Skip to main content
BMC is moving to Springer Nature Link. Visit this journal in its new home.
Download PDF

The effect and mechanism of mutual aid on the subjective well-being of participants under the COVID-19 pandemic

BMC Psychology volume 13, Article number: 48 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

The outbreak of COVID-19 led to the emergence of various forms of mutual aid. While prior research has demonstrated that mutual aid can contribute to participants’ subjective well-being, the majority of these studies are qualitative and lack clear understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Using a questionnaire survey and structural equation modeling, this study finds that mutual aid significantly enhances the subjective well-being of participants in China. Bootstrap chained mediation analysis shows that this is mainly because mutual aid not only provides material resources to participants but also helps to expand their social networks, thereby enhancing their self-esteem and self-efficacy, and ultimately improving their subjective well-being. In the chain mediation mechanism, the total effect of social network is significantly higher than that of material resources. Our study identifies social psychological mechanisms by which mutual aid acts on participant’s subjective well-being, and it has important implications for community governance.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic emergency, lockdowns were widely used by governments and public health authorities around the world as a crucial measure in combating the epidemic [13, 38, 41]. This approach involves the temporary cessation of numerous activities and services, including schools, businesses, and public gatherings, to mitigate the transmission of the virus. Due to the severe disruption of daily life, mutual aid has emerged as a response to the challenges people faced during this unique period [6, 17, 44, 49, 51, 52, 61]. For example, mutual aid spread rapidly in American society after the COVID-19 epidemic overwhelmed traditional social service systems and safety nets [33]. And in the UK, it was estimated that there were at least 5,778 mutual aid groups operating during the COVID-19 epidemicFootnote 1(COVID-19 Mutual Aid UK, 2021).

Previous research has demonstrated that participation in mutual aid groups significantly impacts participants’ subjective well-being [37, 47]. However, most prior studies have primarily relied on qualitative analyses based on interviews, which may lack sufficient data validation. Additionally, the mechanisms by which mutual aid contributes to subjective well-being remain unclear. Furthermore, the majority of past studies in Western societies have predominantly focused on mutual aid groups characterized by a clear purpose, strong goals, and a tightly organized structure, making them highly specialized [2]. In contrast, mutual aid behavior within Chinese communities during the pandemic was often fragmented and disjointed, as individuals frequently joined multiple loosely organized groups that did not exhibit the “common identity” typically observed in Western research [8, 9, 17].

To achieve a deeper understanding of the relationship between mutual aid and subjective well-being within the cultural context of China, we conducted a questionnaire survey in Shanghai during its lockdown caused by the COVID-19 outbreak. Subsequently, we utilized structural equation modeling to investigate the relationship between mutual aid and subjective well-being, as well as to explore the underlying mediating mechanisms with the social comparison theory.

This study offers significant theoretical contributions and practical implications. Firstly, it is essential to address the limitations in existing research by employing more rigorous and comprehensive methods to validate findings. Secondly, further exploration of the underlying mechanisms linking mutual aid to subjective well-being is necessary to gain a deeper understanding of the specific factors at play. Lastly, within the unique context of the Chinese epidemic, this study contributes to filling a research gap through the empirical analysis of the effects of spontaneous mutual aid. By doing so, we can gain a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the role mutual aid plays in promoting subjective well-being across diverse populations and contexts.

Literature review and theoretical framework

Mutual aid

Mutual aid is a practice in which individuals come together to help one another overcome obstacles and meet their needs, including basic living needs such as food, shelter, and transportation, as well as physical and mental health support [33, 52]. Unlike charity, which typically involves hierarchical support to the poor and is conditional in nature, mutual aid is based on voluntary equality and occurs primarily among people facing similar challenges [42, 49]. The slogan “Solidarity Not Charity” emphasizes the importance of people working together to solve common problems [49]. Mutual aid can take many forms, including one-to-one support among family, friends, and neighbors, as well as organized support [57], which maybe both unpaid or paid. The practice often arises to fill the gaps when the government or existing social institutions fail to meet people’s needs.

Mutual aid emerges as a way for people to cope with risk, particularly in the context of the global outbreak of Covid-19 in 2020, which has exacerbated social inequities and affected marginalized populations [5]. As a result, mutual aid risen in countries around the world [6, 44, 51, 61], and has become a research hot spot in the context of the epidemic. The current body of literature primarily concentrates on both theoretical and case studies that investigate the phenomenon of mutual aid during epidemics. These studies encompass a broad range of topics, including critical analyses of capitalist societies [51], the relationship between mutual aid and states or government [28, 44], organizational management concerns [10, 22, 34, 52], and the future of mutual aid [23]. They have provided valuable insights into how mutual aid can be leveraged to advance social work and drive social transformation on a macro-level [24, 51], as well as how it can benefit individuals by helping them navigate difficult situations and enhance their well-being through support from others at the micro-level [6, 17, 37].

