The two waves of COVID-19 in India have had severe consequences for the lives of people. The Indian State-imposed various regulatory mechanisms like lockdowns, encouraged remote work, online teaching in academic institutions, and enforced adherence to the COVID protocols. The use of various technologies especially digital/online technologies not only helped to adapt to the “new normal” and cope with the disruptions in pursuing everyday activities but also to manage one’s well-being. However, the availability and accessibility of digital technologies to various (...) sections of the population were not uniform. This paper reports a series of three studies examining the nature of pandemic stress, the impact of technology use on people’s emotional well-being during turbulent times, and the effects of technology use on psychological resources like resilience, self-efficacy, motivation to work, and emotional well-being. The differences in the residential background and SES in the extent of the use of technology and strength of psychological resources were assessed. The findings indicated that the most common causes of concern included worrying about family, friends, partners, fears of getting and giving the viral infection to someone; frustration and or boredom; and changes in normal sleep patterns. It was noted that technology was a double-edged sword and created barriers as well as opportunities for the people. Also, self-efficacy mediated the relationship between the use of technology and emotional wellbeing. The results have policy implications for building resilient communities in the post COVID period. (shrink)

This article explored the role of personality disposition and value preference as predictors of social well-being in the context of ecological setting. Ecological contexts like rural and urban are critical, particularly in a developing country like India, because they represent significant disparities and variations in the lived experiences of the people. The participants from the age range of 15–65 years were drawn from two ecological settings, that is, rural and urban and from both the genders. They completed the measures of (...) social well-being, value preference and personality dispositions. The results showed that the different facets of social well-being were differentially related to the aspects of personality and value preference. Ecological setting had significant influence on the measures of personality disposition, value preference and social well-being. Regression analysis showed that except neuroticism, all other factors of personality had consistent positive contribution as the predictors of social well-being. It was also observed that social value and growth factors of value preference had significant contribution, whereas personal value and protection—factors of value preference—had negative contribution as the predictors of social well-being. (shrink)