Cited by 445COVID-19 and Mental HealthMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

COVID-19: Psychological flexibility, coping, mental health, and wellbeing in the UK during the pandemic

Open access
Dawson, David L., Golijani-Moghaddam, Nima·2020·Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly altered the daily lives of many people across the globe, both through the direct interpersonal cost of the disease, and the governmental restrictions imposed to mitigate its spread and impact. The UK has been particularly affected and has one of the highest mortality rates in Europe. In this paper, we examine the impact of COVID-19 on psychological health and well-being in the UK during a period of 'lockdown' (15th-21st May 2020) and the specific role of Psychological Flexibility as a potential mitigating process. We observed clinically high levels of distress in our sample (N = 555). However, psychological flexibility was significantly and positively associated with greater wellbeing, and inversely related to anxiety, depression, and COVID-19-related distress. Avoidant coping behaviour was positively associated with all indices of distress and negatively associated with wellbeing, while engagement in approach coping only demonstrated weaker associations with outcomes of interest. No relationship between adherence to government guidelines and psychological flexibility was found. In planned regression models, psychological flexibility demonstrated incremental predictive validity for all distress and wellbeing outcomes (over and above both demographic characteristics and COVID-19-specific coping responses). Furthermore, psychological flexibility and COVID-19 outcomes were only part-mediated by coping responses to COVID-19, supporting the position that psychological flexibility can be understood as an overarching response style that is distinct from established conceptualisations of coping. We conclude that psychological flexibility represents a promising candidate process for understanding and predicting how an individual may be affected by, and cope with, both the acute and longer-term challenges of the pandemic.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.07.010

Cites

70 of 70 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • ACT-based interventions led to significant reductions in depression and stress symptoms in pandemic-exposed populations, with long-term effects persisting months after initial treatment.

    “Several studies demonstrated that ACT-based interventions led to significant reductions in depression and stress symptoms in pandemic-exposed populations, with long-term effects persisting months after initial treatment [179].”

    From Impact of Media-Induced Uncertainty on Mental Health: Narrative-Based Perspective. (2025) · cites this paper as [179]

    The Discussion reports a cross-sectional association between psychological flexibility and distress and says the study cannot determine the direction of that association. It proposes examining whether interventions might help; the Conclusion says such approaches warrant further investigation. It does not report ACT treatment effects or months-long follow-up. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Acceptance-based coping is a pathway to coping with the psychological repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Acceptance-based coping is another pathway to coping with the psychological repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic (Dawson & Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020;Gurvich et al., 2021).”

    From RESILIENCE, COPING, AND THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC ACROSS THE GLOBE – AN UPDATE: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED? (2023) · cites this paper as Dawson & Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020

    The Measures section distinguishes the active, willing acceptance involved in psychological flexibility from passive acceptance as a coping response. The Conclusion says approaches targeting psychological flexibility may hold promise for managing the pandemic’s psychological impact, but it does not establish acceptance-based coping itself as an effective pathway. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • During the pandemic, psychological flexibility predicted wellbeing, stress, depression, and affect.

    “Supporting this, PF was found to predict wellbeing, stress, depression and affect during the pandemic (Dawson & Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020; Gloster, Lamnisos et al., 2020).”

    From Behind the masks: A cross-sectional study on intolerance of uncertainty, perceived vulnerability to disease and psychological flexibility in relation to state anxiety and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as Dawson & Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020

    The Results (Regression analyses; page unavailable) report that psychological flexibility predicted wellbeing and distress outcomes during the pandemic, including depression and COVID-19-specific distress. The paper does not identify affect or a separate stress measure among those outcomes, so the full list attributed to it is not supported. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A growth of literature has identified psychological flexibility as an underlying process surrounding increases in mental health difficulties related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “A growth of literature has identified psychological flexibility as an underlying process surrounding the dramatic increases in mental health difficulties related to the COVID-19 pandemic (Dawson & Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020; Kroska et al., 2020; Pakenham et al., 2020).”

    From ACTing towards better living during COVID-19: The effects of Acceptance and Commitment therapy for individuals affected by COVID-19 (2022) · cites this paper as Dawson & Golijani-Moghaddam, 2020

    The Abstract describes psychological flexibility as a promising candidate process for understanding and predicting how individuals are affected by the pandemic, and the Discussion reports elevated clinical distress in the UK sample. But the Discussion also says the cross-sectional data cannot establish directionality, so the paper does not establish psychological flexibility as an underlying cause of the increase in mental health difficulties. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • ACT-based interventions might provide people with a buffer against detrimental impacts of the pandemic and everyday anxiety and fear-inducing challenges.

    “ACTbased interventions might provide people with abuffer against detrimental impacts of the pandemic and everyday anxiety and fear-inducing challenges (Kashdan et al . 2020; Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam 2020; McCracken et al . 2021).”

    From Recent findings in the pathogenesis and treatment of fear and anxiety (2022) · cites this paper as Dawson and Golijani-Moghaddam 2020

    The Conclusion (page unavailable) says that approaches targeting psychological flexibility may hold promise for managing the psychological impact of COVID-19. The Measures section identifies psychological flexibility as a process conceptualised within ACT. The paper does not extend its intervention proposal to everyday anxiety- and fear-inducing challenges outside the pandemic. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 72 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Weiss D.S. The impact of event scale: Revised cross-cultural assessment of psychological trauma and PTSD 2007 Springer

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dawson, D. L., & Golijani-Moghaddam, N.
Affiliations
University of Lincoln (GB)
Venue
Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-07
Volume
17
Pages
126-134
ISSN
2212-1447 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3046001566
Cited by
445
References
72
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 122 · 2020: 13 · 2013: 1
FWCI
32.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, psychological flexibility, coping, mental health, well-being, lockdown, anxiety, depression, avoidance coping, approach coping, United Kingdom

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