Search

People's psychological response to the COVID-19 pandemic is significantly affected by their psychological inflexibility. One possible mechanism explaining the association between psychological inflexibility and psychological functioning concerns coping styles. While avoidance and approach coping styles were previously found to mediate this association, the mediating role of meaning-centered coping has not yet been explored. However, meaning-centered coping it is likely to be crucial in circumstances as uncertain as those at the onset of the COVID -19 pandemic. This study explored the mediating role of the three coping styles in the relationship of psychological inflexibility with ill-being and well-being. Slovenian adults (N = 1365) aged 18–81 years provided self-reports on the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale, the PERMA Profiler, the Brief COPE Inventory, and the Meaning-Centered Coping Scale. In the context of the highly stressful beginning of the pandemic, psychological inflexibility contributed to higher ill-being and lower well-being directly and through increased use of avoidance coping, decreased use of meaning-centered coping, and, to a lesser extent, decreased use of approach coping. Avoidance coping predicted higher levels of ill-being, suggesting a maladaptive effect of this coping strategy. Approach coping positively but weakly predicted well-being, indicating a diminished value of this coping style in low-controllable circumstances of the pandemic. Finally, meaning-centered coping appeared to be the most beneficial in such circumstances, as it was associated with both lower levels of ill-being and higher levels of well-being. This finding suggests that meaning-centered coping should be studied as a stand-alone strategy, rather than as a combination of specific approach coping strategies. Consistent with previous research, this study demonstrates the importance of psychological inflexibility in effectively adapting to and actively coping with aversive situations. Furthermore, the results suggest that seeking or making meaning is vital, at least in a context characterized by low levels of control and high levels of uncertainty. • Coping styles mediate the effect of psychological inflexibility on ill-/well-being. • Approach coping is less effective in low-controllable circumstances of the pandemic. • Meaning-centered coping is the most beneficial coping style in such circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic procrastination is generally understood as a problematic emotion regulation practice related to poor mental health. Previous studies have linked it to higher levels of psychological inflexibility, defined as the rigid dominance of certain psychological reactions over personal values in guiding actions. In order to discover the exact role of psychological flexibility in procrastination, a sample of 429 university students completed measures of academic procrastination, psychological inflexibility and general psychological distress, comprising depression, anxiety and stress. As predicted, higher levels of procrastination were related to elevated psychological distress. Both procrastination and psychological distress were associated with psychological inflexibility. Moreover, psychological inflexibility mediated the relationship between general psychological distress and procrastination. This mediator role was observed in the case of each negative emotional state (depression, anxiety and stress) that make up general psychological distress. These results indicate that negative emotional states and academic procrastination may be linked through the problematic self-regulation pattern of psychological inflexibility. The findings thus support the scope of interventions that target both psychological distress and academic procrastination by decreasing psychological inflexibility and promoting values-based actions. • Procrastination was assessed among undergraduate students (N = 429). • Psychological inflexibility mediated between distress and procrastination. • Psychological inflexibility as an underlying mechanism of procrastination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II) is a broadly used measure of psychological inflexibility, defined as the rigid dominance of psychological reactions over chosen values, in guiding action. This may represent a transdiagnostic process that has been linked to a wide range of mental problems and health issues. The present study aims to validate this instrument for Hungarian and then evaluate its psychometric properties and factor structure. The total sample consisted of 1065 Hungarian-speaking participants, divided into two groups (No treatment history: participants without previous psychiatric/psychological treatment; Treatment history: participants who underwent psychiatric/psychological treatment). The results of this study were similar to the ones obtained in the original version of the AAQ-II and in other language versions. The internal consistency of the instrument was .90 and the hypothesized factor structure showed good fit with the data. Partial measurement invariance was found across gender and sample. The average AAQ-II scores were significantly higher in the Treatment history group than the No treatment history group. On the one hand, psychological flexibility positively correlated with depression, anxiety, stress, general psychological distress and nonadaptative coping styles. On the other, it negatively correlated with psychological wellbeing, life satisfaction, health status and healthy coping style. These findings suggest that the Hungarian version of the AAQ-II is a valid questionnaire which further supports psychological inflexibility as a universal construct across different languages and cultures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current evidence suggests that mental health across the globe has suffered significantly during the COVID-19 global pandemic, and that disadvantaged communities are suffering these impacts more acutely. Lower income, female gender, and younger age have all been associated with worse psychopathology during COVID-19. The goal of this study was to determine whether these disparities are more pronounced in places where the pandemic is more severe. We analyzed self-report data and objective metrics from a large global sample (N = 11,227) in order to test the hypothesis that country-level severity of COVID-19 moderates the relationship between the target demographic variables (Subjective SES, gender and age) and psychopathology indicators. Severity of the pandemic emerged as a significant moderator of the relationship between these demographic variables and mental health outcomes. This pattern was extremely consistent for Subjective SES and gender, but slightly more nuanced for age. Overall, we interpreted our data as suggesting that mental health disparities are greater in countries with more severe COVID-19 outbreaks. These findings are critical for understanding the ways that the ongoing pandemic is affecting global mental health, and contribute to the broader literature surrounding collective trauma. • Are mental health inequalities greater in countries where COVID-19 is more severe? • We examined this question in a large global sample (N = 11,227). • Income, gender and age were all risk factors for worse mental health. • Mental health disparities were larger in countries with higher pandemic severity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]