Introduction

The new type of Corona Virus (2019-nCOV) first appeared in Wuhan, China’s Hubei province on December 12, 2019. World Health Organization (WHO) first declared “COVID-19 (Corona Virus Disease)” as pandemic on March 11, 2020. This pandemic has shaken every country it touches and has paralyzed individual and social life. It has been a global health problem that has the potential to lead to economic, political, individual, and social crises that will leave destructive and profound implications for today and the future (Doyumgac et al., 2021; Tanhan et al., 2021).

After the outbreak of the pandemic, many extraordinary social, economic, and political regulations have become the center of the country’s agenda. Turkey has raised the alarm level after the announcement of COVID-19. Collective events have been canceled. Social connections are severely restricted. Social life has come to a standstill.

Unprecedented measures, such as quarantine and lockdown have affected many aspects of the lives of the general population. This great epidemic that has swept the world, of course, will have negative effects. Researchers are concerned with the psychological aspects (Li et al., 2022; Pakpour & Griffiths, 2020; Satici vd., 2021; Waterschoot et al., 2022) as well as biological aspects of the virus.

Psychology is an integral part of physiology. Whereas outbreaks not only negatively affect the physical health of individuals, but also affect the psychological health and well-being of uninfected individuals (Wang et al., 2020). Therefore, there is a need to identify risk and protective factors that have contributed to psychological distress. It is important to investigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 to prevent, identify, and manage psychological disorders and to reduce psychological morbidity.

Also, the course and results of pandemics, which pose a serious risk for mental health globally, remain uncertain in the long term. This situation poses a threat to the certainty, predictability, sense of control, emotion regulation. Individuals may experience a decrease in the level of subjective well-being (SWB) and emotion regulation. Indeed, Pakpour and Griffiths (2020) state that one of the profound psychological effects of Covid-19 on all individuals in the world is fear.

Fear is an unpleasant emotional state that occurs when a threatening stimulus is perceived (de Hoog et al., 2008). Fear is the nature of the pandemic (Ahorsu et al., 2020). In order to understand the psychological reflections of an outbreak, emotions like fear need to be taken into account and observed. Quarantines and lockdowns following fear and anxiety can cause social distress and can decrease the quality of life and well-being.

According to Diener (1984), SWB must consist of both affective and cognitive structures. The affective domain is explained by positive affect and negative affect, and the cognitive domain is explained by life satisfaction. In other words, SWB emphasizes that positive emotions in the lives of individuals are experienced more frequently and intensively, negative emotions (sadness, anxiety, stress, depression etc.) are experienced less and the individual gets more satisfaction from life. Therefore, SWB of individuals decreases with frequent negative emotions (Satici, 2016). Also, after the announcement of Covid-19, there are studies that detect decrease in positive feelings and life satisfaction (Li et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2020).

The economic and social conditions caused by Covid-19 all over the world have left deep psychological effects on individuals (Ahorsu et al., 2020; Pakpour & Griffiths, 2020). The epidemic can also affect well-being and life satisfaction, as it threatens basic needs such as survival and security (Lee & Kim, 2021; Prime et al., 2020; RassKazova et al., 2020; Satici et al., 2020). Furthermore, economic recession, job, and income losses due to COVID-19 have also negatively affected mental health because socioeconomic factors also affect the quality of life, satisfaction, sense of security and SWB (Bark & Chang, 2020; Huang & Zhao, 2020).

Studies have confirmed that this epidemic and fear of COVID-19 have negative and destructive effects on individuals’ mental health and well-being (Özmen et al., 2021; Satici et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). In addition, the research findings show that fear of COVID-19 is negatively related to well-being (Ahuja et al., 2021; Blasco-Belled et al., 2020; Satici et al., 2020).

Subjective well-being, which is expressed as happiness in positive psychology includes three elements: life satisfaction (cognitive), positive affect and negative affect (affective). Life satisfaction is an individual’s cognitive evaluations of his or her life. Negative and positive affect consists of pleasant and unpleasant emotions (Diener & Suh, 1997).