Mutual aid and subjective well-being

Subjective well-being refers to individuals’ evaluations of their happiness based on their subjective experiences [21], including both judgments and feelings of life satisfaction as well as positive or negative emotional reactions. Subjective well-being is influenced by various internal and external factors [21], such as personality, circumstances, social relationships, behavioral activities and cognitive activities [12]. Research also indicates that mutual aid is beneficial for participants’ well-being. For example, Seebohm et al. [47] found that mutual aid can enhance members’ well-being by fostering their sense of control, increasing resilience and facilitating participation. Mao et al. [37] further discovered that mutual aid during an epidemic has a strong contribution to people’s subjective well-being. However, most of these studies are qualitative, with only a limited number of papers using quantitative methods to explore the relationship between mutual aid and well-being from a social identity perspective [8, 9]. There is a need for further exploration of the potential pathways that link mutual aid to subjective well-being, such as the mediating roles of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Moreover, there exists a significant gap in relevant research on the Chinese context during epidemic situations. Therefore, it is essential to develop a theoretical framework that builds upon previous research to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how mutual aid is associated with subjective well-being during epidemics in China.

The extended lockdown during the epidemic resulted in resource constraints which was the foremost challenge affecting individuals’ lives. According to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the fulfillment of basic material needs related to survival is one of the most crucial predictors of subjective well-being [53]. Research indicates that precarious living conditions have a negative impact on subjective well-being [32], while living in abundance enhances it [16]. Biswas-Diener [7] regards this relationship between material wealth and subjective well-being as “the abundance scenario”. Reciprocity and resource redistribution are key shared values within mutual aid [33]. People joined mutual aid groups and assisted in alleviating or even resolving household material constraints through bartering, sharing, and collective purchasing of groceries, which was beneficial for their subjective well-being.

In addition to providing material resources, mutual aid can also expand social networks. Mutual aid is inherently social in nature, as individuals can establish new social relationships through cooperation to meet their needs during the suspension of previously dominant social relationships amid the epidemic [49]. Notably, the period of COVID-19 witnessed a proliferation of mutual aid groups such as community groups, purchasing groups, medicine groups, and others on social media platforms like WeChat in China. “Part of the beauty of mutual aid is that it forces us to make these connections between people and to see... our fellow humans as humans and not as statistics or as clients of a program. But that they’re … individuals who live down the street from us and … have a life … just as meaningful as ours” [33]. Springer [51] also notes that “In this moment of COVID-19, we are seeing … we are beginning to understand that we have the ability to expand our circle of care beyond family and friends.” Extensive research has demonstrated that social networks significantly influence subjective well-being. For example, Van der Horst and Coffé [55] found that the size and quality of social networks affect subjective well-being, with more frequent and numerous friendships and less heterogeneous friendship networks being associated with greater social trust, reduced stress, and better health. Bowe et al. [9] argued that people’s involvement in volunteering expands social relationships, increases solidarity, and enhances social identity, which in turn enhances well-being. So, we proposes that:

  • Hypothesis 1: Mutual aid can help to enhance the participant’s subjective well-being.

  • Hypothesis 2: Mutual aid enhances the participant’s subjective well-being through the provision of material resources and social network.

The effect of self-esteem and self-efficacy

There is a chain relationship between mutual aid and subjective well-being. Firstly, according to Social Comparison Theory, mutual aid can influence an individual’s self-esteem and self-efficacy by providing material resources and fostering social networks. Social comparison is a fundamental psychological mechanism that impacts people’s judgments, experiences, and behavior [19]. Social comparisons enable individuals to positively evaluate themselves by comparing with others, thereby successfully navigating specific social environments [50]. Social comparison is particularly relevant to self-esteem and self-efficacy due to the resource reallocation function inherent in mutual aid during the epidemic.

Self-esteem relates to an individual’s subjective evaluation of their own self-worth [40]. Individuals can elevate their self-esteem through social comparison [1]. In the context of an epidemic, mutual aid serves as a means of addressing material shortages and building new social networks. Participants in mutual aid are perceived as better off than others because they can access more material resources and expand their social networks, both of which are associated with higher self-esteem [27, 36]. Thus, this comparison can enhance self-esteem by making individuals feel grateful for what they have and more positive about their own life circumstances. Moreover, people who support each other through mutual aid are more likely to recognize and appreciate their own value, leading to an increase in self-esteem. As Mao et al. [37] mentioned in their interview, “It sort of makes you feel good about yourself, that you’re doing something … Yeah, I’m still a good person.”

In addition to enhancing participants’ self-esteem, mutual aid can also contribute to an increase in self-efficacy. Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs in their capabilities to achieve specific outcomes [3]. Unlike self-esteem, which is related to self-worth, self-efficacy is a perception of one’s capability. The development of self-efficacy is influenced by the interaction between an individual and their environment, with the most significant source being their experience of success [54]. Compared to others who were struggling during the pandemic, those engaging in mutual aid were able to access more material resources and social networks, which can serve as a symbol and reflection of their abilities to overcome the challenges, resulting in increased feelings of success and self-efficacy. Wu and Sheng [58] has found that higher levels of self-efficacy associated with greater network size and support. Accordingly, we propose that mutual aid can enhance the participants’ self-efficacy through material resources and social networks.

