Adolescents' meaning making of salient emotional experiences during the COVID‐19 pandemic

Abstract

Introduction

This mixed‐method longitudinal study examined American adolescents' meaning making of salient COVID‐19 pandemic events.

Method

Within phone interviews, adolescents (N = 124, M _age = 15.76 years; 46% Latine) narrated their most emotionally impactful pandemic experience at two time points ~30 days apart between July 2020 and March 2021. Narratives were coded for (1) content (i.e., event‐type, relation to the pandemic, and the valence of the event [positive or negative]), (2) linguistic markers of subjective event processing (internal state language such as positive emotion, negative emotion, and cognition words), (3) narrative meaning‐making, and (4) the outcome of adolescents' meaning‐making (i.e., their “meanings made”).

Results

About 30% of adolescents spontaneously made meaning of their experience. Negative emotion words within narratives at time 1 positively predicted meaning making at time 2. Meaning making at time 1 predicted increased use of cognition words at time 2. Meaning making themes included: recognizing the threat of COVID‐19, coping with a pandemic, and shifts in perspectives.

Discussion

Salient emotional experiences that occur during adolescence are likely to be remembered and contribute to one's life story. This work provides a window into how the COVID‐19 pandemic may have shaped adolescent development in the United States.

The COVID‐19 pandemic brought about sweeping changes to the lives of adolescents worldwide. While research has shown that the pandemic has negatively affected youths' mental health on average (e.g., Salmon, ²⁰²¹; Panchal et al. ²⁰²³), little is known about the ways in which the pandemic might have also prompted psychological growth in youth. One marker of psychological growth is meaning making—that is, one's ability to learn lessons or glean insight from an experience or a turning point in life (McLean & Thorne, 2003). Garnering an understanding of adolescent meaning making of salient events during the pandemic could reveal the building blocks of psychological adjustment and development in the post‐pandemic era (Steger et al., 2023).

In the present study, we examined adolescent narratives of their most salient emotional pandemic experience during the first year of the COVID‐19 pandemic and assessed their situational meaning making of the single life event (Park, 2022). We coded narratives for (1) content (i.e., the types of experiences adolescents believed to be most emotionally impactful), (2) linguistic indicators of subjective processing (i.e., internal state language), (3) the rate of meaning making and change in meaning making over time, and (4) outcomes (i.e., themes) of adolescents' meaning making (i.e., their “meanings made”). We employed a two time‐point longitudinal design to study change in adolescent meaning making (as it is a dynamic and time‐dependent process; Guidano, ¹⁹⁹¹) and the ways in which internal state language may function as a precursor of meaning making. Mid‐adolescence was our focus because this developmental period represents a point of exploration, identity formation, character development and vulnerability, and is one of the most memorable periods of the life span (Laible et al., 2008; Tavernier & Willoughby, ²⁰¹²; Thorne, ²⁰⁰⁰). Further, mid‐adolescents have also already developed narrative structure (Berman & Nir‐Sagiv, 2007) and continue to grow in their cognitive, emotional, and languistic skills that contribute to their ability to make meaning of life events (Köber et al., 2015). As such, emotional experiences that occur during adolescence and during times of global crisis (i.e., the COVID‐19 pandemic) may be particularly life‐altering and important to make meaning of (McLean, 2005).

1. SALIENT PANDEMIC EXPERIENCES AMONGST ADOLESCENTS

Although adolescents have been at low risk of suffering severe physical health consequences from the COVID‐19 virus (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024), the pandemic has brought about numerous and considerable consequences for their wellbeing. Throughout the first year of the pandemic, adolescents reported experiencing difficulties in the domains of academics, sleep, daily routines, physical activity, and social connection, and reported increased anxiety and stress (Fioretti et al., 2020; Rogers et al., ²⁰²¹; Scott et al., ²⁰²¹). Further, because of the higher burden of COVID‐19 illness and death among racial and ethnic minority groups in the U.S., American Hispanic/Latine youth have faced additional challenges such as racism, family health concerns, and economic difficulties (Velez et al., 2022). Though young people have experienced diverse and pervasive challenges during the pandemic, little is known about the specific lessons or insights they may have gleaned from these experiences (but see Velez & Herteen, ²⁰²³).

2. MEANING MAKING DURING THE PANDEMIC

Though much important research on adolescents in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic has focused on documenting the negative consequences of the pandemic, some recent work suggests that the pandemic has also provided a unique opportunity to practice psychosocial resilience and for growth (Park et al., 2021). For example, a large‐scale study of Norwegian adolescents' reactions to COVID‐19 under a framework of posttraumatic growth (PTG; i.e., positive psychological change following a person's experience of severe life challenges) found that about 10% of these adolescents experienced an increase in moderate‐to‐high PTG between April and May of 2020 (Ulset & von Soest, 2022).

Adolescents' responses to negative life events and their social‐emotional adjustment may differ across cultural contexts (Waschbusch et al., 2003). Culture is critical to consider when examining meaning making because experiences are culturally embedded and individuals' narrative construction includes culturally‐endorsed themes (Neimeyer & Levitt, 2001). Indeed, differences in autobiographical narratives have been found between cultures that are more individualistic and cultures that are more collectivistic (Wang & Brockmeier, 2002). Further, adolescents from Latine and Asian American backgrounds tend to report greater presence of meaning in life compared to European American adolescents (Kiang & Fuligni, 2010), showcasing cultural differences in individuals' inclination to engage in the meaning making process. When considering cultural differences in the impact of the pandemic on youth, Hispanic/Latine youth reported that an important source of meaning for them was collectivism and familism within their community (Cortés‐García et al., 2022). For example, youth reported that a silver lining of the challenges they faced during COVID‐19 was increased time to form stronger bonds with their family.