If the individual says that she is satisfied with her/his life, it can be stated that she/he often experiences positive emotions. In addition, this individual has a high level of subjective well-being (Diener & Lucas, 1999). In this context, it is important to examine emotions as well as the effect of fear of COVID-19 on subjective well-being. In the literature, the importance of emotion in ensuring well-being was emphasized, and according to a previous meta-analysis study, it was determined that emotional dynamics were related to well-being (Houben et al., 2015).

Positive emotion regulation skills may be particularly beneficial in the face of an uncontrollable stressor (Conway & Terry, 1992), such as COVID-19 (Restubog et al., 2020). Because emotion regulation skill contributes to the individual in psychological and emotional functionality (Bridges et al., 2004) and has an adaptive feature (Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004) argue that emotion regulation will affect both physical and psychological health with its consequences.

In addition, it is difficult for an individual with low emotion regulation skills to work and participate in production. Therefore, it is an important problem in terms of the individual’s mental health (Gross & Mufti, 1995). Emotion regulation that does not serve a purpose and does not provide psychological comfort is negative and non-functional, emotion regulation that serves the purpose and provides psychological comfort is positive and functional. It is important to maintain a balance between positive and negative emotions in terms of the individual’s mental health. Experiencing more positive emotions increases the individual’s psychological development and well-being (Gross & John, 2003).

Reappraisal (positive) and suppression (negative) are associated with different outcomes (Gross, 2015; Gross & John, 2003; John & Gross, 2004). With suppression, the individual’s ability to manage negative emotions weakens, and fear and anxiety increase. In the current pandemic, too, suppression can raise health concerns and lead to fear. Suppression has significant physiological and cognitive costs (Gross et al., 2006). Individuals using more suppression; they experience more negative emotions (John & Gross, 2004). Therefore, suppression is associated with higher depressive symptoms and lower well-being (Ehring et al., 2010).

On the other hand, reappraisal acts as a buffer against the effects of emotional stress (Schraub et al., 2013). Depressive mood was found to be lower in individuals who frequently used reappraisal (Dennis, 2007) and was associated with greater psychological and physical well-being (Butler & Randall, 2013; Zapf, 2002). Because reducing negative emotions is the main function of reappraisal (Hu et al., 2014). In this context, no research has been found in the literature that deals with fear of COVID-19, emotion regulation, and subjective well-being, and it is important to investigate the value of fear of COVID-19 and emotion regulation strategies at the level of subjective well-being of individuals.

Fear of COVID-19 as a mediator

Our emotions are part of our daily life. Emotion regulation and management plays a decisive role in decreasing or increasing negative emotions and distress (Aldao et al., 2010), and mental disorders and maintaining health (Nezamipour & Ahadi, 2016).

The ability to regulate emotions helps to cope with the fear of knowing and not knowing very well. An individual who can regulate their emotions can identify, monitor, and change their emotional reactions. It is possible that an individual’s subjective assessment of a pandemic is related to both emotional and cognitive dimensions of SWB (Koole, 2009).

The emotion regulation process has explained with cognitive re-appraisal, which is re-appraisal of situations in order to reduce their emotional effects; and with suppression which is explained by inhibiting or suppressing an emotional experience (Gross & John, 2003). There are studies showing that suppression is positively associated with higher psychological distress during the COVID-19 outbreak process (Jiang et al., 2020; Garcia-Batista et al., 2021). Low SWB can often be experienced in individuals with high avoidance levels (Machell et al., 2015). If the individual who encounters difficulties uses methods such as denial and suppression, they may be exposed to the effects of negativity and the persistence of problems in the long term.

Re-appraisal can effectively reduce negative emotion (Mauss et al., 2007) and is associated with various positive psychological outcomes (Gross, 2002). It has found an association between re-appraisal and negative emotions during the pandemic, particularly in the reduction of COVID-19 fear (Harper et al., 2021; Smith et al., 2021). In addition, adaptive emotion regulation strategies such as positive interpretation and positive refocus have been associated with better SWB (Main et al., 2011).