Secondly, self-esteem and self-efficacy are associated with participants’ subjective well-being. As a psychological feeling, subjective well-being is influenced by various psychological resources [32]. Extensive research indicates that self-esteem and self-efficacy are significant predictors of an individual’s subjective well-being. Individuals with high self-esteem are more likely to experience positive emotions and, consequently, higher subjective well-being than those with low self-esteem [30]. Self-efficacy also positively affects subjective well-being. Whether in academic achievement, social interactions, or the management of negative emotions, self-efficacy is positively correlated with subjective well-being across multiple domains [59]. Recent studies have demonstrated that during the lockdown period of the pandemic, self-efficacy among adolescents had a significant positive impact on their subjective well-being [11]. Through social comparison with those who did not participate in mutual aid, individuals gain better mastery over their lives and overcome challenges, predicting higher self-esteem and self-efficacy, ultimately leading to improved subjective well-being. Therefore, we proposes that:

  • Hypothesis 3: Mutual aid plays a significant role in facilitating the participant’s access to material resources, which subsequently strengthens the self-esteem and self-efficacy, ultimately resulting in an increase in their subjective well-being.

  • Hypothesis 4: Mutual aid plays a significant role in broadening the participant’s social network, leading to an increase in the self-esteem and self-efficacy, ultimately resulting in an increase in their subjective well-being.

In summary, the conceptual framework of this paper is shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Conceptual framework of mutual aid acting on subjective well-being

Full size image

Methodology

Data collection

This study utilized a survey approach to investigate residents in Shanghai, China. Shanghai reported 4,477 new COVID-19 infections on March 28, 2022. In an effort to curb the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19, the city implemented a lockdown strategy from March 28, 2022 to June 1, 2022. People were required to stay at home and not to leave their apartment complex. Most of people, regardless of social class, were at risk of resource shortages, and so were celebrities. Mutual aid in apartment complex began to emerge during this period.

From April 28 to May 5, 2022, our research team distributed surveys online mainly via Credamo, a well-known online survey platform in China. After a month of lockdown, most people experienced resource shortages, and conducting this investigation allowed us to gain a more realistic understanding of participants’ subjective well-being. Given that Shanghai has a population of approximately 240,000, a sample size of 384 people is required with a margin of error of ± 5% according to Conroy’s [18] sample size table. We distributed 500 questionnaires,in total, 494 were received. After filtering out responses with excessively short or long response times and those that failed to pass screening questions, a total of 383 valid questionnaires were obtained, yielding an effective response rate of 77.53%. Our sample size also satisfies the “10 times rule”, which requires the sample size to be greater than ten times the maximum number of inner or outer model links pointing at any latent variable in the entire model [26]. Since we primarily conducted online research, the sample was focused on middle-aged and young adults aged between 20 and 50, with a gender ratio of 42.6% male to 57.4% female, as detailed in Table 1.

Table 1 Distribution of demographics
Full size table

Measurement development

The questionnaire covered six main variables, most of which were derived from published mature research, except for three variables: mutual aid, material resources, and social networks. These three variables were measured based on the literature and interviews conducted with mutual aid participants.

Because we sought to explore the effect of mutual aid, we measured it by assessing the frequency with which respondents participated in mutual aid during the last few weeks of the city’s lockdown due to COVID-19. Referring to Plagno & Huppert’s (2010) volunteering scale, the measuring item is “How often have you participated in mutual aid because of Covid-19 in the past few weeks?” with “1” indicating “never”, “2” indicating “occasionally”, and “3” indicating “often”.

The material resources scale was developed to measure the level of people’s access to material resources during Covid-19. We interviewed mutual aid participants and designed two items to quantify material resources. These items are: “I feel I have great access to more material resources compared to others.” “I have obtained more material resources compared to others.” The former measures whether participants feel they have the opportunity to access more resources, while the latter assesses whether participants have actually acquired more resources compared to others. The internal consistency of the material resources scale in this study was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which yielded a value of 0.911, indicating high reliability.

The social network scale was developed to assess whether people formed new social networks during the city’s lockdown. We developed three primary items based on the LSNS (Lubben Social Network Scale, [35]), PSS (Perceived Social Support, [43]), and SCS (Social Connectedness Scale, [31]), while taking into account the research context of this article. These items are: “I have met more people in the past few weeks.” “I have made more friends in the past few weeks.” “I have more people who can help me when I need it, now or in the future.” The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the social network scale in this study was 0.872, indicating high reliability.

Self-esteem was measured with Rosenberg’s [45] scale. A total of 10 items were designed with representative questions such as “I take a positive attitude toward myself”. Self-efficacy was measured with reference to Schwarzer et al.’s [46] study, with 10 items and a representative question such as “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough”. Subjective well-being was measured based on Zacher and Rudolph’s [60] study, including three dimensions “life satisfaction” “positive emotions” and “negative emotions”, with a total of 21 items. Life satisfaction was measured using a single question “In general, how satisfied were you with your life over the past few weeks?” [15]. The PANAS scale was used for “positive emotions” and “negative emotions” [56].