Meaning making of salient pandemic experiences may be one indicator of psychological growth and may shed light on the idiosyncratic ways in which the pandemic has left a lasting mark on youth. Among university students, meaning making during the pandemic predicted successful coping over time (Yang et al., 2021) and personal development (Todorova et al., 2021). Meaning making also plays a vital role in identity development by allowing individuals to transcend episodic details of their experiences and garner insight that they may integrate into their life stories (McAdams & McLean, 2013); thus, meaning making may not be merely a product of, but also a catalyst for, development (Fivush et al., 2007). These findings, coupled with empirical evidence suggesting increases in the effortful integration of meaningful life events into youths' life stories during adolescence (e.g., Grysman & Hudson, ²⁰¹⁰), underscore the potential relevance of meaning making for understanding the impact of the pandemic on youth.

3. PRECURSORS OF MEANING MAKING: INTERNAL STATE LANGUAGE

The language with which adolescents discuss emotionally salient events may shed light on the cognitive and emotional precursors that later lead to finding meaning (Pennebaker et al., 2003). We were interested in adolescents' use of internal state language (ISL; Fivush & Baker‐Ward, ²⁰⁰⁵), such as emotion words (e.g., love, hate, nice, bad) and cognition words (e.g., cause, know, ought, understand), because they highlight a narrator's attempt to integrate the objective (i.e., what happened) with the subjective (i.e., their thoughts, emotional reactions, and the lessons they have learned) details of their experience (Fivush, Berlin, et al., 2003; Monzani et al., ²⁰²¹). As theorized within the assimilation model in psychotherapeutic healing, experiences become linked in our memory through meaning bridges (i.e., connecting experiences with an understanding of the self and the world; Stiles, ²⁰¹¹). Language is the mechanism that provides the scaffolding for these meaning bridges to be formed in that it connects our elusive non‐verbal experiences with tangible, verbal symbols that can help us articulate, reflect upon, and discover significance (Bucci, 2021; Fivush & Baker‐Ward, ²⁰⁰⁵).

Negative emotion and cognition words are particularly important for supporting the meaning‐making process for distressing experiences (Boals et al., 2011; Bohanek et al., ²⁰⁰⁵). References to negative emotions in narratives signal that these emotions are being actively metabolized, which, according to narrative processes theory (Angus et al., 1999), helps the narrator develop a deeper awareness of their experience. The reflexive process of deriving meaning from the narrative can help an individual integrate the event into their broader life story, identify ways to cope with the event (Neimeyer, 2004), and, over time, can support their wellbeing (Frattaroli, 2006; but see Sales et al., ²⁰¹³ for demographic and contextual considerations). Positive emotion terms, despite also being a form of ISL, may function differently such that references to positive emotion while narrating an adverse event may signal that meaning has already been made and that the event has been resolved (McAdams et al., 2001).

4. OUTCOMES OF MEANING MAKING: THEMES

Previous research on meaning making has focused on identifying the depth of meaning that youth derive (e.g., McLean & Thorne, ²⁰⁰³). However, meaning making may take various forms, such that adolescents may glean different types of insight from similar events. For example, after catching COVID‐19 from attending a large gathering, one person might learn to refrain from attending such gatherings in the future in order not to get sick, while another might gain a newfound understanding of how their actions might put others at risk. While the first insight is important for adolescents' self‐oriented protective behavior during health crises, the second insight shows that adolescents may have honed broader socio‐cognitive skills that orient them to their social responsibility (Malti et al., 2021; Peplak et al., ²⁰²³). Recent qualitative work by Velez and Herteen (2023) showed that a sample of eighteen Canadian and US mid‐adolescents (majority White) faced a variety of challenges across family, peer, and school contexts, and derived meaning from their experiences within the domains of personal growth, skill development, social identity changes, and shifts in family relationships. We extend this research within a larger sample of diverse US youth by examining the meanings adolescents made of their most emotional pandemic experience.

5. PRESENT STUDY AND HYPOTHESES

The present study had three primary goals. First, within adolescents' narratives of their salient experiences, we assessed the types of emotional events adolescents reported (i.e., what happened within that event), the emotional valence of these events (positive or negative), and whether the events were directly related to the COVID‐19 pandemic or not. We hypothesized that many adolescents would mention experiences related to illness from the virus, academic challenges, and relationship changes (Rogers et al., 2021; Velez et al., ²⁰²²), and that most of their reported salient experiences would be negative and in direct relation to the pandemic (Waselewski et al., 2020). Our second aim was to examine whether adolescents spontaneously made meaning of their emotional experiences about the pandemic within their narratives and whether the frequency of adolescents who made meaning would change over time. Based on PTG research during the pandemic (Ulset & von Soest, 2022) and the fact that adolescents' capacity for meaning making is still increasing from late childhood through adolescence (Habermas & Paha, 2001), we anticipated that some, but not all, adolescents would spontaneously make meaning of their emotional pandemic experiences. We also expected meaning making frequency to increase from the first to second interview (over about 4 weeks). Our third aim was to examine whether ISL would predict increases in meaning making, such that a higher percentage of ISL (particularly negative emotion words and cognition words) at time 1(T1) would predict increased likelihood of making meaning at time 2 (T2) (Boals et al., 2011; Holmes et al., ²⁰⁰⁷). Finally, we qualitatively explored the themes that emerged from adolescents' meaning making to understand what adolescents learned from their experiences. We examined differences in meaning making, ISL, and in meanings made across race/ethnicity and poverty status given the importance of these variables in adolescents experiences and their narrations of their experiences.