Individuals who use the re-evaluation strategy more often have higher life satisfaction, higher self-confidence, and more optimism (Gross & John, 2003). Therefore, they may perceive an epidemic threat less negatively and use more effective regulation strategies to reduce the intensity of negative emotions about the pandemic than the others. Thus, one of the measures to be taken to improve the psychological health of individuals and strengthen the resilience of society as a whole during the epidemic period is to improve the emotion regulation.

This study aims to determine the mediating role of fear of COVID-19 in the relationship between emotion regulation (suppression, re-appraisal) and SWB. For this purpose, answers to the following research questions (RQ) were sought:

RQ1. Do suppression and re-appraisal significantly predict fear of COVID- 19?

RQ2. Do suppression and re-appraisal significantly predict SWB?

RQ3. Does fear of COVID- 19 significantly predict SWB?

RQ4. Does fear of COVID-19 mediate the relationship between suppression and SWB?

RQ5. Does fear of COVID-19 mediate the relationship between re-appraisal and SWB?

This study will provide useful information at the community level in Turkey where it can be used for enhancing individuals’ psychological well-being. Thus, it is expected to be one of the concrete foundation for mental health intervention policies.

Method

Participants and procedure

On a convenience basis, 1,014 participants were recruited from 71 cities in Turkey. Most of the respondents were female (71.2%) and had a middle socio-economic status (79.4%); about half (58.2%) held an undergraduate degree. Participants’ mean ages were 27.58 (SD = 12.41; ranged = 18–76). Most of the participants were single (77.1%) and did not have a chronic illness (87.4%). Data was collected online and obtained only from voluntary participants. Participants marked informed consent and had the opportunity to withdraw at any time. The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration. In addition, the study was approved by the Artvin Coruh University Scientific Research and Ethical Review Board.

Measures

Subjective well-being was measured with the “Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS)” and the “Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale (PANAS)”. SWLS was developed by Diener et al. (1985). It is a unidimensional 5-item, 7-point Likert scale. A sample item is “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”. The higher the scores, the higher the life satisfaction levels are. Durak et al. (2010) adapted the scale into Turkish. The Turkish version of the validity and reliability coefficient (α = 0.80) was determined as good. PANAS was developed by Watson et al. (1988). It consists of 20 items (positive affect (PA sample is “interested”): 10, negative affect (NA sample is “hostile”): 10). The internal consistency coefficient of the scale, which was adapted into Turkish by Gençöz (2000), was found to be 0.83 for PA and 0.86 for NA. In addition, test-retest reliability was r = .45 for PA and r = .54 for NA. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for SLWS, PA, and NA were 0.81–0.81, 0.85–0.85, and 0.84–0.84, respectively.

Emotion Regulation Scale was developed by Gross and John (2003). It was adapted into Turkish by Eldeleklioğlu and Eroğlu (2015). It consists of 2 sub-dimensions including suppression (e.g., “I control my emotions by not expressing them”) and reappraisal (e.g., “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”). The factor loadings of the scale, which consists of 10 items, ranged from 0.43 to 0.71. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega for suppression and reappraisal were 0.70–0.70 and 0.78–0.79, respectively.

The Fear of Covid-19 Scale (FVCS-19) 7-item 5-point Likert scale was developed by Ahorsu et al. (2020). A sample item is “it makes me uncomfortable to think about coronavirus-19”. The higher the scores on the scale, the greater the levels of the fear of COVID-19 are. The internal consistency of the one-dimensional scale was 0.82 and the test-retest reliability was 0.72. The scale has been adapted to Turkish by Satici et al. (2020) and they found the Cronbach Alpha value as 0.84. In this study, the Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega were found 0.86 and 86, respectively.

Research design and data analysis

The research used a cross-sectional and explanatory design based on structural equation modeling. This research designed to reveal the potential mechanisms between emotion regulation (suppression and reappraisal) and subjective well-being in Turkish participant and we examined the mediating role of fear of COVID-19.

