 o
10, which was su eyed only in he las panel wa e in July/Augus 2022. Fo obus ness
checks, we also analyzed esponden s’ sa is ac ion in a ious li e domains (i.e., heal h,
4 In he las wo panel wa es, esh samples o 203 and 220 esponden s we e d awn, espec i ely. In his
pape , we only analyze he o iginal sample, o which indi idual socioeconomic s a us be o e o a he onse
o he pandemic was measu ed. Fo u he in o ma ion on da a collec ion, see Lohmann e al. (2024).
5 Allison (2002: 84) concluded ha lis wise dele ion can be qui e obus . Fu he mo e, he s essed ha i
canno be uled ou ha o he me hods o handle missing da a may p oduce biased es ima es. The e o e,
we used a sample o esponden s wi h alid in o ma ion in all a iables o he main analysis. To check o
po en ial biases due o he selec ion o ou sample, we eg essed all ou dependen a iables on ou main
indica o o socioeconomic s a us (mon hly ne equi alized income) using di e en samples (balanced/
unbalanced, wi h/wi hou missing alues in o he a iables). As he esponse a e o ou main a iables on
economic a ec edness was high and mon hly income was obse ed o all esponden s, he ini ial sample
o hese obus ness checks was nea ly as la ge as he ull sample. Figu eA2 shows ha he esul s did no
change subs an ially, e en o he mos es ic ed sample (balanced and wi hou missing alues in any o he
included a iables).
235
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness…
In con as o he esul s p esen ed in he uppe panel, di e ences be ween e e ence g oups
we e less p onounced.10 The desc ip i e esul s in Table1 may help explain his: a ia ions in
how indi iduals e alua ed hei own a ec edness compa ed o o he s ac oss di e en s a us
g oups we e p ima ily d i en by di e ences in sel -e alua ion a he han in he e alua ion o
o he s. This pa e n was mos e iden in he compa ison wi h o he people in Ge many. In bo h
g oups— hose who conside ed hemsel es mo e a ec ed han o he s and hose who did no —
he a e age e alua ion o how a ec ed people in Ge many we e was ela i ely simila (59.7 s.
55.6). Howe e , he a e age e alua ion o one’s own a ec edness di e ed subs an ially (22.5
s. 76.0). A simila pa e n, albei less p onounced, was also obse ed in compa isons wi h
amily, iends, and acquain ances, as well as wi h people in he EU.
In conclusion, indi iduals in lowe -s a us g oups we e mo e likely o pe cei e hem-
sel es as mo e a ec ed han o he s, p ima ily due o hei own high le els o subjec i e
a ec edness a he han a belie ha o he s we e less a ec ed—which lends suppo o H3.
While indi iduals wi h a lowe socioeconomic s a us did end o e alua e o he s as mo e
a ec ed (H2), his did no o se hei s ong sel -pe cep ion o economic a ec edness (H1).
5.2 Reg ession Resul s: Social Compa isons andLi e Sa is ac ion
As he inal s ep in ou analysis, we u ned o he ques ion o how he e alua ion o pe -
sonal a ec edness ela i e o o he s impac s subjec i e well-being, speci ically in e ms o
li e sa is ac ion. As men ioned abo e, he da a collec ion p ima ily ocused on pe cep ions o
a ec edness and social compa isons; li e sa is ac ion was only su eyed in he inal wa e in
2022. None heless, his analysis can o e insigh s in o whe he compa isons wi h o he s ha e
a po en ial impac on subjec i e well-being, as sugges ed by s udies documen ing unexpec ed
inc eases in subjec i e well-being du ing he ea ly phase o he pandemic. D awing on he
concep o ela i e dep i a ion, we hypo hesized ha indi iduals would epo lowe le els o
li e sa is ac ion i hey conside ed hemsel es mo e economically a ec ed han o he s (H4).
The esul s a e p esen ed in Fig.5, which inco po a es he ele an co a ia es and con-
ols used in he p e ious analyses. The le -hand panel displays he coe icien s o he e al-
ua ion o pe sonal a ec edness compa ed o o he s. Addi ionally, we es ima ed coe icien s
o he compa isons bo h be o e (in pu ple) and a e (in o ange), con olling o he e alu-
a ion o pe sonal a ec edness. The inding ha indi iduals who saw hemsel es as mo e
a ec ed han o he s we e less sa is ied wi h hei li es suppo s H4. In pa icula , hose who
e alua ed hemsel es as mo e a ec ed han people in he EU epo ed he lowes le els o
li e sa is ac ion. Howe e , hese coe icien s became insigni ican once pe sonal a ec edness
was accoun ed o .