6. METHOD

6.1. Participants

Participants included 124 mid‐adolescents (M _age = 15.76 years; SD_age = 0.57 years; range: 14.28–16.84; 49% female assigned at birth) from Southern California. Families were originally recruited as part of an ongoing longitudinal study of child development for which they have been followed since preschool age. In the summer of 2020, continuing families (N = 235) received an invitation to complete two phone interviews regarding the COVID‐19 pandemic. Invitations were issued via phone calls, texts, and emails. Our initial sample size selection of 180 (based on related research, e.g., McLean, ²⁰⁰⁵) was not achieved due to difficulties with recruitment during the pandemic. Our final sample of 124 was smaller than what is typically recommended for a two time‐point cross‐lagged panel model (CLPM) (Hamaker et al., 2015); however, when models are simple and measures are reliable and valid, smaller sample sizes may be sufficient (Iacobucci, 2010). Adolescents were diverse regarding race/ethnicity (46% Latine, 20% Black, 10% White, 1% Asian, and 23% multiethnic/multiracial) and families varied in economic background (20% resided below 130% of the poverty line and qualified for government assistance, such as food stamps).

6.2. Procedure

This study was approved by the research ethics board of the institution where the research was conducted [protocol #: HS‐07‐058] and informed consent and assent were obtained before study commencement. Adolescents engaged in phone interviews with trained research personnel at two time points: T1 (between July 2020 and February 2021) and T2 (three to 5 weeks after T1 [M = 30.87 days, SD = 25.15 days, range = 21–205 days]). At T1, participants responded to the prompt: “I'd like you to pick a specific, one‐time event that you've experienced since you became aware of the pandemic. The event you pick should be the most impactful or emotional event you've experienced since the pandemic began. Please take your time picking which event to talk about and let me know when you've picked one.” They were then prompted about when the event happened, to share everything they could remember about the selected event, and what they were thinking and feeling during the experience. At T2, adolescents (N = 106, 15% did not complete T2, see missing data section below) were asked to recount their previously reported experience, report when the event occurred and what they were thinking and feeling during the experience. Our reasoning for including a second time point in our inquiry into salient pandemic experiences was twofold. First, this study design enabled us to assess whether meaning making shifted with increasing chronological distance from the discussed event (Fivush et al., 2017), along with the various linguistic factors that may contribute to these changes. Second, we were interested in testing theorized associations between adolescents' ISL when initially narrating the event and increases in the likelihood of making meaning at the second time point. Phone interviews from both T1 and T2 were audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim for coding and analyses.

7. MEASURES

7.1. Experience type, valence, and relation to pandemic

Adolescents' narratives were coded for (1) type of event (see Tables 1 and 2) valence (i.e., whether the event was a positive experience or a negative experience), and (3) pandemic association (i.e., whether the event was in direct relation to the pandemic or not). A coding scheme for types of events was initially generated based on related qualitative research on children's and adolescents' experiences during the pandemic (e.g., Fioretti et al., ²⁰²⁰; Tambling et al., ²⁰²¹) and later adapted to fit the data. A random sample of the transcripts (25%; n = 31) was coded by the second author and an independent coder to establish inter‐rater reliability (Cohen's κ for type of event = 0.84; κ for pandemic association = 1.00; κ for valence = 1.00) before the remaining transcripts were coded by the second author.

Table 1.

Coding Categories for Types of Events Mentioned Within Adolescents’ Narratives.

Category	Definition	Prototypical Examples
Death and illness	Experiences characterized by death, one's own or others’ illnesses, or concern about contracting the COVID‐19 virus.	“One of my dad's friends passed away of COVID.” “My grandma ended up getting COVID and so did my tia or my aunt.”
School‐related events	Experiences primarily related to schooling and academics.	“[…] the schools were closing, my school got shut down.” “[…] I was having a hard time with my advanced placement world history class […].”
Missed opportunities	Experiences related to the cancellation of a one‐time event or the inability to participate in a regularly‐scheduled activity.	“That we had to cancel our vacation because of the coronavirus.” “So my dance studio, they closed down and I danced there like everyday from morning to night […].”
Change in relationships	Experiences primarily defined by a change in a personal relationship (family relationships, romantic relationships, and friendships).	“I went through a breakup over this because I couldn't see my girlfriend […].” “I couldn't see my friends because of the pandemic.”
Economic hardship	Experiences primarily related to economic struggles.	“When I started working, a couple months later, they told me that they were going to lay off a couple of workers […] and my mom wasn't making that much money at the time either.” “We were living in hotels for like 4 months.”
Other	Any experience that does not fit into one of the other categories.	“[…] when there were riots because George Floyd died […].” “[…] we went to the animal shelter and adopted our dog.”

Table 2.

Percentage (Frequency) of Types of Pandemic Events Mentioned Within Narratives About Emotionally Salient Pandemic Experiences.

	Total % (frequency) n = 101	No meaning % (frequency) n = 71	Meaning % (frequency) n = 30	Example of meaning making by event type
Types of events
Death and illness	29.7% (30)	23.9% (17)	43.3% (13)	“[…] when that happened, like, I kinda got a feeling of, like, you know this is serious and this is something I actually kinda need to be worried about. And, it was a little shocking.” (Recognizing the Threat of COVID‐19)
School‐related events	26.7% (27)	28.2% (20)	23.3% (7)	“I think that was the point though that I really realized that school weeks ago was so much easier and I really kind of took that for granted, like the help from the teachers actually being at school.” (Moving Forward with a New Perspective)
Missed opportunities	28.7% (29)	32.4% (23)	20.0% (6)	“[My friends and I] don't know how long it's gonna be before we hang out again and just live our normal lives. It just kinda makes you think, like, we should, like, enjoy the moments we had before the lockdown.” (Coping with a Pandemic)
Change in relationships	4.0% (4)	2.8% (2)	6.7% (2)	“I was a little sad, but like I got myself not to be sad anymore, to try to focus on my family, to try to take care of them—especially my niece.” (Coping with a Pandemic)
Economic hardships	4.0% (4)	5.6% (4)	0.0% (0)	‐‐
Other	6.9% (7)	7.0% (5)	6.7% (2)	“Uh and even though it wasn't very good at first, and my reaction wasn't very positive at first, it turned out to be a really good experience that I really enjoyed because again I learned a lot new things and things about how the world works and things that I didn't know prior that changed my view on like the world and everything.” (Moving Forward with a New Perspective)

Note: Meaning making at both time points was considered.

