Parallel Mediators between Resilience, Mindfulness and Social Connectedness: Entrapment and Intolerance of Uncertainty

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4990082/v1

Background

In response to challenging life circumstances, individuals may exhibit a range of reactions, from feeling trapped and intolerant of uncertainty to experiencing negative psychological outcomes or demonstrating resilience. Those who lack mindfulness and social connectedness often struggle more significantly with these challenges. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment mediate the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. This is the first study to explore these specific relationships.

Methods

The study involved 351 participants, consisting of 54 males and 297 females, who voluntarily provided data. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilized to perform mediation analysis and examine the complex relationships between the variables.

Results

The findings revealed that both intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment serve as parallel mediators in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. Specifically, mindfulness and social connectedness were found to negatively predict intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment. In turn, higher levels of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment were associated with lower levels of psychological resilience. These results suggest that individuals who are more mindful and socially connected tend to exhibit greater resilience by being less susceptible to uncertainty and feelings of entrapment.

Conclusions

This study highlights the critical roles of mindfulness and social connectedness in fostering psychological resilience, particularly by reducing intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment. These findings have important implications for developing interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in individuals facing challenging life circumstances. By promoting mindfulness and strengthening social connections, it may be possible to mitigate the negative psychological effects of uncertainty and entrapment, thereby enhancing overall resilience.

mindfulness

social connectedness

intolerance of uncertainty

entrapment

resilience

Many individuals face psychological challenges when dealing with life's adversities. However, some people have been observed to overcome even the most difficult circumstances, adapt effectively, and continue their lives without losing their ability to function. According to Henderson and Milstein [1], Lee and Cranford [2], and Öz and Yılmaz [3], psychological resilience refers to an individual's ability to cope with significant change, distress, or risks, maintain interactions with the environment, adapt to these conditions, and even grow stronger to overcome distress and negative environmental conditions. Psychological resilience refers to the risk that is frequently associated with negative or undesirable outcomes, as well as protective factors that promote desired development [4]. Consequently, psychological resilience is a phenomenon that is linked to healthy adaptation and is the outcome of the substantial interaction between protective factors that facilitate the adaptation process and preexisting risk factors [5]. Some researchers believe that resilience should be viewed as a constantly evolving phenomenon that can change over time as a result of changes in social support [6]. Loneliness has been shown to be negatively associated with psychological resilience [7]. Given the relationship between loneliness, social relationships, social support, and resilience, it is critical to investigate the relationship between the concepts of social connectedness and resilience. Social connectedness, like the other concepts mentioned above, refers to an individual's sense of belonging, connectedness, relationality, togetherness, or cohesion in social relationships [8]. Lee et al. [9] have found that individuals with high levels of connectedness are more inclined to identify with others, feel a sense of intimacy with them, perceive others as approachable and friendly, and engage in social activities and groups. People who have good social relationships and are not lonely are more likely to be resilient, as they are socially connected.

Individuals are thought to struggle to be resilient when confronted with uncertainty [10]. This leads to individuals experiencing difficulty recovering from the negative experiences that are necessary for resilience when they are confronted with uncertainty. A collection of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to uncertainty in everyday life events is referred to as intolerance of uncertainty [11]. Similarly, intolerance of uncertainty is defined as a person's discomfort with the possibility of something bad happening to him or her [12]. Studies have found significant negative relationships between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological resilience [10, 13, 14]. In other words, it is claimed that people who are highly intolerant of uncertainty are psychologically less resilient. Individuals with a high intolerance of uncertainty were found to be more socially isolated and anxious [15]. As can be seen, intolerance of uncertainty is linked to both psychological resilience and social connectedness, which is another aspect of resilience.

Research has demonstrated that the concept of psychological resilience is diminished in individuals who exhibit elevated levels of negative mental health symptoms, including anxiety, depression, or negative affect, in addition to their capacity to recover from adversity [16]. Lower psychological resilience was linked to burnout, secondary traumatic stress, anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty [17]. In the same vein, individuals who have low social connectedness are likely to experience a variety of negative emotions, including anxiety, jealousy, anger, depression, low self-esteem, and loneliness [18]. Jensen et al. [19] discovered that, similar to resilience and social connectedness, intolerance of uncertainty is significantly correlated with anxiety and depression. A higher tolerance of uncertainty was associated with a lower level of anxiety. Additionally, anxiety and depression are linked to the concept of entrapment [20–22]. Entrapment is an unsuccessful struggle experience that demonstrates individuals' desire to act and escape, as well as a negative feeling caused by the belief that the state of defeat cannot be solved or escaped [20]. Research suggests that entrapment and perceived social support have a negative correlation [23] and that resilience and social connectedness are linked to depression and anxiety. Therefore, these concepts should be addressed together.