The igh -hand panel o he igu e, in u n, shows how li e sa is ac ion is associa ed
wi h he pe cei ed a ec edness o onesel and o o he s, espec i ely. We ound ha highe
sel -e alua ed economic a ec edness was nega i ely associa ed wi h li e sa is ac ion. In
con as , he coe icien s o he pe cei ed a ec edness o o he s—especially mo e dis an
g oups—we e smalle and s a is ically insigni ican .
Taken oge he , he esul s p esen ed in he wo panels o Fig.5 sugges ha li e sa is ac-
ion p ima ily depends on one’s le el o pe sonal a ec edness. Thus, he indings do no lend
suppo o he mechanism o ela i e dep i a ion. We conclude ha he e alua ion o pe sonal
a ec edness is mo e consequen ial han social compa isons in explaining li e sa is ac ion.
10 As men ioned in Sec ion4, o he ease o in e p e a ion, we es ima ed linea p obabili y models (RE).
The esul s p o ed e y obus when es ima ing logi models (see Figu e A5 in he appendix).

236
H.Lohmann e al.
6 Robus ness Checks
In his sec ion, we add ess wo u he ques ions. Fi s , a e ou esul s obus when ana-
lyzing sa is ac ion ac oss speci ic li e domains a he han li e in gene al? We acknowl-
edge ha a c oss-sec ional analysis o li e sa is ac ion is likely o be plagued by measu e-
men issues and po en ial unobse ed he e ogenei y. Gi en he limi a ions o ou da a (see
Table 1 Means and dis ibu ion o a ec edness acco ding o e alua ions o one’s own a ec edness com-
pa ed o o he s
No e:Q1 i s qua ile, Q2 second qua ile (median). Wa e 2–4 (weigh ed)
A ec edness compa ed o:
Family, iends, acquain ances People in Ge many People in he EU
Same o less Mo e To al Same o less Mo e To al Same o less Mo e To al
Mean: A ec edness
sel
21.8 63.0 33.3 22.5 76.0 33.4 22.0 76.4 33.3
Mean: A ec edness
o he s
37.2 47.2 40.0 59.7 55.6 58.9 66.6 51.0 63.4
Q1: A ec edness
o he s
15.0 25.0 18.0 47.0 43.0 46.0 54.0 38.0 51.0
Q2: A ec edness
o he s
30.0 50.0 36.0 60.0 56.0 59.0 68.0 53.0 65.0
Fig. 5 Li e sa is ac ion, coe icien s o OLS eg ession models. No e: Coe icien s o he e alua ion o pe -
sonal a ec edness compa ed o di e en g oups o o he s (le -hand panel) and he e alua ion o he a ec -
edness o onesel and di e en g oups o o he s ( igh -hand panel) on li e sa is ac ion, wi h 95% con idence
in e als (clus e obus s anda d e o s). Wa es 2–4 (weigh ed). Fo he le -hand panel, he e alua ion o
pe sonal a ec edness was no included in M1 (pu ple), bu i is included in M2 (o ange). Employmen s a-
us, income change, and u he con ols we e included in all models o bo h panels. Fo ull models, see he
TablesA11–A17 in he appendix
237
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness…
Sec ion4), we canno ully esol e hese p oblems. Ne e heless, examining sa is ac ion
ac oss di e en li e domains o e s a b oade pe spec i e o alida ing ou inding ha
he e alua ion o economic a ec edness— a he han unobse ed ac o s—is wha impac s
li e sa is ac ion. I his is he case, we would expec o ind a s onge associa ion be ween
pe cei ed a ec edness and sa is ac ion wi h economic domains as opposed o o he a eas
o li e.