Descriptive statistics were calculated via IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0. Then, network analysis was performed to see the associations between the study variables via JASP 0.11.1. Descriptive statistics and network analysis were performed as preliminary analyses. Later, a two-step approach was used was used to find answers to the research questions according to Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) recommendations via AMOS 24. First, the measurement model was tested. Then the hypothetical model was examined, and the indirect associations from emotional regulation to subjective well-being through fear of COVID-19 were tested. The model fit indexes included SRMR, CFI, NFI, GFI and IFI. As recommended by previous literature, the values of SRMR and RMSEA smaller than 0.10 and the values of CFI, NFI, GFI and IFI more than 0.90 indicate an acceptable fit (Hoyle & Panter, 1995). AIC and ECVI values were examined in order to model comparison. Based on Akaike’s (1987) and Browne and Cudeck’s (1993) recommendations, the model with smaller AIC and ECVI values is accepted as being the preferred model.

Results

Preliminary analysis

For the main variables, the mean scores of life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, suppression, reappraisal, and fear of COVID-19 were 18.98 (± 6.42), 28.20 (± 7.38), 23.54 (± 7.36), 16.25 (± 4.54), 26.59 (± 6.39), and 18.42 (± 5.60) respectively (see Table 1). Considering the recommendation that when SEM is used, acceptable skewness values are between − 3 and + 3 and kurtosis values are between − 10 and + 10 (Brown, 2006); the distribution of study variables was normal, with skewness coefficients between − 0.14 and 0.32, and kurtosis coefficients between − 0.59 and 1.78. Reliability has also been confirmed: Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.70 to 0.0.86 and McDonald’s omega ranged from 0.70 to 0.86.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics
Full size table

According to network analysis, suppression was positively associated with negative affect and fear of COVID-19; reappraisal was positively associated with positive affect and life satisfaction (see Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Network analysis for the study variables

Full size image

Measurement model

We examined the measurement model which consisted of four latent variables (subjective well-being, fear of COVID-19, suppression, and reappraisal) and 9 observed variables. The measurement model showed good fit: χ2 (21, N = 1014) = 204.551, p < .001; SRMR = 0.064 CFI = 0.923; NFI = 0.916; GFI = 0.956; IFI = 0.924. Factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.92 and were significant. Therefore, all indicators were representative of their latent variables.

Structural model

In order to choose the best preferred theoretical model, a series of structural models was examined. Firstly, fully mediated model (Model 1) did not include direct paths from suppression and reappraisal to SWB. The goodness-of-fit statistics for fully model indicated poor fit to the data except for GFI = 0.929; χ2 (23, N = 1014) = 381.52, p < .001; SRMR = 0.106; RMSEA = 0.124; CFI = 0.850; NFI = 0.843; IFI = 0.851; AIC = 425.52, ECVI = 0.420. Then, we investigated to partially meditated model (Model 2, Fig. 2) which direct paths were drawn from suppression to SWB and from reappraisal to SWB. Model 2 showed an acceptable fit to the data: χ2 (21, N = 1014) = 204.551, p < .001; SRMR = 0.064; RMSEA = 0.093; CFI = 0.923; NFI = 0.916; GFI = 0.956; IFI = 0.924; AIC = 252.55, ECVI = 0.249. The results of both the goodness-of-fit statistics, the chi-square difference test (Δχ2 = 2.81, df = 1, p > .05) and lower AIC and ACVI values indicated that the partially mediated model had a better fit with the data compared to fully mediated model.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Standardized factor loading for the final structural model. Note.**p < .01; PA positive affect; NA negative affect; LS life satisfaction; SPar parcels of suppression; RPar parcels of reappraisal; FCPAr parcels of COVID-19 fear

Full size image

Discussion

The findings of this research revealed that suppression positively predicted fear of COVID-19. In other words, the use of suppression, one of the emotion regulation strategies, increased the fear of Covid-19. When this finding regarding suppression and fear of COVID-19 is compared with the literature, it is observed that similar results (Bramanti et al., 2021) have been reported. According to the recent studies of Li et al. (2022), negative coping style and suppression are two important factors that predict psychological distress.

