In March 2020, everyday life changed dramatically for billions of people. Schools and workplaces closed, public gatherings were prohibited or restricted, and people were encouraged or required to stay home. Friends stopped visiting one another; families were sometimes separated; and much of our social interaction moved onto screens.
By 2023, most lockdown restrictions had ended. But had society simply returned to normal? Or had the experience changed how people thought, behaved, and related to one another? Researchers in sociology and psychology have been studying these questions. Sociology examines human behaviour in relation to social groups, institutions, cultures, and social structures. Psychology focuses more directly on individual behaviour, emotions, thinking, personality, and mental processes. These fields overlap considerably. Our individual psychological experiences are to a large extent shaped by society, while changes in individual behaviour can eventually transform society itself.
As you might expect, the COVID-19 pandemic seems to have done some real psychological and social damage, but less evenly and less catastrophically than early headlines suggested. Some changes to social and personal life were temporary, while others have persisted. Researchers are still trying to determine which changes were caused by lockdown restrictions, which resulted from the pandemic more generally, and which might have happened anyway. People were already moving in the direction of more online shopping and social interactivity, for instance, and social media was already making it easy for many people to socialize online or to replace social interactions with parasocial simulations of a more therapeutic kind than the real social interactions they might be having in real life.
1. Social Isolation and Changing Relationships
Human beings are social animals. Much of our everyday life involves interacting with others: classmates, coworkers, friends, relatives, neighbours, and even strangers. During lockdown, many of these interactions disappeared, or were greatly reduced and became difficult.
A 2024 study by Christopher Jarvis and colleagues examined social contact patterns in Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. Researchers surveyed approximately 7,500 people in late 2022, after most restrictions had been lifted. They found that face-to-face contacts had not fully returned to pre-pandemic patterns. The differences were particularly pronounced in Britain. This suggests that lockdown may have changed social habits in ways that lasted beyond the restrictions themselves.
Other research suggests that some friendships and social networks were weakened or lost. For example, a German study of older adults found that their close social contacts had not completely recovered by 2023.
Why might this happen? Social relationships require maintenance. Friendships often depend on repeated encounters, shared activities, and familiar routines. When those routines disappear, relationships can weaken. Consider friendships formed through school or work. If people stop attending the same places, they may gradually lose contact, even when there is no deliberate decision to end the relationship.
Isolation vs Loneliness
Reduced social contact does not necessarily mean increased loneliness. Some people enjoy spending more time alone, while others find isolation distressing. Researchers must therefore distinguish between social isolation, which refers to limited contact with other people, and loneliness, which describes the unpleasant feeling that one's social relationships are insufficient. A person can be alone without feeling lonely, or surrounded by people while experiencing profound loneliness. Some people - typically more affluent people or people who had few necessary social responsibilities = appreciated having fewer social commitments and more time for themselves, and got used to that isolation. When they can, many of them have avoided returned to pre-pandemic social norms.
2. The Transformation of Work and Everyday Life
Before 2020, most office workers were expected to travel to a workplace. During lockdown, millions began working from home. Many never returned fully to their previous arrangements. A major international study by Aksoy and colleagues (2025) found that remote work declined some after the pandemic but then stabilized. Among college-educated employees surveyed internationally, approximately one-quarter of workdays were being performed at home. This represents a significant change in working culture.
This was obviously welcome to many workers. Remote work offers many advantages: less commuting, greater flexibility, and more control over one's environment. However, workplaces also provide social interaction, friendships, informal learning, and a sense of belonging. Working from home may therefore change more than employment arrangements. It can alter people's relationships with their communities, their colleagues, and the places where they live.
Everyday social life after restrictions ended
The clearest evidence of lasting change is in behaviour: how often people meet, where they spend time and where they work.
Workplaces are social institutions, not just economic ones. Where people work shapes friendships, mentoring, commuting and the life of downtowns.
The pandemic also encouraged online shopping, digital entertainment, and virtual communication. These developments were already underway before COVID-19, but the pandemic appears to have accelerated some of them.
This raises a larger sociological question: were we already moving toward a society in which more activities take place privately, at home, rather than collectively in public spaces, and did the pandemic just normalize this? If so, the consequences could extend beyond convenience to impact our world: our society, our democracy, our social compassion, and so on. Public spaces provide opportunities to encounter people from different backgrounds and participate in a shared social world. A society organized increasingly around private homes, digital networks, and individualized virtual worlds might offer greater individual freedom while reducing certain forms of everyday community interaction and responsibility.
3. Social Inequality and Trust
Although people sometimes describe the pandemic as a shared experience, its consequences were very unequal.
Consider two people living through lockdown. One has a comfortable home, reliable internet, financial security, and a job that can be performed remotely. The other lives in crowded housing, has little savings, and works in a job requiring physical attendance. Both experience the same pandemic, but their circumstances are fundamentally different. Sociologists refer to these differences as social inequality: the unequal distribution of resources, opportunities, security, and power.
A Canadian study published in 2022 examined changes in social trust before and during the pandemic. The researchers found that trust generally increased among people with higher socioeconomic status while declining among those with lower socioeconomic status.Social trust refers to the confidence people have that others will behave reasonably, honestly, or cooperatively.
Why might economic circumstances influence trust?