Second, ega ding he e alua ion o economic a ec edness, a e ou esul s obus
when using al e na i e indica o s o socioeconomic s a us measu ed a he ou se o he
pandemic? Thus a , we ha e used mon hly ne household income as ou main indica o
o socioeconomic s a us in all ou analyses. This choice was p ima ily p agma ic, as his
a iable was used o panel ec ui men and hus had no missing alues. Howe e , he e a e
h ee po en ial issues wi h his measu e. Fi s , mon hly income was su eyed only as a ca -
ego ical a iable, which educes a ia ion and may gloss o e nuanced di e ences be ween
income g oups. Second, he da a we e collec ed in Ma ch 2020 du ing he i s wa e o he
su ey. Al hough mos esponden s we e su eyed in mid-Ma ch—be o e policy measu es
such as sho - ime wo k gained any signi ican momen um—we canno ule ou he pos-
sibili y ha he epo ed income was al eady a ec ed by he pandemic. Thi d, income cap-
u es only one dimension o socioeconomic s a us.
To add ess hese conce ns, we an addi ional models wi h h ee al e na i e indica o s:
yea ly ne equi alized household income in 2019, occupa ional class, and subjec i e social
s a us. Using annual income add esses wo o he issues abo e: i was measu ed a he
me ic le el (we also used a ca ego ized e sion o di ec compa isons wi h he mon hly
income models) and e e s o he yea be o e he pandemic s a ed. Occupa ional class
ends o be mo e s able and less a ec ed by ex e nal shocks, and i e lec s a b oade unde -
s anding o socioeconomic s a us beyond income, which also applies o ou las addi ional
indica o , subjec i e social s a us.
Tu ning o ou i s ques ion conce ning li e sa is ac ion, Fig.6 p esen s he coe icien s
o all h ee a iables on being mo e a ec ed han o he s (i.e., amily, iends, and acquain -
ances, as well as wi h o he people in Ge many and he EU) ac oss di e en li e domains.
Because ou pu pose wi h his was o assess he consis ency o hese coe icien s— a he
han o e alua e he ela i e impo ance o subjec i e a ec edness e sus social compa i-
sons—we excluded he e alua ion o pe sonal a ec edness in all models. As illus a ed in
he igu e, nea ly all coe icien s we e nega i e; ha is, pe cei ing onesel as mo e a ec ed
han o he s was associa ed wi h lowe sa is ac ion ac oss a ange o li e domains. This pa -
e n is consis en wi h ou main inding ega ding li e sa is ac ion in gene al. Howe e ,
only he coe icien s o income and, in one case, job sa is ac ion eached s a is ical signi i-
cance. We in e p e his as suppo ing e idence ha i is p ima ily pe cei ed a ec edness
in he economic domain ha in luences li e sa is ac ion.
We p esen he esul s o he analyses using al e na i e measu es o socioeconomic s a us
in he appendix (see Figu esA6 and A7). Gi en he use o ou al e na i e s a us a iables
and eigh dependen a iables, we es ima ed a o al o 32 addi ional model se s. The o e all
pa e n o hese esul s was consis en wi h ou indings in he p e ious sec ion. Lowe socio-
economic s a us co esponded wi h highe e alua ions o bo h subjec i e a ec edness and he
a ec edness o o he s, pa icula ly in ela ion o amily, iends, and acquain ances, as well
as o he people in Ge many. Addi ionally, lowe -s a us g oups we e mo e likely o e alua e
hemsel es as mo e a ec ed han o he s, al hough some coe icien s—speci ically occupa ion
and subjec i e social s a us—we e s a is ically insigni ican .
238
H.Lohmann e al.
7 Discussion andConclusion
This pape examined he ole o social compa isons in e alua ing he consequences o he
COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed how Ge mans pe cei ed he pandemic’s economic
impac on hemsel es ela i e o o he s, di e en ia ing be ween immedia e social ci cles (i.e.,
amily, iends, and acquain ances), people in Ge many, and people in he EU. We in es i-
ga ed he ex en o which hese e alua ions a ied by indi iduals’ socioeconomic s a us a he
ou se o he pandemic. Addi ionally, we explo ed how subjec i e a ec edness and compa i-
sons ela e o li e sa is ac ion. Ou pape con ibu es o he li e a u e on he socially unequal
consequences o he pandemic and on social compa isons ac oss di e en s a us g oups.