7.2. Internal state language

Narrative transcripts were analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Pennebaker et al., ²⁰¹⁵) to quantitatively assess adolescents' use of two forms of ISL: (1) emotion words (both positive and negative words) and (2) cognition words. We also measured overall word count (i.e., the number of words spoken in the narrative) to compare the length of adolescents' narratives across timepoints. Key variables are computed as percentages of terms from a given category out of the total words used in the text and LIWC compares the written words against extensive dictionaries of conceptually related terms. LIWC has been used to assess youths' psychological processing of stressful and emotional events (Pennebaker & Francis, 1996; Peplak & Klemfuss, ²⁰²²), and has demonstrated the social and psychological implications of word use across multiple studies (Cohn et al., 2004; Pennebaker et al., ²⁰⁰³).

7.3. Meaning making

All observed instances of meaning making were reported spontaneously by adolescents in response to instructions to share everything they could remember about their most emotionally‐impactful experience since the beginning of the pandemic. Interview transcripts from both time points were coded using McLean and Thorne's (2001) coding scheme (wherein narratives were assigned a code 0 [no meaning], 1 [lesson learned], or 2 [insight gained]). If transcripts included both lessons and insight gained, a score of 2 was assigned to capture the higher‐order nature of meaning made (McLean & Thorne, 2001). The second author and a research assistant independently coded a random sample (25%, n = 31) of transcripts until appropriate inter‐rater reliability was achieved (Cohen's κ = 0.76), after which all remaining transcripts were coded by the second author. Due to our interest in overall meaning making, we collapsed across lessons and insights so that narratives were dichotomously coded (i.e., 0 = not containing meaning, 1 = containing meaning [lessons and/or insight]).

7.4. Themes in meaning making

Finally, for participants who expressed meaning within their narratives, we explored their “meanings made”. Due to the exploratory nature of this research aim, we employed an essentialist/realist perspective, and our approach was inductive and semantic (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Data were coded using reflexive thematic analysis. First, the second author engaged in data familiarization, then generated prototype themes from patterns in the data. The second author met with the first author following data familiarization and prototype theme generation. The two authors discussed the themes (i.e., patterns in the data) at length. This step was important for enhancing reflexivity, rather than reaching consensus (Braun et al., 2022). Their individual insights were strengthened and fine‐tuned as they collaboratively discussed their interpretations of the data and the themes. The second author then revisited the data, generated codes, tested the codes against the data and rebuilt them as needed. Next, the second author collated “moments” that were identified in the data into larger thematic clusters. Final themes were then defined, and the first and second author wrote a synthesis of the themes.

8. MISSING DATA

Of the 124 adolescents who participated, 18 (14.5%) did not complete the T2 interview; thus, 18 participants were missing data for meaning making and ISL at T2. Because Little's missing completely at random test was significant, χ² (12) = 21.45, p = .044, our cross‐lagged panel model (CLPM) was handled using full information maximum likelihood under the assumption of missing at random. When examining patterns in missingness by demographic variables, we found that meaning making at T2 and ISL were more likely to be missing in Latine participants, ps < .05, and thus we also controlled for race/ethnicity in our CLPM analysis.

9. DATA ANALYTIC PLAN

To address our first research aim, we conducted descriptive analyses to explore reported salient experiences (i.e., event type and valence [positive or negative event]). Then, we assessed frequency of meaning making at T1 and T2, and conducted a McNemar's test to assess change in meaning making over time. Next, we conducted a two timepoint CLPM to test our hypothesis that T1 ISL would predict increases in the likelihood of meaning making over time, and to explore the possibility of a reciprocal effect of meaning making on ISL. Although we recognize the limitations of CLPMs (e.g., Hamaker et al., ²⁰¹⁵), our correlational data were a good fit for this analysis. Nevertheless, we exercise caution in our interpretations. Finally, we employed a qualitative analysis to explore the themes underlying adolescents' meaning making within their narratives. We tested for differences in race/ethnicity and poverty status across our research questions. All scripts and output are available on OSF at: https://osf.io/ueaq4/?view_only=201ba935d2184b2aab391b040ba19dad.

10. RESULTS

10.1. Adolescents' emotionally salient pandemic events

Descriptive analyses revealed patterns in the relative timeframe, valence, pandemic relation, and types of events that adolescents identified as emotionally salient at T1. Many of the nominated salient experiences occurred when the pandemic began (i.e., in March 2020; see Figure 1), though the length of time since the salient experience varied: 5% reported the event occurred a few days to a week in the past, 11% reported the event occurred two to 3 weeks in the past, 11% reported the event occurred about a month in the past, 33% reported the event occurred two to 3 months in the past, and 42% reported the event occurred four or more months in the past. Most adolescents selected a negative emotional event as their most impactful (n = 116; 93.5%) and events were often directly related to the pandemic (n = 101; 81.5%). The most frequently reported event types were death or illness resulting from the COVID‐19 virus, missed opportunities (i.e., missing out on events or experiences) and school‐related events. See Table 2 for percentage (frequency) and examples of meanings made across the types of events that were in direct relation to the pandemic. Five pandemic‐related events were positive: one was a school‐related event (e.g., “when I was in school and we had to leave and then I had to like change schools and just get used to staying at home. […] I was actually happy because I thought I'd have some time to, like, not have school at all.”) and four were coded as ‘other’. Among events that were not in direct relation to the pandemic (N = 23), 22% were about death and illness (n = 5), 44% were about changes in relationships (n = 10), and 35% were regarding other types of events (n = 8). Percentage of positive emotion, negative emotion, and cognition words were comparable to prior research (e.g., Sales et al., ²⁰¹³). Bi‐variate correlations among our main study variables are displayed in Table 3.