In addition, this research finding is like the research findings in the literature that suppression is associated with lower positive affect and higher negative affect (Brans et al., 2013; Low et al., 2017). Thus, considering that emotion regulation is the basis of subjective well-being (Gross & Muñoz, 1995), it can be said that suppression, a negative emotion regulation strategy, causes problems in coping with the fear of COVID-19. Because suppression prevents an emotional experience from being experienced (Gross & John, 2003), it can increase fear by weakening the ability to manage emotions.

According to another finding of this study, cognitive re-appraisal predicted the fear of COVID-19 negatively. In other words, it has been determined that individuals who use the cognitive re-appraisal strategy have a low level of fear of COVID-19. Parallel to this finding, research results in the literature (Luu, 2021; Muñoz-Navarro et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2020) found that cognitive re-appraisal and Covid-19 anxiety were negatively related.

Similarly, Çakmak Tolan and Bolluk Uğur (2021) have determined that emotion regulation difficulties in individuals are associated with fear of Covid-19. Because positive emotion regulation has an adaptive property (Gross & John, 2003), it can be particularly beneficial in the face of an uncontrollable stressor such as COVID-19. Individuals who cannot regulate their emotions or use negative emotion regulation strategies may become overwhelmed by the negative emotions they experience and may not be able to channel these negative emotions effectively. Thus, they may feel more helpless when faced with negative emotions.

There are studies in the literature consistent with the finding that suppression predicts SWB negatively (Gross, 2015; Webb et al., 2012). Parallel to this finding, there are also research findings indicating that individuals with high levels of suppression have lower life satisfaction (Gross & John, 2003; Waterschoot et al., 2022). In this context, suppressing negative emotions can negatively affect the individual’s subjective well-being, as it can lead to inconsistency between what is actually felt and expectations.

On the other hand, the finding that re-appraisal positively affects SWB is consistent with other studies in the literature (Diener & Diener, 1995; Li et al., 2021). Moreover, similarly, previous findings have shown that cognitive re-appraisal positively predicts life satisfaction (Gross & John, 2003; McRae et al., 2012; Teixeira et al., 2014). However, there are also research results (Balzarotti et al., 2014; Rıza, 2016) which do not indicate the significant relation between positive emotion regulation strategies and psychological well-being.

In connection with this research result, individuals who use a re-appraisal strategy may be more likely to shape the emotions they experience by adapting to stress. Since being successful in organizing emotions will contribute to the individual’s psychological/emotional functionality (Bridges et al., 2004), it will also positively affect the subjective well-being process. Since the main function of reappraisal is to reduce negative emotions (Hu et al., 2014), individuals who use reappraisal may experience higher subjective well-being. Because they reinterpret a situation that evokes negative emotions in a way that changes the emotional impact. When positive emotions more/outnumber negative ones, well-being will increase.

Another finding of this research is that the fear of Covid-19 negatively affected SWB. Similarly, many research findings (Giorgio et al., 2020; Jue & Ha, 2022; Özmen et al., 2021; Rasskazova et al., 2020) showing that fear of Covid-19 negatively affects SWB are available. Again, in parallel with this finding, there are also studies (Karagöz et al., 2021; Satıcı et al., 2021) reporting that fear of Covid-19 reduced life satisfaction.

Unlike these findings, there are also studies in which there is no significant relationship between the fear of COVID-19 and SWB (Chen, 2020). Similar to the finding that suppression predicts SWB through fear of COVID-19; Low et al. (2021) also found that maladaptive emotion regulation strategies have been associated with higher psychological distress and depressive symptoms, and lower psychological health. Individuals who use the suppression strategy experience more negative emotions; and show worse functionality in interpersonal, emotional and well-being areas than the others (Gross et al., 2006). Therefore, individuals who experience more positive emotions and less negative emotions such as fear can experience higher subjective well-being by getting more satisfaction from life.