Except for the mutual aid scale, the questionnaire utilized an 11-point scale, where a score of “0” represented strong disagreement (or strong dissatisfaction), “10” represented strong agreement (or strong satisfaction). Data were analysed using the package “Lavaan” in R for analysis of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM), because it has powerful functionality and high flexibility which allows users to customize their models.

Measurement assessment

CFA was used to evaluate the underlying structure of the variables in the model. The standardized factor loading value for four self-esteem items was less than the threshold value of 0.5 (i.e., “All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am a failure.”), so these items were removed from the following analysis to improve reliability and reduce measurement error. Following the exclusion of these items, CFA was repeated to assess the quality of the measurement scale. The result indicated the model fits the data well (χ2 = 378.160, CFI = 0.947, NFI = 0.924, RFI = 0.907, TLI = 0.936, RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.046).

To evaluate the reliability of the measuring items, we computed the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite reliability (CR). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient and composite reliability values for each construct are shown in Table 2. Good internal consistency for each construct was shown by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.765 to 0.940 and composite reliability ranging from 0.771 to 0.942, all of which exceeded the 0.7 threshold value.

Table 2 Reliability and validity analysis
Full size table

Convergent validity of the measures was examined using factor loadings within the constructs and average variance extracted (AVE). As shown in Table 2, all items loaded above 0.5 on their assigned constructs. All of the AVE values were between 0.542 and 0.843, which was higher than the recommended value of 0.5 [25], indicating adequate convergent validity. Additionally, we compared the square root of AVE with the correlation between two latent constructs to assess discriminant validity. All the square roots of AVEs exceed the correlation coefficients, demonstrating good discriminant validity between all the constructs.

Common method variance test

Due to the fact that all independent and dependent variables in this study were derived from the same questionnaire and most of the variables were measured using a Likert scale, there is a possibility of common method variance, which could affect the reliability and validity of the empirical results. In order to mitigate this issue, procedural and statistical controls were implemented. To increase respondent motivation and reduce the default effect, the questionnaire was designed to be as simple and easy to understand as possible, and positive and negative wording was used [4]. To test for common method variance, Harman’s single factor analysis test was conducted using SPSS. The results indicated that the first principal component factor accounted for 34.455% of the total variance, which was below the threshold of 50%, suggesting that there was no significant common variance bias problem in the questionnaire.

Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis for the core variables are presented in Table 3. As the correlation coefficient between the variables is less than 0.75, it can be concluded that there is no issue of multicollinearity among them. Moreover, the study utilized the variance inflation factor (VIF) to further investigate the presence of multicollinearity and found that all variables had VIF values below the acceptable threshold of 10. These results confirm the absence of multicollinearity among the variables in this study.

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis of core variables
Full size table

Result

As the central thesis of this paper is to investigate the relationship between mutual aid and subjective well-being, we first conducted a comparison of subjective well-being among participants with different levels of mutual aid. Results of the one-way ANOVA indicated that individuals who frequently participated mutual aid activities had significantly higher levels of subjective well-being compared to those who never or occasionally participated (Mean Frequently = 7.504 > Mean Occasionally = 6.693 > Mean Never = 6.626, F (381,1) = 20.59, p < 0.001).

To further investigate the relationship between mutual aid and subjective well-being, as well as the underlying mechanism, we constructed a structural equation model using the lavaan toolkit in R. The full model path was analyzed using the Bootstrap method. Given that demographic characteristics have been shown to be associated with individuals’ subjective well-being, they are controlled in the analysis. The results of the structural equation model are presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Results of the structural equation model. Note: Model shows unstandardized path coefficients and standard error in parentheses; Solid lines indicate significant path coefficients, while dashed lines indicate insignificant path coefficients. ***p < 0.001,**p < 0.01,*p < 0.05

Full size image

As illustrated in Fig. 2, our analysis revealed that there was no direct relationship between mutual aid and subjective well-being (β = 0.081, p = 0.468). However, mutual aid had a significant positive effect on material resources and social network, particularly on the latter (βMR = 0.741, p < 0.001; βSN = 1.165, p < 0.001). Among these two factors, only material resources had a direct effect on subjective well-being (β = 0.062, p = 0.029), whereas social network did not (β = 0.011, p = 0.764).

Moreover, our findings indicated that both material resources and social network had significant positive effects on participants’ self-esteem. Notably, the effect of social network on self-esteem was stronger than the effect of material resources (βSN = 0.210 > βMR = 0.074). Both material resources and social network also had a positive effect on self-efficacy, and once again, the effect of social network was stronger than that of material resources (βSN = 0.229 > βMR = 0.107). Furthermore, self-esteem and self-efficacy had a significant positive effect on participants’ subjective well-being (βSE = 0.322, p < 0.001; βSF = 0.438, p < 0.001), which aligns with previous research findings.

According to Fig. 2, it was found that mutual aid had no significant direct effect on the participant’s subjective well-being. Instead, the effect of mutual aid on subjective well-being was found to be primarily attributed to the role of material resources and social network in shaping participants’ self-esteem and self-efficacy. The graphical representation in Fig. 2 reveals the presence of material resources’ mediating pathway and four chained mediating pathways, namely: mutual aid → material resources → subjective well-being, mutual aid → material resources → self-esteem → subjective well-being, mutual aid → material resources → self-efficacy → subjective well-being, mutual aid → social network → self-esteem → subjective well-being, and mutual aid → social network → self-efficacy → subjective well-being. To ensure the validity of these mediating mechanisms, this study employed the Bootstrap method, conducting 20,000 iterations to test the mediating mechanisms.