People who feel protected and supported during a crisis may develop greater confidence in society. Those who experience insecurity, hardship, or unequal treatment may become less trusting. The pandemic therefore appears to have reinforced some existing social divisions. However, research from other countries has found different patterns, including relatively stable levels of trust.
The evidence suggests that crises do not automatically bring people together or drive them apart. Their effects depend partly on the social conditions people experience in their societies.
1. Anxiety, Depression, and Psychological Resilience
One of the most widely studied consequences of the pandemic was its effect on mental health. A major international study published in The Lancet in 2021 estimated that the worldwide prevalence of major depressive disorder increased by approximately 28% during 2020, while anxiety disorders increased by approximately 26%. Young people and women were among the groups most affected.
However, other research has produced a more complicated picture. A 2023 review published in The BMJ examined 134 groups of participants whose mental health had been assessed before and during the pandemic. It found that average changes in mental health symptoms were generally small, although some groups experienced greater difficulties.
These findings are not necessarily contradictory. The studies measured different outcomes using different methods.
A rise in the number of people experiencing serious psychological disorders can occur even when the average change in psychological symptoms across the population is relatively small.
Researchers also found evidence of a positiver increase in psychological resilience among many people studied: people's ability to adapt to stressful or difficult circumstances. Many individuals experienced increased distress early in the pandemic but subsequently recovered, and perhaps became stronger and more resilient through being challenged by pandemic conditions.
A number of people actually reported improvements in wellbeing during lockdown. Reduced commuting, fewer social obligations, and relief from stressful school or workplace environments could make life more comfortable. The psychological consequences of lockdown therefore depended partly on people's circumstances, socioeconomic status, preexisting personalities, and existing relationships.
2. Did the Pandemic Change People's Personalities?
Psychologists often describe personality using five broad characteristics:
Although personality can change throughout life, these characteristics are generally considered relatively stable.
A 2022 study by Angelina Sutin and colleagues examined personality assessments from more than 7,000 American adults. The researchers found small declines in extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness during the later stages of the pandemic. These changes were especially noticeable among younger adults. This is an intriguing finding because it suggests that a major social disruption might influence characteristics we ordinarily think of as belonging to individuals.
Sutin and colleagues (2022) found that adults under 30 became slightly less extraverted, open, agreeable and conscientious during 2021–22. Adult personality is normally quite stable, so even a small shift is notable. So could someone become less outgoing simply because opportunities for social interaction disappeared? Could reduced participation in school or work affect conscientiousness? Might the experience of uncertainty and disruption alter people's willingness to explore new experiences? The study cannot establish that lockdown itself caused such changes, or whether they persisted. It is suggestive of the connection between social interaction and individual psychology, however: How much of our personality is truly individual, and how much is shaped by our experiences of the society around us?
3. Children, Adolescents, and Social Development
The pandemic may have had particularly important consequences for children and adolescents. Childhood and adolescence are periods when people develop social skills, form identities, establish friendships, and learn to understand other people's thoughts and emotions. Schools are especially important because they provide opportunities for interaction outside the family. During lockdown, many young people lost access to these experiences.
A 2024 study by Rose Scott and colleagues investigated children's developing ability to understand that other people can hold beliefs different from their own. Psychologists call this capacity false-belief understanding, an important aspect of social cognition. The researchers found that children tested after pandemic lockdowns performed less well on certain tasks than children tested before the pandemic. The findings suggest that disruptions to everyday social experiences may have affected aspects of children's social development. However, the study did not establish that these differences would be permanent.
Teen brains. A Stanford team had been scanning Bay Area adolescents for an unrelated depression study when the pandemic struck. Comparing 163 young people scanned before and after the shutdowns, they found that the later group had more internalizing problems, such as anxiety and depression, and brains that looked structurally older. That pattern is usually seen only in children who have faced chronic adversity like neglect or family violence. A University of Washington study (PNAS, 2024) found brain maturation sped up by an average of 4.2 years in girls and 1.4 years in boys.
Brain maturation is not the same as psychological maturity, and the findings do not necessarily indicate permanent damage. Maybe faster brain maturation is even a positive. But the anxiety and drepression are not great side effects. It's not clear how long those symptoms will persist in those who experience them partly because of their lockdown experiences.
Researchers have also challenged some interpretations of the reported differences between boys and girls. What these studies suggest, though, is that social environments may influence development in ways that are both psychological and biological. They do not establish that an entire generation has been permanently harmed.
Conclusion: Did the Pandemic Change Society?
The pandemic interrupted ordinary social life on an extraordinary scale. Research suggests that it altered patterns of social interaction, working arrangements, psychological wellbeing, and some aspects of human development.
But the effects were neither universal nor uniform. Some people experienced isolation, distress, and economic insecurity. Others discovered new freedoms, strengthened relationships, or found more satisfying ways of organizing their lives. Perhaps the most important conclusion is that human behaviour cannot be understood independently of the social circumstances in which it occurs. Our personalities, relationships, habits, and expectations are shaped partly by the environments we inhabit. The pandemic demonstrated how rapidly those environments can change.
Whether its consequences will persist for decades remains uncertain. One possibility is that lockdown accelerated social changes already underway, particularly the movement toward digital communication, remote work, and more home-centred lifestyles. Another is that many of the changes were temporary responses to extraordinary circumstances. Distinguishing between these possibilities will require further research. For now, the pandemic offers an unusually revealing example of the relationship between individuals and society—and of how a major historical event can influence both.
References