However, there are also studies in the literature similar to the finding that cognitive re-appraisal predicts SWB through Covid-19. According to these studies (Cludius et al., 2020; Mauss et al., 2005), more use of cognitive re-appraisal is associated with lower negative affect, depressive symptoms, and higher well-being. In a meta-analytic study (Hu et al., 2014), significant positive correlations were reported between cognitive re-appraisal and life satisfaction, and negative significant relationships with depression and anxiety were also revealed. In another study (Gross & John, 2003), it was found that participants using cognitive re-appraisal had more positive emotions and less negative emotions than participants using the suppression” strategy. In addition, these individuals had better interpersonal functionality and higher life satisfaction than the ones utilizing suppression strategy.

Based on these findings, suppression prolongs negative emotions and inhibits problem solving (Gross & Muñoz, 1995). This may increase the risk of physical and psychological health of the individual. Therefore, using the suppression strategy rather than expressing one’s emotions may be associated with high levels of fear. In this context, enabling individuals to access and express their emotions can reduce their fears. Suppression, which increases negative emotions and decreases positive emotions, can negatively affect well-being and mental health in the long run. Moreover, suppression requires serious effort and energy, so it consumes mental energy. Therefore, it also reduces the cognitive and regulatory resources required for problem solving (Goldberg & Grandey, 2007). This reduction in resources, in turn, may be the reason for low life satisfaction and well-being, as suppression hinders their ability to cope with challenges in their daily lives, including the pandemic.

Individuals using cognitive re-appraisal, which is a more beneficial strategy for health and well-being, can adapt to the environment by changing their negative moods in challenging situations. Cognitive re-appraisal may produce less emotional reactivity to fearful factors and may not weaken cognitive and regulatory resources in comparison to suppression.

Individuals whose negative emotions are reduced, and whose cognitive and regulatory resources are not exhausted can cope with emerging difficulties better than the others. Thus, these individuals are more likely to experience good physical and psychological health as opposed to the ones using suppression. In summary, the results of the research show that when faced with the challenges of the pandemic, suppression can be a risk to physical and psychological health, while cognitive re-appraisal can be a protective factor.

Limitations

This study also has some limitations. The current study also has several limitations. Firstly collecting data on the online platform during the pandemic period can be considered as a limitation. Because the data collected online during the pandemic is limited to individuals who know how to use technological tools and have internet access. In addition, it may create a deficiency in terms of the intelligibility of the scale items by the participants, the reliability of the answers and the validity provided by face-to-face data collection. The second limitation is that, this study was a cross-sectional study. Experimental studies or longitudinal designs can be used to infer a more precise causal relationship. Because the cross-sectional design cannot clearly express the cause-effect relationship. It has been stated that longitudinal data can be used in mediation models (Maxwell & Cole, 2007). Besides, timing and possible causal order may be further clarified by experimental research. The third limitation is that the study group has consisted mostly of university students. Therefore, the generalizability of the study findings is limited. Therefore, the model can be retested in future studies in different cultures, populations and sampling methods. The last limitation is that the scales used to obtain study data were self-report scales. Therefore, the answers may be biased. In this context, data can be obtained by qualitative and experimental methods in order to strengthen the validity of the findings and reduce the effect of subjectivity in future studies.

Implication

Training can be given to parents by mental health professionals so that their children can develop healthy and functional emotion regulation skills. In order to increase their subjective well-being and protect their psychological health, they can be aware of and use functional and positive emotion regulation skills by focusing on emotion skills.

Activities related to positive emotion regulation skills can be included in the context of guidance in schools. Individual, group psychological counseling and group guidance focused on emotion regulation can be given to students who have low positive emotion regulation skills in order to increase their subjective well-being levels. It can be ensured that the content of the training programs to be conducted on the subject have a content that oversees the development of individuals’ emotion regulation capacities.

Different analysis methods, different and new variables can be used in future studies. In addition to this study, which is carried out with the quantitative research method, qualitative and mixed-pattern researches can also be carried out. Researchers can use Online Photovoice (OPV), one of the current and effective innovative qualitative research methods. Because OPV gives participants the opportunity to express their own experiences with less manipulation than traditional quantitative methods (Tanhan & Strack, 2020). Thus, deeper and more detailed information can be obtained.