Figure 1.

Timing of Salient Experiences Across Time Points in Relation to Interview Dates and Reported COVID‐19 Cases. Rates of COVID‐19 case reports were retrieved from Weekly United States COVID‐19 Cases and Deaths by State ‐ ARCHIVED (n.d.), https://data.cdc.gov/Case-Surveillance/Weekly-United-States-COVID-19-Cases-and-Deaths-by-/pwn4-m3yp/about_data. The first COVID‐related school closure occurred on February 27, 2020, and all but one US public school district was closed by March 30, 2020 (Zviedrite et al., 2021).

Table 3.

Bivariate Correlations Among Study Variables.

Variables	1		2		3		4		5		6		7		8		9		10		11
1. Meaning making (T1)	‐
2. Meaning making (T2)	.62,a, ***	‐
3. Positive emotion words (T1)	.02b	−0.06b		‐
4. Positive emotion words (T2)	.02b	−0.12b		.39***		‐
5. Negative emotion words (T1)	.06b	.10b		−0.19		−0.28**		‐
6. Negative emotion words (T2)	.13b	.16b		−0.19		−0.14		.35***		‐
7. Cognitive processing words (T1)	.01b	.05b		.06		.17		.06		−0.07		‐
8. Cognitive processing words (T2)	.18b	.11b		.11		.19		−0.01		.04		.32**		‐
9. Word count (T1)	.27,b, **	.20b		−0.03		.01		−0.04		−0.09		−0.04		.14		‐
10. Word count (T2)	.18b	.33,b, **		.09		.14		−0.10		−0.16		−0.04		.00		.14		‐
11. Days between interviews	−0.09b	−0.07b		.07		.15		−0.03		−0.17		.12		.03		.01		−0.05		‐
Mean	25%	23%		1.86%		1.83%		2.27%		2.31%		13.80%		14.22%		338.55		204.80		30.86
Standard Deviation	43%	43%		1.24%		1.51%		1.21%		1.78%		3.27%		3.59%		396.71		121.27		25.15
Observed Range (LL)	0	0		0.00%		0.00%		0.00%		0.00%		7.25%		4.76%		70		17		21
Observed Range (UL)	1	1		6.32%		6.75%		5.19%		10.40%		23.64%		24.81%		3814		732		205

Note: Only events that were in direct relation to the pandemic were considered (n = 101). T1 = time 1; T2 = time 2; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

^* p < .05;

^** p < .01;

^*** p < .001.

^a Phi correlation.

^b Point‐biserial correlation.

10.2. Adolescents' meaning making and change in meaning making over time

Of the 101 adolescents who spoke about experiences related to the COVID‐19 pandemic (81.5% of the total sample), 30 adolescents (29.7%; 24.2% of total sample) did so at either time point or both, 10 adolescents (9.9%; 8.1% of total sample) made meaning only at T1, 5 adolescents (5.0%; 4.0% of total sample) did so only at T2. A McNemar's test did not show a significant change in the likelihood of meaning making across time points, p = .77. Girls were marginally more likely to make meaning than boys, χ² (1) = 3.27, p = .07. No differences in meaning making were found across race/ethnicity (Latine adolescents compared to adolescents with other racial/ethnic backgrounds), nor poverty status.

10.3. Internal state language across narratives with and without meaning

We compared the average percentage of cognition and emotion (positive and negative emotion) words (i.e., the percentage of narratives' total word count accounted for by cognitive and emotion words) that adolescents used within narratives that contained meaning‐making and narratives that did not. Within each time point, we did not find any differences in ISL across narratives with meaning making and those without. When examining the average percentage of emotion and cognition words used by those who made meaning at either time point (or both) and those who did not, we found that adolescents who made meaning were marginally more likely to use negative emotion words than those who did not, t(99) = 1.78, p = .079 (M _meaning = 2.60, SD = 1.06; M _{no meaning} = 2.13, SD = 1.24). No differences were found by race/ethnicity nor by poverty.

10.4. Cross‐Lagged associations between ISL and meaning making

Next, we employed a two‐timepoint CLPM with all observed T1 and T2 ISL and meaning making variables to assess the anticipated effect of ISL on meaning making over time and to explore possible reciprocal effect of meaning making on ISL over time. As displayed in Figure 2, all auto‐regressive paths were significant, showing relative stability in ISL and meaning‐making over time. Among cross‐lagged paths, only negative emotion words positively predicted change in meaning making over time, which, in part, supported our hypotheses. There were no significant effects of positive emotion words nor cognition words on change in meaning making over time. Interestingly, we also found that meaning making at T1 predicted cognition words at T2 and that negative emotion words at T1 negatively predicted positive emotion words at T2.

Figure 2.

Cross Lagged Panel Model Predicting T2 ISL and Meaning Making from T1 ISL and Meaning Making. Meaning making is a binary variable (0 = no meaning made, 1 = meaning made). Positive emotion, negative emotion, and cognition terms are indicators of ISL. We controlled for the effects of race/ethnicity and the number of days between interviews on all T2 variables in the model (not depicted for simplicity). Values in brackets refer to 95% confidence intervals for beta. Model fit is not reported because the model is saturated. Model included n = 90 participants. Only significant paths are depicted.