Table 4 presents the results of the analysis, indicating that the direct effect of mutual aid on subjective well-being was 0.081 but not significant, with a 95% confidence interval of [−0.138, 0.300] that includes 0. However, the total effect was significant, with a total effect of 0.408 and a confidence interval of [0.186, 0.627], excluding 0. These findings support the hypothesis H1 that mutual aid influences the participant’s subjective well-being.

Table 4 Mediating effect test
Full size table

Regarding the indirect effects, the mediating mechanisms for both material resources and social network were found to be not significant, with 95% confidence intervals of [−0.001, 0.093] and [−0.072, 0.097], respectively. However, given that the p-value for the mediation effect of material resources is 0.057, significant at the 90% level, the study concludes that there exists a relatively weak mediation effect of material resources between mutual aid and subjective well-being, partially supporting hypothesis H2.

Furthermore, all four chain-mediated pathways were found to be significant at the 95% confidence level. Hypothesis H3 and H4 are verified. This suggests that the mechanism by which mutual aid augments subjective well-being is sequential: initially, mutual aid increases material resources and expands social network. Subsequently, these augmented material resources and broadened social network improve self-esteem and self-efficacy. Ultimately, the elevated self-esteem and self-efficacy positively affects subjective well-being. The two most dominant chain-mediated pathways were mutual aid → social network → self-esteem → subjective well-being (CI [0.057, 0.157]), and mutual aid → social network → self-efficacy → subjective well-being (CI [0.063, 0.170]), accounting for 26.225% and 28.676% of the total effect, respectively.

Despite the significance of the chain-mediated path involving material resources, the indirect effect of material resources and self-esteem accounted for only 0.018 (CI [0.000, 0.035]), representing 4.412% of the total effect. And the indirect effect of material resources and self-efficacy was 0.026 (CI [0.005, 0.046]), accounting for 6.373% of the total effect. Overall, the effect of mutual aid on subjective well-being through social network was found to be much stronger than material resources, approximately 2.5 times as much as the effect of material resources.

Conclusion and discussion

Main findings

The COVID-19 epidemic was prone to physical and psychological trauma, which could consequently reduce people’s subjective well-being [60]. Although previous studies have examined the influence of mutual aid, most of these research are qualitative, and the underlying mechanisms have remained unclear. In this paper, we use a quantitative method to analyze the relationship between mutual aid and subjective well-being and explain the mechanisms by which it works. Our empirical study found that, mutual aid nonetheless has a significant association with subjective well-being even if these groups in China are spontaneous, sporadic and lack any binding force during the lockdown.

The effect of mutual aid on subjective well-being is not direct, but rather indirect through the channels of material resources and social network. By constructing a structural equation model, we found that mutual aid enhances individual self-esteem and self-efficacy by meeting their material needs, expanding social networks, and ultimately enhancing their subjective well-being. Specifically, there is a weak mediation path of material resources between mutual aid and subjective well-being, and four chain mediation paths that play a significant role, including mutual aid → material resources → self-esteem → subjective well-being, mutual aid → material resources → self-efficacy → subjective well-being, mutual aid → social network → self-esteem → subjective well-being, and mutual aid → social network → self-efficacy → subjective well-being. Overall, social network plays a significantly higher total mediating role than material resources, with a chain mediating effect approximately 2.5 times greater than that of material resources. These findings align with previous arguments suggesting that while material well-being is related to subjective well-being, the relationship is limited and material advantages do not necessarily translate into social and emotional benefits [20].

Furthermore, this study discovered that the direct link between social network and subjective well-being is disrupted, which suggests that subjective well-being, as a psychological feeling and mental state, need to be explicated and understood mainly through psychological variables, such as the mediating effect of self-esteem and self-efficacy identified in our investigation.