We ound ha while lowe -s a us g oups epo ed highe le els o subjec i e a ec ed-
ness, hese we e only pa ially media ed—and no p ima ily d i en—by objec i e a ec -
edness, such as job o income loss. Mo eo e , e alua ions o o he s’ a ec edness a ied
depending on he e e ence g oup, wi h cogni i e biases seemingly playing a subs an i e
ole, pa icula ly in assessmen s o mo e dis an g oups. Addi ional analyses suppo ed ou
assump ion ha he e alua ion o a ec edness is an impo an ac o in subjec i e well-
being: indi iduals who pe cei ed hemsel es as mo e economically a ec ed han o he s
ended o epo lowe le els o li e sa is ac ion. Howe e , ou indings also indica e ha
e alua ions o pe sonal a ec edness we e mo e in luen ial han compa isons wi h o he s in
explaining li e sa is ac ion du ing he pandemic. In his ega d, ou esul s do no p o ide
empi ical suppo o he claim o ea lie s udies ha social compa isons may help explain
su p ising ends in subjec i e well-being. None heless, since li e sa is ac ion was meas-
u ed wo yea s a e he onse o he pandemic in ou da a, we canno ule ou he possibil-
i y ha compa isons may ha e played a ole only du ing he ea ly phase o he c isis.
Fig. 6 Li e sa is ac ion dimensions, coe icien s o OLS eg ession models. No e: Coe icien s o he e alu-
a ion o economic a ec edness compa ed o di e en g oups o o he s on di e en dimensions o li e sa is-
ac ion, wi h 95% con idence in e als (clus e obus s anda d e o s). Wa es 2–4 (weigh ed). Sa is ac ion
wi h childca e op ions was only su eyed i younge child en we e li ing in he household. Employmen
s a us, income change, and u he con ols we e included in all models
239
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness…
We acknowledge se e al limi a ions o ou s udy. Fi s , al hough we used panel da a,
ou main analyses we e pooled o c oss-sec ional. This is because one o ou main objec-
i es was o examine how e alua ions o economic a ec edness du ing he pandemic we e
associa ed wi h indi iduals’ socioeconomic s a us a i s ou se , which emained cons an
o e ime. Acco dingly, we do no sugges ha hese ela ionships a e causal; a he , ou
aim was o iden i y di e ences be ween s a us g oups. While he obse ed pa e ns gen-
e ally suppo ou hypo heses, we canno ule ou he possibili y ha unobse ed ac o s
in luenced he esul s. Fo ime- a ying a iables, we conduc ed addi ional panel models
as obus ness checks, which la gely co obo a ed ou esul s.
Second, we did no add ess he ends in e alua ions o e ime in g ea de ail. Ac oss all
su ey yea s (2020 o 2022), we ound ha indi iduals gene ally pe cei ed hemsel es as less
economically a ec ed by he pandemic han o he s—pa icula ly people in he EU. Howe e ,
we also obse ed a end o con e gence: by he summe o 2022, indi iduals e alua ed hei
own a ec edness as highe han wo yea s ea lie , while hei assessmen s o o he s emained
consis en o e en declined sligh ly. This inc ease in subjec i e a ec edness likely canno be
a ibu ed solely o he pandemic, gi en he Russian in asion o Uk aine and he subsequen
ene gy c isis in ea ly 2022. Al hough his lies beyond he scope o ou pape , i seems plau-
sible ha indi iduals may eel pa icula ly a ec ed du ing o e lapping c ises. This highligh s
he need o u u e esea ch o ga he da a o e longe ime spans in o de o be e unde s and
he ela ionship be ween social compa isons and subjec i e well-being du ing imes o c isis.
Finally, al hough ou ini ial su ey was conduc ed a he onse o he pandemic in Ge -
many in Ma ch 2020, i is possible ha ou measu e o mon hly income—used as a p oxy
o socioeconomic s a us—was al eady a ec ed by he pandemic. Ne e heless, ou ind-
ings emained obus when using al e na i e measu es o socioeconomic s a us ha a e less
sensi i e o empo al changes o e e o an ea lie e e ence pe iod. These included occu-
pa ion, subjec i e social s a us, and yea ly income o 2019.
In conclusion, ou indings e eal ha socioeconomic s a us plays a c ucial ole in shap-
ing e alua ions o economic a ec edness du ing a c isis like he COVID-19 pandemic.
This sugges s ha inequali ies du ing c ises ex end beyond objec i e indica o s. By p o id-
ing e idence on social compa isons ac oss s a us g oups, ou s udy highligh s he ele ance
o analyzing subjec i e a ec edness—an aspec ha does no necessa ily align wi h objec-
i e condi ions bu has implica ions o subjec i e well-being—du ing imes o c isis.