10.5. Themes in adolescents' meaning making

In the following sections, we qualitatively analyze the meaning adolescents derived from their pandemic experiences (i.e., their “meanings made”) across three identified themes: (1) recognizing the threat of COVID‐19, (2) coping with a pandemic, and (3) moving forward with a new perspective. Our analysis supports recent work by Velez and Herteen (2023) who found that challenges during the pandemic fostered adolescents' personal growth, skill development, and social identities, as well as strengthened family connections. Thirty adolescents made meaning of their pandemic experiences (at T1, T2, or both). Of the 15 adolescents who made meaning at both time points, four of them shifted in their meaning making theme across time, resulting in 34 instances of meaning making. Narratives were only coded for one theme of meaning making as the adolescents in our sample only reported one primary theme per narrative. We examined differences in the types of themes that were mentioned by sex assigned at birth, race/ethnicity, and poverty status and did not find any patterns.

10.5.1. Recognizing the threat of COVID‐19

The most frequent theme within adolescents' meaning making was in direct relation to the virus itself, whereby youth identified their experience as the point at which their opinion about the severity of the COVID‐19 virus changed. The recognizing the threat of COVID‐19 theme was mentioned within the narratives of 17 adolescents. These participants described coming to terms with the risks posed by the virus as “shocking”, with their pandemic‐related experiences acting as “eye‐openers” or “reality checks.” Reflecting upon the experience of witnessing their mother bring personal protective equipment into the home for the first time, one teen said: “And that's when I realized [COVID‐19] was pretty bad, and it was a scary thing.” Another adolescent explained their response to their mother's hospitalization with COVID‐19 with: “…when that happened, like I kinda got a feeling of, like, you know, this is serious and something I actually kinda need to be worried about.” Personal, pandemic‐related experiences drove these adolescents to grapple with the fact that the virus posed a real threat to them, their families, and their communities. They recognized the COVID‐19 virus as being more medically serious (e.g., “I didn't believe the stories about it were as impactful as they were appearing [until] I got to see how it affected the body”) and closer to home (e.g., “[pandemic‐related experience] made me realize that anybody could really catch it. Like, it's not just something that you read on the news. Like, your family or people close to you could get it”) than previously thought.

A subset of adolescents whose responses were classified under this theme (11 adolescents; 36.6% of those who made meaning of their pandemic experience at one or both timepoints) took their realization of pandemic severity one step further by directly acknowledging their own responsibility to engage in health protective behaviors as a means of preventing disease and mitigating the spread of the virus. Participants endorsed mask‐wearing (e.g., “We have to be safe and wear our masks so stuff like that doesn't happen to us”), describing it as a “simple thing” they could do to protect themselves and their families. However, adolescents' accounts suggest that social health protective behaviors required a deeper commitment. One teen characterized these social adjustments as a higher level of protection, warranted only by the pandemic's increasing severity (i.e., “[the pandemic] is getting worse, so much worse that we cannot hang—we cannot see each other”) and others reported becoming more “conscious” of their social behavior (e.g., “[my friends and I] kinda realized that we had to be more careful going out”). In response to a social gathering resulting in a COVID‐scare, one adolescent described engaging in a risk calculation (i.e., “[…] that really made me be aware of what I do and conscious as far as thinking about what things I want to do. And is it really worth the risk?”), while another reported making the decision to cancel their birthday party after their friend's father was diagnosed with COVID‐19. Though the level of commitment to health protective behaviors likely differed across teens in this subcategory, each of them expressed learning to modify their own behavior following their COVID‐related experience for their own and others' protection from the virus.

10.5.2. Coping with a pandemic

The second theme, coping with a pandemic, appeared in the narratives of eight adolescents and captured how youth learned to cope with the COVID‐19 pandemic. Some participants made meaning through the identification of specific cognitive coping strategies, including one adolescent who reported having their “spirits lifted” once they focused on the pandemic's temporary nature, comforted by the fact that “it wasn't going to last forever”. Others described recognizing their lack of control over the pandemic situation (e.g., “You can't really do anything about it so there's no point in complaining”) and the ways in which doing so led them to accept the pandemic as something that “was just meant to be.” Several adolescents recounted coping by looking for a “silver lining”, highlighting the things they learned, money saved, and newfound time for hobbies. Finally, participants coped by leaning into their personal relationships (e.g., “[I] try and focus on my family to try to take care of them”) or interests (e.g., “[writing] helped a lot with the craziness because then I could just kinda focus on that.”).

10.5.3. Moving forward with a new perspective

The third and final theme we identified within adolescent narratives about pandemic‐related experiences was moving forward with a new perspective, which was present in nine narratives (similar to the theme of growth and maturation in Velez & Herteen, ²⁰²³). Moving forward with a new perspective encompassed adolescents' newfound perspectives about themselves and others that were derived from, yet appear to extend beyond, COVID‐19 experiences. All of these adolescents described undergoing a change in their viewpoint, vocalizing how what they previously thought differed from what they thought at the time of the interview. Some participants identified and reflected upon past mistakes in their personal relationships (e.g., “[…] I could've reacted to [my relatives' becoming ill with COVID‐19] in a better way than I originally did”) and approach to remote schoolwork (e.g., “I should've taken [online school] more seriously, ‘cause I know I could do better, and I know what I'm capable of doing”). Youth also described gleaning insight into the diversity of pandemic responses (e.g., “I guess that people are reacting to COVID differently, just scared of the unknown”) as well as the motivations for others‘ actions (e.g., “I was upset that I couldn't do the trip […] but eventually I knew that [canceling a group trip] was to keep us all safe”).

11. DISCUSSION

This study investigated adolescents' meaning making of emotionally salient COVID‐19 pandemic experiences. Results shed light on the types of events adolescents found emotionally impactful during the pandemic, the linguistic markers that contributed to meaning making over time, as well as the kinds of insights that adolescents generated from their experiences. Although this study is focused on the COVID‐19 pandemic, findings may offer valuable insight into how mid‐adolescents grapple with crises more broadly.