Implication

During times of crisis and disaster, it is often challenging for limited government resources to promptly and effectively address the multitude of social needs. In Chinese society, the predominant approach to responding to such challenges is through a centralized structure of support, whereby resources are consolidated into government agencies or charitable organizations that provide assistance to those in need. While this centralized approach might enable the pooling of resources on a large scale, it can also hinder efficiency in addressing localized needs. Neighborhood mutual aid, characterized by a decentralized structure, has often been overlooked by the government due to its fragmented and small-scale nature. Nevertheless, decentralized forms of mutual aid, particularly those operating at the neighborhood level, can offer a more efficient and precise means of providing assistance during times of crisis. For instance, during the COVID-19 epidemic, mutual aid initiatives demonstrated the power of decentralized structures in effectively addressing people’s material needs. Specifically, group buying behavior organized by residents played a significant role in resolving material shortages. Another advantage of decentralized mutual aid is the facilitation of communication and emotional support through rapidly established social networks, which benefits their mental health and subjective well-being. In light of these benefits, governments could find it advantageous to encourage citizens' initiatives for mutual aid and explore more decentralized approaches to enhance well-being.Furthermore, the community should use mutual aid groups to enhance community relations and well-beings. The mobility associated with modern cities has increased the sense of detachment among people. Nevertheless, Marsh [39] posited that natural selection has ingrained the social instinct of mutual aid, which helps to build a more cohesive community. When confronted with various calamities, people gather together to offer one another care, support, and a sense of oneness, thereby establishing an “extraordinary community” that is predominantly built upon mutual aid [48]. In contrast to Western societies where mutual aid represents a critique of selfish capitalism, in China it serves as a reawakening and reinforcement of collectivism. Mutual aid facilitates the creation of new social networks, solves difficult community problems, and improves participants’ well-being due to its spontaneous nature, principles of reciprocity, altruistic instincts, and cooperative efforts. Building harmonious communities and fulfilling people’s aspirations for a better life are essential goals of community governance. Thus, viewing mutual aid groups as micro-units of community governance enhances the spirit of cooperation, thereby improving community relations and well-being.

Finally, mutual aid stimulates people’s enthusiasm for civic engagement. Throughout both traditional and modern societies, the importance of mutual aid cannot be understated as it serves as a crucial element for sustaining human communities and facilitating their development. It is widely regarded as a key driving force in the historical evolution of human society [29]. Initially, individuals were often unconcerned about community issues and had no idea where the neighborhood committee was. However, after engaging in mutual aid groups during lockdown, their self-esteem and self-efficacy improved, as did their sense of well-being, which led to an increased interest in community issues. This is conducive to enhancing civic engagement, thereby facilitating more efficient and democratic processes of community governance.

Research limitations

There are several limitations in this paper that require further investigation. First, the study only examined the mediating mechanisms through which mutual aid affects subjective well-being and did not consider possible boundary conditions. Future research could explore moderating variables such as demographic characteristics or personality traits that might influence these mediating mechanisms. Second, subjective well-being is influenced by multiple factors, and this study only considered the roles of self-esteem and self-efficacy as mediating mechanisms. Other social and psychological variables that affect subjective well-being should be included in future research to gain a more comprehensive understanding of these mechanisms. Third, although our study has demonstrated statistically significant associations between mutual aid and subjective well-being, these findings do not establish causality because of the cross-sectional nature of our data. Future research should utilize more robust research designs, such as experimental studies or longitudinal research, to gain a deeper understanding of the causal mechanisms linking mutual aid to subjective well-being. Additionally, our data were primarily collected through an online survey, which is an acceptable method in social psychological research, especially given the practical constraints during the lockdown. However, as Chen et al. [14] have explicitly noted, participants recruited via online platforms often exhibit higher socioeconomic status than the general population, potentially leading to issues with sample representativeness. In the future, the robustness of the results should be further verified through offline research. Finally, the sample for this study was limited to Shanghai. To verify the general applicability of mutual aid’s effect, future research should expand the study sample to cover a broader geographic area.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. The data is from COVID-19 Mutual Aid UK, a national website (https://covidmutualaid.org/local-groups/) that directs people to their nearest mutual aid group during COVID-19.

Abbreviations

ANOVA:

Analysis of Variance

AVE:

Average Extracted Variance

CA:

Cronbach Coefficient

CFA:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

CFI:

Comparative Fit Index

CI:

Confidence Intervals

COVID-19:

Coronavirus Disease 2019

CR:

Combined Reliability

LLCI:

Lower level of Confidence Intervals

MA:

Mutual Aid

MR:

Material Resources

NFI:

Normed Fit Index

RFI:

Relative Fit Index

RMSEA:

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

SD:

Standard Deviation

SE:

Self-Esteem

SF:

Self-Efficacy

SN:

Social Network

SRMR:

Standardized Root Mean Square Residual

SWB:

Subjective Well-Being

TLI:

Tucker–Lewis Index

ULCI:

Upper Level of Confidence Intervals

References

  1. Alfasi Y. The grass is always greener on my Friends’ profiles: The effect of Facebook social comparison on state self-esteem and depression. Pers Indiv Differ. 2019;147:111–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.032.

  2. Archibald ME. The impact of density dependence, sociopolitical legitimation and competitive intensity on self-help/mutual-aid formation. Organ Stud. 2008;29(1):79–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607084572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bandura A. Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In: Pajares F, Urdan T, editors. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich: Information Age; 2006. p. 307–337.

  4. Baumgartner H, Steenkamp JBE. Response styles in marketing research: a cross-national investigation. J Marketing Res. 2001;38(2):143–56. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.38.2.143.18840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell FM. Amplified injustices and mutual aid in the COVID-19 pandemic. Qual Soc Work. 2021;20(1–2):410–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325020973326.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bender K, Saavedra K, Milligan T, Littman DM, Becker-Hafnor T, Dunbar AZ, Dunbar AZ, Boyett M, Holloway B, Morris K. How mutual aid proliferation developed solidarity and sense of collective responsibility in the early months of COVID-19. Am J Commun Psychol. 2024;73(3–4):431–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Biswas-Diener R. Material wealth and subjective well-being. In: Eid M, Larsen R, editors. The science of subjective well-being. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 307–322.