Resilience is a valuable framework for positive psychology, emphasizing individuals' strengths rather than their flaws [24]. The science of psychology seeks to solve psychological problems that arise in individuals while also developing individuals' strengths. Seligman and Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi [25], who maintain that psychology concentrates on the positive attributes of individuals, emphasize that positive psychology necessitates additional information regarding the positive aspects of individuals' lives. They assert that the objective of positive psychology is to redirect the focus of psychology from the repair of negative aspects of life to the development of positive qualities. Studies conducted for this purpose have revealed that positive psychology interventions, such as mindfulness meditation, have a significant positive impact on people's well-being. Mindfulness is a state of awareness that occurs when an individual is purposefully present in the present moment and pays attention to the formation of the experience moment by moment, without judgment [26]. Creswell [27] divided the significance of mindfulness in human life into physical and mental health, cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal outcomes. Mindfulness practices are known to improve communication, interpersonal relationships, the work environment, and work-life quality [28]. Mindfulness-based programs have been shown to improve social connectedness and reduce loneliness in individuals [29, 30]. Social connectedness is found to partially mediate the relationship between mindfulness and well-being, according to a study. It is also recognized that there is a robust negative correlation between intolerance of uncertainty and mindfulness [31]. Mindfulness is a concept that is linked to significant events in people's lives and has an impact on a variety of characteristics. For example, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was used to treat people with suicidal tendencies, and it was discovered that there was a significant decrease in suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms, hopelessness, anxiety, defeat, and entrapment in the intervention group, as well as a significant increase in mindfulness both after treatment and at follow-up [32]. As can be seen, mindfulness is linked to social connectedness as well as intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment.

As a result, psychological resilience is an important characteristic for individuals to maintain their functionality, particularly in the face of adversity, and adapt to these situations. As a result, resilience must be better understood, and its relationships with other concepts should be investigated. Furthermore, in light of valuable information in the literature, it has been recognized that it is beneficial to examine all of these concepts together when investigating the relationships between the concepts of social connectedness, mindfulness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty, which are known to play an important role in the lives of individuals within the scope of mental health, both with resilience and with one another. In this direction, the current study sought to reveal the relationships between related concepts, and hypotheses to be tested were identified.

H1. Intolerance of uncertainty has a mediating role between mindfulness and resilience.

H2. Entrapment has a mediating role between mindfulness and resilience.

H3. Intolerance of uncertainty has a mediating role between social connectedness and resilience.

H4. Entrapment has a mediating role between social connectedness and resilience.

H5. Intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment have parallel mediating roles between social connectedness and mindfulness and resilience.

Participants and Procedure

The study included 351 participants, 54 (15.4%) of whom were male and 297 (84.6%) were female. Data were collected from 56 different cities across Turkey. Data was collected online and via social media announcements. The study only included voluntary participants, and they were asked to carefully read the informed consent in the scale sets.

Measures

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

Brown and Ryan [33] created this instrument to assess mindfulness levels in an adult sample. Özyeşil et al. [34] conducted an adaptation study of this measurement tool in Turkish. It is a valid and reliable scale for assessing mindfulness levels that can be applied in Turkish culture. The Turkish version has a Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient of 0.80. The scale contains 15 items and displays a single dimension. The fit values were calculated as RMSEA = .06, SRMS = .06, GFI = .93, and AGFI = .91, indicating that the scale had a good fit. The response options are a 6-point Likert ("1 = almost always", "2 = most of the time", "3 = sometimes", "4 = rarely", "5 = very rarely", "6 = almost never"). The scale allows for minimum and maximum scores of 15 and 90, respectively.

Entrapment Scale Short-Form (E-SF)

De Beurs et al. [35] developed a scale to assess adult entrapment levels. Türk et al. [36] conducted the adaptation study in Turkish. As a result, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.88. The scale consists of four items and a single dimension. The scale is a 5-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from "0 = not at all suitable for me" to "completely suitable for me" on a scale of 0–4. The scale's lowest and highest scores are 0 and 16, respectively. As the scores rise, it is clear that the individual's sense of entrapment grows.