Most of the adolescents in our sample reported that their most salient emotional experience since the pandemic began occurred at the beginning of the pandemic. During this time, most schools in the US were closed for COVID‐19‐related reasons, and the sudden and stark social changes and routine shifts of the pandemic likely emotionally impacted American youth (Waselewski et al., 2020). Most of the events that adolescents reported were negative in nature and were directly tied to the pandemic. Many adolescents reported quite severe hardships, such as the death or illness of a family member or friend. School‐related events (e.g., transition to online learning) and missed opportunities (e.g., cancellation of extracurricular activities), events which likely had consequences for adolescents' academic achievement and peer socialization (Scott et al., 2021; Velez et al., ²⁰²²), were also commonly reported in youths' narratives.

Thirty percent of adolescents spontaneously made meaning of their nominated salient emotional experience at either time point or both, which may suggest that negative pandemic‐related events can lead to psychological growth (Ulset & von Soest, 2022). It is unclear whether this rate of meaning making is typical because little is known about adolescent meaning making during the pandemic and previous research has typically directly asked adolescents to report meaning of a specific event (McLean, 2005; Meyerson et al., ²⁰¹¹). PTG research during the pandemic has indicated that about 10% of adolescents experienced moderate‐to‐high rates of PTG (in comparison to 30–70% of adolescents who experience PTG following a traumatic or life‐changing experience unrelated to the pandemic; Ulset & von Soest, ²⁰²²). Developmental research has shown increases in meaning making between ages 8 and 16 years; thus our sample of mid‐adolescents may still be constructing their meaning making capacities (e.g., Habermas & Paha, ²⁰⁰¹; Köber et al., ²⁰¹⁵). Nevertheless, only a minority of youth expressed meaning making, which may have been due to the persistent nature and evolving threat of COVID‐19. The chronic nature of this stressor may have made it challenging for adolescents to resolve their negative experience and move forward. For instance, challenges that resulted from government‐enforced efforts to limit the spread of the virus, such as difficulties with online schooling, persisted as the pandemic continued.

Contrary to what we expected, we did not find significant change in frequency of meaning making across the two time points (Fivush et al., 2017). Typically, growth and meaning are assessed several months or years following a stressful event (Meyerson et al., 2011); thus, it is possible that adolescents may have required more time to process and make sense of their experiences. A high proportion of adolescents drew conclusions that were personally relevant from events that involved relationship changes and death/illness (compared to school‐related events or missed opportunities), perhaps because these events may have brought about stark changes to adolescents' social worlds (Blakemore, 2008).

When assessing the theorized role of ISL as a precursor of adolescents' meaning making, we found partial support for our hypothesis. Specifically, we found a positive association between negative emotion words at T1 and increases in the likelihood of making meaning at T2. This finding suggests that expressing more negative emotions while narrating impactful experiences may have motivated adolescents to generate a resolution about the personal relevance of the event when discussing it again, perhaps as a means of alleviating negative feelings brought on by the experience. Although not directly tested in this study, use of ISL such as negative emotion words within narratives may prompt richer meaning making over time and lead to improvements in mental health through the process of narrative coping (Pennebaker & Francis, 1996). That is, in addition to integrating experiences into existing meaning structures and building meaning bridges (Bucci, 2021; Stiles, ²⁰¹¹), the expression of one's internal states may help individuals understand their experience, integrate it into their self‐concept, and regain a sense of control (Neimeyer et al., 2006).

Contrary to our hypothesis, cognition words did not predict meaning making over time. This is surprising given that cognition words signal an individuals' progress toward a deeper understanding of an event (e.g., Neimeyer, ²⁰⁰⁴). However, Boals and colleagues (2011) have argued that cognitive terms may reflect in‐the‐moment processing of an event rather than longer‐term efforts to make meaning. Indeed, the percentages of cognitive terms are higher in narratives of stressful events (opposed to less stressful events) within conversations that occur immediately after the event—at least in younger children and adolescents (Klemfuss et al., 2013). In this study, two or more months had passed since adolescents' salient experience on average, and we did not assess residual stress pertaining to the event. Future research may wish to take a more nuanced time‐sensitive approach to understanding the linguistic processes that contribute to meaning making.

We also found that T1 meaning making predicted increases in cognitive words at T2. Although this association was not hypothesized, it may reflect adolescents' efforts to continue to make sense of the single event within the broader landscape of their life story (Habermas & Reese, 2015). Indeed, life stories emerge in adolescence as young people bridge their singular autobiographical memories (i.e., micro‐narratives) with their identity (i.e., macro‐narrative; Habermas & Reese, ²⁰¹⁵). This finding may support the fact that meaning making is an ongoing process, such that even meaning that is made of an event may shift in quality and significance as adolescents continue to grapple with the event, what it means to them, and how it connects with other experiences that may be incongruent. Conversely, high levels of cognition words after meaning is made may also indicate rumination—a risk factor for depression and anxiety (Michl et al., 2013; Sales et al., ²⁰¹³). Future longitudinal research should further investigate the complex relations between ISL and meaning making over longer periods of time, and examine their associations with coping and wellbeing.

Finally, regarding meanings made, three main themes were identified: recognizing the threat of the pandemic (most frequent), coping with the pandemic, and moving forward with a new perspective. Themes of meaning were important to explore as different types of insight have the potential to uniquely shape adolescents' “future selves” (McAdams, 1995; Waters et al., ²⁰¹³). The first theme, recognizing the threat of the pandemic, involved reinterpretation of the virus and its impacts on humans. The ability to recognize the threat of the pandemic to oneself and others was crucial for preventing the spread of COVID‐19, particularly in the first year (Peplak et al., 2021). However, this type of meaning may have come at the cost to mental wellbeing for adolescents given that it required a greater loss of freedom and routine, heightened vigilance, and increased feelings of concern for self and others (Samji et al., 2022). Nevertheless, adolescents who grew to understand the severity of the COVID‐19 pandemic may be better equipped to battle large‐scale health crises in the future.