  8. Bowe M, Gray D, Stevenson C, McNamara N, Wakefield JR, Kellezi B, Wilson L, Cleveland M, Mair E, Halder M, Costa S. A social cure in the community: a mixed-method exploration of the role of social identity in the experiences and well-being of community volunteers. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2020;50(7):1523–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bowe M, Wakefield JR, Kellezi B, Stevenson C, McNamara N, Jones BA, Sumich A, Heym N. The mental health benefits of community helping during crisis: coordinated helping, community identification and sense of unity during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Community Appl Soc. 2022;32(3):521–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cabiati E. Social workers helping each other during the COVID-19 pandemic: online mutual support groups. Int Soc Work. 2021;64(5):676–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872820975447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cattelino E, Testa S, Calandri E, Fedi A, Gattino S, Graziano F, Rollero C, Begotti T. Self-efficacy, subjective well-being and positive coping in adolescents with regard to Covid-19 lockdown. Curr Psychol. 2021;20:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01965-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Caunt BS, Franklin J, Brodaty NE, Brodaty H. Exploring the causes of subjective well-being: a content analysis of peoples’ recipes for long-term happiness. J Happiness Stud. 2013;14:475–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-012-9339-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen D, Wang C, Liu Y. How household food shopping behaviors changed during COVID-19 lockdown period: evidence from Beijing. China J Retail Consum Serv. 2023;75:103513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Chen SJ, Yang SS, Wang H, Wan FH. Subjective social class positively predicts altruistic punishment. Acta Psychol Sin. 2022;54(12):1548–61. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2022.01548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheung F, Lucas RE. Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from three large samples. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:2809–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cummins RA. Personal income and subjective well-being: a review. J Happiness Stud. 2000;1(2):133–58. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010079728426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cocking C, Vestergren S, Ntontis E, Luzynska K. ‘All together now’: facilitators and barriers to engagement in mutual aid during the first UK COVID-19 lockdown. PloS One. 2023;18(4):e0283080. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0283080.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Conroy RM. The RCSI sample size handbook. A rough guide. 2021. https://www.beaumontethics.ie/docs/application/samplesize2021.pdf.

  19. Crusius J, Corcoran K, Mussweiler T. Social comparison: Theory, research, and applications. In Chadee D, editors. Theories in Social Psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2022. p. 165–87.

  20. Csikszentmihalyi M. If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? Am Psychol. 1999;54(10):821–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Diener E, Ryan K. Subjective well-being: a general overview. S Afr J Psychol. 2009;39(4):391–406 https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC98561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Domínguez DG, García D, Martínez DA, Hernandez-Arriaga B. Leveraging the power of mutual aid, coalitions, leadership, and advocacy during COVID-19. Am Psychol. 2020;75(7):909–18. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000693.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dunbar AZ, Boyett M, Littman DM, Bender K, Melton CC, Milligan T, Saavedra K. A message board from the future: signals of mutual aid futures from US based organizers during COVID-19. Futures. 2024;157:103327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2024.103327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fernandes-Jesus M, Mao G, Ntontis E, Cocking C, McTague M, Schwarz A, Semlyen J, Drury J. More than a COVID-19 response: sustaining mutual aid groups during and beyond the pandemic. Front Psychol. 2021;12:716202. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

  26. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). California: SAGE Publications; 2014.

  27. Harris MA, Orth U. The link between self-esteem and social relationships: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;119(6):1459–77. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000265.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ibrahiim K, Oghenenyerovwome Iki V, Jackson V. A qualitative exploration of the impact of mutual aid on the COVID-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic response. Eur J Public Health. 2023;33(Supple):ckad160.1384. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckad160.1384.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kropotkin P. Mutual aid: a factor of evolution. Oakland: Bibliotech Press; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Leary MR. Sociometer theory and the pursuit of relational value: getting to the root of self-esteem. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2005;16(1):75–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280540000007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee RM, Robbins SB. Measuring belongingness: the social connectedness and the social assurance scales. J Couns Psychol. 1995;42(2):232–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lever JP, Pinol NL, Uralde JH. Poverty, psychological resources and subjective well-being. Soc Indic Res. 2005;73:375–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-1072-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Littman DM, Boyett M, Bender K, Dunbar AZ, Santarella M, Becker-Hafnor T, Saavedra T, Milligan T. Values and beliefs underlying mutual aid: an exploration of collective care during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Soc Soc Work Res. 2022;13(1):89–115. https://doi.org/10.1086/716884.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Lofton S, Kersten M, Simonovich SD, Martin A. Mutual aid organisations and their role in reducing food insecurity in Chicago’s urban communities during COVID-19. Public Health Nutr. 2022;25(1):119–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980021003736.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Lubben JE. Assessing social networks among elderly populations. Fam Community Health. 1988;11(3):42–52. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727-198811000-00008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. MacDonald G, Saltzman JL, Leary MR. Social approval and trait self-esteem. J Res Pers. 2003;37(2):23–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00531-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mao G, Drury J, Fernandes-Jesus M, Ntontis E. How participation in Covid-19 mutual aid groups affects subjective well-being and how political identity moderates these effects. Anal Soc Iss Pub Pol. 2021;21(1):1082–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Maqbool I, Riaz M, Siddiqi UI, Channa JA, Shams MS. Social, economic and environmental implications of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol. 2023;13:898396. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.898396.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Marsh C. Social harmony paradigms and natural selection: Darwin, Kropotkin, and the metatheory of mutual aid. J Public Relat. 2013;25(5):426–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2013.795861.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Orth U, Robins RW. Is high self-esteem beneficial? Revisiting a classic question Am Psychol. 2022;77(1):5–7. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000922.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Panchal U, Salazar de Pablo G, Franco M, Moreno C, Parellada M, Arango C, Fusar-Poli P. The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on child and adolescent mental health: systematic review. Eur Child Adoles Psy. 2023;32(7):1151–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01856-w.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Pason, A. The power of mutual aid and care. In: Crick N, editors. The Routledge handbook of rhetoric and power. New York: Routledge; 2024. p. 179–192.

