Cited by 61Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The relationship between psychological inflexibility and well-being in adults: a meta-analysis of the acceptance and action questionnaire

Open access
Ong, Clarissa W., Barthel, Abigail L., Hofmann, Stefan G.·2024·Behavior Therapy

Abstract

Psychological inflexibility is defined as the rigid responding to stimuli (e.g., unpleasant thoughts and feelings) that interferes with well-being and valued actions. It is the treatment target in acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). Despite the centrality of the link between inflexibility and well-being to ACT theory, an empirical review clarifying the nature of this relationship has not been conducted. As such, the current meta-analysis examined the meta-correlation between psychological inflexibility, measured by the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ) and its variants, and well-being. A systematic review yielded 151 studies, including 25 versions of the AAQ and 43 well-being measures. Consistent with ACT theory, higher psychological inflexibility was associated with worse well-being (r = -.47, 95% CI[-.49, -.45]). In addition, sample diagnosis, type of AAQ, and type of well-being measure significantly moderated this relationship. Overall, our findings support the hypothesized link between psychological inflexibility and worse well-being. Limitations include reliance on cross-sectional data, precluding causal interpretation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.beth.2023.05.007

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ong, C. W., Barthel, A. L., & Hofmann, S. G.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Philipps University of Marburg (DE)
Corresponding author
Hofmann, Stefan G.
Venue
Behavior Therapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
26-41
ISSN
0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4378417731
Cited by
61
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 2
FWCI
3.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavior Therapy (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH128377, U01MH108168)
  • Hessisches Ministerium für Wissenschaft und Kunst
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
psychological inflexibility, well-being, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, acceptance and commitment therapy, act theory, psychological flexibility, psychological rigidity
MeSH terms
Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Emotions, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review