The second theme, coping with the pandemic, was focused on attending to their own mental health by finding ways to deal with their experience and future related events. According to narrative processes theory (Angus et al., 1999), deriving meaning from an event can assist youth in identifying coping styles and plan new coping efforts (Neimeyer, 2004). As seen within this theme, adolescents were motivated to find ways to overcome their negative emotional experience via identifying cognitive, relational, or behavioral coping efforts. Notably, however, some of the adolescents mentioned coping by way of relinquishing control (e.g., “You can't really do anything about it […]”), which may be helpful in the short term, but in the context of locus of control theory and learned helplessness theory, it may be associated with negative outcomes over time such as internalizing symptoms (e.g., Waschbusch et al., ²⁰⁰³). Future research may wish to test associations between this type of meaning made and psychological outcomes.

The third theme, moving forward with a new perspective suggests resolution, and overlaps with the concept of post traumatic growth—both of which are associated with positive mental health outcomes in youth (Harmon & Venta, 2021; Tavernier & Willoughby, ²⁰¹²). Adolescents reported newfound perspectives about themselves and others that may extend beyond the COVID‐19 pandemic, such as being more sensitive to others' hardships (which has implications for their moral behavior; Malti et al., ²⁰²¹) and understanding one's own strengths and challenges better (which may shape identity; Branje et al., ²⁰²¹).

Finally, contrary to findings from prior research on cross‐cultural variation in meaning‐making (e.g., Neimeyer & Levitt, ²⁰⁰¹; Wang & Brockmeier, ²⁰⁰²), as well as evidence that the COVID‐19 pandemic has particularly negatively affected racial/ethnic minority groups in the US (Velez et al., 2022), we did not observe any racial/ethnic differences in the meanings made by the adolescents in our sample. This may be due to the heterogeneity of our comparison sample such that Latine youth were compared to youth of Black, White, and mixed racial/ethnic backgrounds. Additional research is needed to better understand cultural patterns in pandemic experiences amongst youth.

11.1. Implications for adolescent development beyond the pandemic

Our findings may have important implications for adolescent psychological growth beyond the pandemic. First, adolescents were unlikely to make meaning of school‐related events and missed opportunities (e.g., cancellation of a trip), even though emotional events in these domains were frequently reported. On the one hand, perhaps adolescents need conversational support to better understand their challenges in these areas. Related to schooling, teachers and school officials may wish to help adolescents with difficulties in navigating school‐related changes and to help them make sense of these experiences in the context of their own academic identity (Negru‐Subtirica & Pop, 2018). On the other hand, it is possible that adolescents did not need to make meaning of these types of events, perhaps due to low severity of the event or the event's unique, unprecedented nature.

Regarding ISL, some evidence suggests that emotionally expressive narratives of stressful events promote physical and psychological health (Bohanek & Fivush, 2010; Greenhoot & McLean, ²⁰¹³; Pennebaker et al., ²⁰⁰³). This is because it may be beneficial for mid‐adolescents to not only disclose and discuss impactful events in their lives, but to do so in ways that allow them to freely express their emotions. Indeed, for Hispanic/Latine adolescents, direct conversations with their caregivers was an important source of support for them during the pandemic (Cortés‐García et al., 2022), suggesting that it may be beneficial for parents to discuss emotional events with adolescents to support their meaning making and their broader psychological wellbeing (Habermas et al., 2010). Caregivers should be mindful, however, that meaning making, as well as the type of meanings adolescents make, may not always be productive and may sometimes lead to adverse outcomes (see McLean & Mansfield, ²⁰¹¹). Thus, it is imperative for parents to provide appropriate emotional support for youth during and after they engage in the meaning making process and be mindful that discouraging or delaying meaning making efforts may sometimes protect youth who are already overwhelmed or experience a multitude of adverse experiences in their lives (Sales et al., 2013).

12. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

This study has limitations worth noting and future directions to consider. First, this study only examined youth in mid‐adolescence across two time points. Investigating experiences of adolescents from across the adolescent period and across a longer period of time would have provided more developmentally‐sensitive information regarding their experiences. Relatedly, we did not investigate how meaning making may have promoted adolescents' coping skills or their mental health—associations may further support the role of meaning making in psychological growth. Further, we did not explicitly ask adolescents to report on their meaning making; rather, we assessed spontaneous meaning making within their narratives of salient emotional events. Though we employed this approach intentionally to allow adolescents to report insight on their own accord (which may bolster ecological validity by not forcing meaning generation), some adolescents may not have shared insight because they were not explicitly asked to do so. Next, although the process by which individuals make meaning of life events is central to narrative identity construction, we did not test how adolescents' pandemic experiences influenced aspects of their developing identities (McLean & Pratt, 2006). Further, despite achieving inter‐coder reliability for our meaning making measure, one of the coders was not blind to study hypotheses nor to the time‐point that the data came from. One final limitation lies in our decision to collapse across two types of meaning making outcomes in this study: lessons learned and insight. Although both indicate growth, lessons are a developmentally less advanced form of meaning compared to insight (McLean & Thorne, 2003); thus, additional work is needed to understand the divergent causes and consequences of these forms of meaning from pandemic events.

13. CONCLUSION

The COVID‐19 pandemic was particularly impactful for adolescent development given that adolescence is marked by increasing independence from caregivers and building social connections outside the home. We showed evidence that adolescents endured a variety of negative pandemic experiences but that only a portion of them made meaning of their experiences. The ways in which they talked about their most salient experience revealed insights about the broader significance of these emotional experiences for their growth and development.

Peplak, J. , Taffe, R. , & Klemfuss, J. Z. (2025). Adolescents' Meaning Making of Salient Emotional Experiences During the COVID‐19 Pandemic. Journal of Adolescence, 97, 634–649. 10.1002/jad.12440

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are not available as participants did not consent to have their data shared.