Ou s udy also con ains se e al p ac ical implica ions. On he one hand, he esul s
emphasize he signi ican ole o he wel a e s a e in p o iding social secu i y o i s ci i-
zens, as e lec ed in indi iduals’ own e alua ions. Speci ically, Ge man esponden s ended
o see hemsel es as being less economically a ec ed by he pandemic, sugges ing ha
go e nmen measu es—such as he ex ension o sho - ime wo k—we e a leas pa ially
success ul in mi iga ing he pandemic’s nega i e e ec s, including on subjec i e a ec ed-
ness. On he o he hand, esponden s ended o pe cei e o he s as mo e a ec ed, poin ing
o a b oade conce n abou socie y and he na ional economy du ing pe iods o c isis. This
gene al conce n dese es g ea e a en ion in poli ical discou se and policy-making—espe-
cially in ligh o i s impac s on subjec i e well-being, as well as o he indi idual-le el ou -
comes, such as social and poli ical us , a i udes, and pa icipa ion.
Supplemen a y In o ma ion The online e sion con ains supplemen a y ma e ial a ailable a h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1007/ s11205- 025- 03623-9.
240
H.Lohmann e al.
Acknowledgemen s This pape has g ea ly bene i ed om commen s o he pa icipan s a he ECSR The-
ma ic Con e ence "COVID-19 and Social Inequali y in Well-being", Uni e si y o Bambe g/Ge many, 3-4
Augus 2023 and he wo kshop “Unsiche hei und Ungleichhei . Sozioökonomische Konsequenzen de
COVID-19 Pandemie”, Uni e si y o Hambu g/Ge many, 1 Decembe 2023.
Funding Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by P ojek DEAL. This pape p esen s independen
esea ch ha was unded by he Ge man Resea ch Founda ion (DFG). The au ho s ha e no compe ing in e -
es s o decla e ha a e ele an o he con en o his a icle.Open Access unding enabled and o ganized by
P ojek DEAL.
Da a A ailabili y Da a ha e been a chi ed a GESIS, Cologne, Ge many, h ps:// doi. o g/h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
7802/ 2772.
Code a ailabili y S a a code has been a chi ed a GESIS, Cologne, Ge many, h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 7802/ 2882.
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long
as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e Com-
mons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his a icle
a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line o he
ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended use is no
pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mission di ec ly
om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/.
Re e ences
Adams-P assl, A., Bone a, T., Golin, M., & Rauh, C. (2020). Inequali y in he impac o he co ona i us
shock: E idence om eal ime su eys. Jou nal o Public Economics, 189, 1–33. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1016/j. jpube co. 2020. 104245
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing da a. SAGE Publica ions, Inc. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 4135/ 97814 12985 079
Bauh , M., & Cha on, N. (2021). S and oge he o alone? Public suppo o Eu opean economic solida -
i y du ing he Co id-19 pandemic. Eu opean Socie ies, 23(4), 533–561. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 14616
696. 2021. 19229 31
Beblo, M., Jäge , J., Lohmann, H., Sa le -Bubli z, E., & Wang, H. (2024). SOECBIAS-COVREF Da a Se .
GESIS, Cologne. Da a File Ve sion, 2.0.0, h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 7802/ 2772
Blom, A. & Möh ing, K. (2021). Soziale Ungleichhei in de Beschä igungssi ua ion wäh end de ühen
Phase de Co onak ise. In Des a is, WZB, & BiB (Eds), Da en epo 2021: Ein Sozialbe ich ü die
Bundes epublik Deu schland (pp. 476–489). bpb.
Bolin, B. spsampsps Ku z, L.C. (2018). Race, Class, E hnici y, and Disas e Vulne abili y. In H. Rod íguez,
W. Donne , spsampsps J. T aino (Eds.), Handbook o disas e esea ch: Handbooks o sociology and
social esea ch (pp 181–203). Sp inge . h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 319- 63254-4_ 10
Boomgaa den, H., an Spanje, J., Vliegen ha , R., & de V eese, C. H. (2011). Co e ing he c isis: Media
co e age o he economic c isis and ci izens’ economic expec a ions. Ac a Poli ica, 46(4), 353–379.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1057/ ap. 2011. 18
Ch is l, M., De Poli, S., Hu kens, T., Peichl, A., & Ricci, M. (2023). The ole o sho - ime wo k and dis-
c e iona y policy measu es in mi iga ing he e ec s o he COVID-19 c isis in Ge many. In e na ional
Tax and Public Finance, 30, 1107–1136. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s10797- 022- 09738-w
Cla k, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Sa is ac ion and compa ison income. Jou nal o Public Economics,
61(3), 359–381. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ 0047- 2727(95) 01564-7
Cla k, A. E., & Senik, C. (2010). Who compa es o whom? The ana omy o income compa isons in Eu ope.
