Coping styles mediate the association between psychological inflexibility and psychological functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic: A crucial role of meaning-centered coping.

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.

An international study on psychological coping during COVID-19: Towards a meaning-centered coping style.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: This study examined the role of different psychological coping mechanisms in mental and physical health during the initial phases of the COVID-19 crisis with an emphasis on meaning-centered coping. METHOD: A total of 11,227 people from 30 countries across all continents participated in the study and completed measures of psychological distress (depression, stress, and anxiety), loneliness, well-being, and physical health, together with measures of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping, and a measure called the Meaning-centered Coping Scale (MCCS) that was developed in the present study. Validation analyses of the MCCS were performed in all countries, and data were assessed by multilevel modeling (MLM). RESULTS: The MCCS showed a robust one-factor structure in 30 countries with good test-retest, concurrent and divergent validity results. MLM analyses showed mixed results regarding emotion and problem-focused coping strategies. However, the MCCS was the strongest positive predictor of physical and mental health among all coping strategies, independently of demographic characteristics and country-level variables. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the MCCS is a valid measure to assess meaning-centered coping. The results also call for policies promoting effective coping to mitigate collective suffering during the pandemic.

ANTECEDENTES/OBJETIVO: Este estudio examinó el papel de diferentes estrategias de afrontamiento psicológico en la salud mental y física durante las fases iniciales de la crisis de COVID-19. MÉTODO: 11,227 personas de 30 países representando todos los continentes participaron en el estudio y completaron medidas de malestar psicológico (depresión, estrés y ansiedad), soledad, bienestar, salud física, medidas de afrontamiento centrado en el problema y en la emoción, y una medida denominada Escala del Afrontamiento Centrado en el Sentido (MCCS) que fue desarrollada en este estudio. El análisis de validación de la MCCS se realizó en todos los países, y los datos se evaluaron mediante un modelo multinivel. RESULTADOS: La MCCS mostró una estructura unifactorial en 30 países con buenos resultados de validez test-retest, concurrente y divergente. Los análisis mostraron resultados mixtos en cuanto a las estrategias de afrontamiento centradas en la emoción y en el problema. La MCCS fue el predictor positivo más fuerte de salud física y mental, independientemente de las características demográficas y las variables a nivel de país. CONCLUSIONES: Los resultados sugieren que la MCCS es un insrumento fiable para medir afrontamiento centrado en el sentido. Estos resultados pueden servir para dirigir políticas que promuevan un afrontamiento eficaz con el fin de mitigar el sufrimiento colectivo durante la pandemia.