  43. Procidano ME, Heller K. Measures of perceived social support from friends and from family: three validation studies. Am J Community Psychol. 1983;11(1):1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00898416.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rendall J, Curtin M, Roy MJ, Teasdale S. Relationships between community-led mutual aid groups and the state during the COVID-19 pandemic: complementary, supplementary, or adversarial? Public Manag Rev. 2024;26(2):313–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2084769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent child. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1965.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schwarzer R, Bäßler J, Kwiatek P, Schröder K, Zhang JX. The assessment of optimistic self-beliefs: comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the general self-efficacy scale. J Appl Psychol. 1997;46(1):69–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Seebohm P, Chaudhary S, Boyce M, Elkan R, Avis M, Munn-Giddings C. The contribution of self-help/mutual aid groups to mental well-being. Health Soc Care Comm. 2013;21(4):391–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Solnit R. A paradise built in hell. New York: Viking; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Spade D. Solidarity not charity: mutual aid for mobilization and survival. Soc Text. 2020;38(1):131–51. https://doi.org/10.1215/01642472-7971139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Spence JR, Ferris DL, Brown DJ, Heller D. Understanding daily citizenship behaviors: A social comparison perspective. J Organ Behav. 2011;32(4):547–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.738.

  51. Springer S. Caring geographies: the COVID-19 interregnum and a return to mutual aid. Dialogues Hum Geogr. 2020;10(2):112–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820620931277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Swann T. ‘Anarchist technologies’: anarchism, cybernetics and mutual aid in community responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Organization. 2023;30(1):193–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/13505084221090632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Tay L, Diener E. Needs and subjective well-being around the world. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;101(2):354–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023779.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Usher EL, Pajares F. Sources of self-efficacy in school: critical review of the literature and future directions. Rev Educ Res. 2008;78(4):751–96. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Van der Horst M, Coffé H. How friendship network characteristics influence subjective well-being. Soc Indic Res. 2012;107:509–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-011-9861-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(6):1063 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. White RJ. Explaining why the non-commodified sphere of mutual aid is so pervasive in the advanced economies: some case study evidence from an English city. Int J Sociol. 2009;29(9/10):457–72. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330910986252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wu F, Sheng Y. Social support network, social support, self-efficacy, health-promoting behavior and healthy aging among older adults: a pathway analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriat. 2019;85:103934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archger.2019.103934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Yap ST, Baharudin R. The relationship between adolescents’ perceived parental involvement, self-efficacy beliefs, and subjective well-being: a multiple mediator model. Soc Indic Res. 2016;126:257–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0882-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Zacher H, Rudolph CW. Individual differences and changes in subjective wellbeing during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol. 2021;76(1):50–62 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/amp0000702.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Zamponi L. Mutual aid and solidarity politics in times of emergency: direct social action and temporality in Italy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Mov Stud. 2024;23(6):756–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2023.2204426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to the reviewers for their in-depth insights and suggestions which were invaluable in shaping the final version of this paper. Additionally, we would like to express our appreciation to the editors for their efforts in facilitating the review and publication of our paper.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Economics and Management, Shanghai Polytechnic University, Shanghai, 201209, China

    Aiping Xu

  2. School of Management, Shanghai Sanda University, Shanghai, 201209, China

    Yiwei Zhang

Authors
  1. Aiping Xu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yiwei Zhang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Xu and Zhang wrote the main manuscript text. Xu collected the data, designed the model and prepared the figures. Zhang analyzed and interpreted the data. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiwei Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by Academic Morals and Ethics Committee of Sanda University (Reference number: 2022007). The participants were informed about the research aim and methods before filling out the questionnaire anonymously. Informed consent was obtained from all participants of the study. The survey conforms to the principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, A., Zhang, Y. The effect and mechanism of mutual aid on the subjective well-being of participants under the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychol 13, 48 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02360-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02360-5

Keywords

BMC Psychology

ISSN: 2050-7283

Contact us