The Economic Jou nal, 120(544), 573–594. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 0297. 2010. 02359.x
Cla k, A. E., D’Amb osio, C., & Lepin eu , A. (2021). The all in income inequali y du ing COVID-19
in ou Eu opean coun ies. Jou nal o Economic Inequali y, 19, 489–507. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/
s10888- 021- 09499-2
C uces, G., Pe ez-T uglia, R., & Te az, M. (2013). Biased pe cep ions o income dis ibu ion and p e e -
ences o edis ibu ion: E idence om a su ey expe imen . Jou nal o Public Economics, 98, 100–
112. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. jpube co. 2012. 10. 009

241
Socio‑Economic S a us, Compa isons o Subjec i e A ec edness…
Delhey, J., & Kohle , U. (2006). F om na ionally bounded o pan-Eu opean inequali ies? On he impo ance
o o eign coun ies as e e ence g oups. Eu opean Sociological Re iew, 22(2), 125–140. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1093/ es / jci047
Delhey, J., Hess, S., Boehnke, K., Deu sch, F., Eichho n, J, Kühnen, U., & Welzel, C. (2023). Li e sa -
is ac ion du ing he COVID-19 pandemic: The ole o human, economic, social, and psychological
capi al. Jou nal o Happiness S udies, 24, 2201–2222. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s10902- 023- 00676-w
Duesenbe y, J. S. (1949). Income, sa ing and he heo y o consume beha io . Ha a d Uni e si y
P ess.
Eas e lin, R. A. & O’Conno , K. J. (2023). Th ee yea s o COVID-19 and li e sa is ac ion in Eu ope: A
mac o iew. PNAS 120(19): e2300717120. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1073/ pnas. 23007 17120
En inge , T., K öge , H., Schupp, J., Kühne, S., Liebig, S., Goebel, J., G abka, M. M., G aebe , D.,
K oh, M., Sch öde , C., Seebaue , J., & Zinn, S. (2020). Psychische K ise du ch Co id-19? So -
gen sinken, Einsamkei s eig , Lebenszu iedenhei bleib s abil. SOEPpape s on Mul idisciplina y
Panel Da a Resea ch 1087, DIW/SOEP. h p:// hdl. handle. ne / 10419/ 222647
E ans, M. D. R., & Kelley, J. (2004). Subjec i e social loca ions: Da a om 21 na ions. In e na ional
Jou nal o Public Opinion Resea ch, 16(1), 3–38. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ ijpo / 16.1.3
Fes inge , L. (1954). A heo y o social compa ison p ocesses. Human Rela ions, 7, 117–140. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26754 00700 202
G abka, Ma kus M. (2021). Einkommensungleichhei s agnie lang is ig, sink abe wäh end de
Co ona-Pandemie leich . DIW Wochenbe ich , 2021(18), 308–316. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 18723/ diw_
wb: 2021- 18-1
H idbe g, K. B., K eine , C. T., & S an che a, S. (2023). Social posi ions and ai ness iews on inequal-
i y. Re iew o Economic S udies, 90(6), 3083–3118. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ es ud/ dad0 19
Ki i, M., Hansson, I., & Bjälkeb ing, P. (2021). Up and abou : Olde adul s’ well-being du ing he
COVID-19 pandemic in a Swedish longi udinal s udy. The Jou nal o Ge on ology: Se ies B, 76(2),
e4–e9. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ ge onb/ gbaa0 84
Kowall, B., S andl, F., Oes e ling, F., B une, B., B inkmann, M., Dudda, M., P laume , P., Jöckel, K.-H.,
& S ang, A. (2021). Excess mo ali y due o Co id-19? A compa ison o o al mo ali y in 2020
wi h o al mo ali y in 2016 o 2019 in Ge many. Sweden and Spain. PLOS ONE, 16(8), 1–10.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1371/ jou n al. pone. 02555 40
Lohmann, H., Wang, H., & Egge s, N. (2024): SOECBIAS-COVREF Da a Se : Income, (Mis-)Pe cep-
ions, Redis ibu i e P e e ences and Economic A ec edness in imes o he COVID-19 Pandemic,
Me hod Repo , h ps:// access. gesis. o g/ sha i ng/ 2772/ 6225. Accessed: 22 Ap il 2025.
Me on, R. K., & Rossi, A. S. (1968). Con ibu ions o he heo y o e e ence g oup beha io . In R. K.
Me on (Ed.), Social Theo y and Social S uc u e (pp. 279–334). F ee P ess.
Möh ing, K., Naumann, E., Rei enscheid, M., Wenz, A., Re ig, T., K iege , U., F iedel, S., Finkel, M.,
Co nesse, C., & Blom, A. G. (2021). The COVID-19 pandemic and subjec i e well-being: Longi u-
dinal e idence on sa is ac ion wi h wo k and amily. Eu opean Socie ies, 23(s1), 601–617. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 14616 696. 2020. 18330 66
Mu z, D. C. (1992). Mass media and he depoli iciza ion o pe sonal expe ience. Ame ican Jou nal o
Poli ical Science, 36(2), 483–508. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2307/ 21114 87
P a i, G., & Mancini, A. D. (2021). The psychological impac o COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns: A
e iew and me a-analysis o longi udinal s udies and na u al expe imen s. Psychological Medicine,
51, 201–211. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1017/ S0033 29172 10000 15
Recchi, E., Fe agina, E., Helmeid, E., Pauly, S., Sa i, M., Sauge , N., & Sch adie, J. (2020). The “eye o
he hu icane” pa adox: An unexpec ed and unequal ise o well-being du ing he Co id-19 lock-
down in F ance. Resea ch in Social S a i ica ion and Mobili y, 68, 1–4. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j.
ssm. 2020. 100508
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Rela i e dep i a ion and social jus ice: A s udy o a i udes o social inequali y
in wen ie h-cen u y England. Rou ledge.
Schneide , S. M., & Schupp, J. (2014). Indi idual di e ences in social compa ison and i s consequences
o li e sa is ac ion: In oducing a sho scale o he Iowa-Ne he lands compa ison o ien a ion.
Social Indica o s Resea ch, 115(2), 767–789. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s11205- 012- 0227-1
Smi h, H. J., Pe ig ew, T. F., Pippin, G. M., & Bialosiewicz, S. (2012). Rela i e dep i a ion: A heo e i-
cal and me a-analy ic e iew. Pe sonali y and Social Psychology Re iew, 16(3), 203–232. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 10888 68311 430825
S ou e , S. A., Suchman, E. A., DeVinney, L. C., S a , S. A., & Williams, R. M., J . (1949). The Ame i-
can soldie : Adjus men du ing a my li e (Vol. 1). P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
T e sky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). A ailabili y: A heu is ic o judging equency and p obabili y.
Cogni i e Psychology, 5, 207–232. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ 0010- 0285(73) 90033-9
242
H.Lohmann e al.
T e sky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgmen unde unce ain y: Heu is ics and biases: Biases in
judgmen s e eal some heu is ics o hinking unde unce ain y. Science, 185, 1124–1131. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1126/ scien ce. 185. 4157. 1124
Wang, H. (2024). Na iga ing Subjec i e Socioeconomic Insecu i y in Times o C isis An In e play o Social
S a us, C isis Expe iences and Pe cep ions. Soziale Wel , 75(4), 379–407. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 5771/
0038- 6073- 2024-4- 379
Wolb ing, T., Keuschnigg, M., & Negele, E. (2013). Needs, compa isons, and adap a ion: The impo ance
o ela i e income o li e sa is ac ion. Eu opean Sociological Re iew, 29(1), 86–104. h ps:// doi. o g/
10. 1093/ es / jc 042
Zache , H., & Rudolph, C. W. (2021). Indi idual di e ences and changes in subjec i e wellbeing du ing
he ea ly s ages o he COVID-19 pandemic. Ame ican Psychologis , 76(1), 50–62. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1037/ amp00 00702
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps and
ins i u ional a ilia ions.