Social Connectedness Scale

The scale was developed by Lee and Robbins [37], translated into Turkish by Duru [38], and administered to adults to evaluate their social commitment. The scale's internal consistency coefficient was determined to be 0.90. With a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = mostly agree, 3 = agree, 4 = disagree, 5 = mostly disagree, 6 = strongly disagree), the scale consists of eight items and one dimension. The scale permits a minimum score of 8 and a maximum score of 48. Individuals who achieve higher scores on the scale report lower levels of social connectedness.

Brief Psychological Resilience Scale

The scale was created by Smith et al. [39] to evaluate the psychological resilience of adults. Doğan [40] conducted an adaptation study in Turkish for an adult sample. As a consequence, the scale's internal consistency coefficient was 0.83, it was reliable, and the fit indices were satisfactory (NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, RFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.99, AGFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03%). One dimension is present in the six-item scale. The response options are on a five-point Likert scale, with one indicating that the response is not at all appropriate and five indicating that the response is completely appropriate. The individual's high scale scores suggest that they possess a high degree of psychological resilience, which is the capacity to recover from challenging experiences.

Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale

Carleton et al. [41] devised a scale to evaluate the intolerance of adult individuals to uncertainty. The scale was translated into Turkish by Sarıçam et al. [42]. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was determined to be 0.88. The scale's fit values (χ² = 147.20, df = 48, RMSEA = .073, CFI = .95, IFI = .95, GFI = .94, and SRMR = .04) were satisfactory. A high tolerance for uncertainty is indicated by high scores on the scale. The 12-item scale comprises two sub-dimensions: "inhibitory anxiety" and "prospective anxiety." The Likert scale is a five-point scale. The scale has a total score range of 12 to 60. A high level of intolerance to uncertainty is suggested by increasing scores.

Data Analysis

The investigation aimed to discover the correlation between the resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty levels of the participants. The SPSS program was employed to conduct normality analysis, descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, network analysis, and correlation analysis. Other programs, including JASP and AMOS, were also employed in the study. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was implemented subsequent to the correlation analysis's noteworthy outcomes. The AMOS program is described as a highly effective quantitative analysis method for SEM, as it enables the formulation of decisions based on a variety of parameters [43]. Based on Kline's [43] recommendation, the investigation implemented a two-stage SEM. The initial phase consisted of evaluating the validity of the measurement model, which concerns the relationship between indicator variables and latent variables as well as the relationships between these latent variables. After the measurement model had been validated, the hypothetical structural model was assessed. The SEM results were assessed using the goodness-of-fit indices of Hu and Bentler [44]. SRMR, RMSEA, GFI, RFI, CFI, NFI, IFI, TLI, and chi-square (χ2) values were computed in addition to degrees of freedom. Critical values consist of a χ2 to degrees of freedom ratio of less than 5, GFI, RFI, CFI, NFI, IFI, and TLI values above.90, and SRMR and RMSEA values below.08. [45, 44]. In contrast, the chi-square difference test was complemented by the examination of AIC and ECVI values to determine the optimal model from a pool of multiple models in SEM. The model with the lowest AIC and ECVI values is considered the best [46, 47].

The item parceling method was implemented by SEM due to the unidimensionality of the measurement tools for resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, and entrapment. The parceling method, which is implemented in concepts associated with personality traits, reduces the quantity of observed variables, improves reliability, and allows scales to exhibit a normal distribution, as per Nasser-Abu Alhija and Wisenbaker [48]. Parcellation produced two dimensions for resilience, social connectedness, and entrapment, as well as three for mindfulness.

The results of correlation analysis and descriptive statistics are presented in this section. The results of the structural and measurement models are subsequently presented. Ultimately, the results of the bootstrapping procedure are presented.

-Table 1-

The descriptive statistics and correlation of the variables (arithmetic mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis values) are presented in Table 1. The variables' skewness (between -.706 and.261) and kurtosis (between -1.071 and -.203) values satisfy Finney and DiStefano's [49] normality criteria of ±2 for skewness and ±7 for kurtosis, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1 illustrates substantial positive correlations between mindfulness and social connectedness (r:.57 p<.001), mindfulness and resilience (r:.40 p<.001), social connectedness and resilience (r:.44 p<.001), and entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty (r:.54 p<.001). There are substantial positive correlations between mindfulness and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.47 p<.001), mindfulness and entrapment (r: -.55 p<.001), social connectedness and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.42 p<.001), social connectedness and entrapment (r: -.68 p<.001), resilience and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.54 p<.05), and resilience and entrapment (r: -.60 p<.001).

The network analysis demonstrated a robust positive correlation between social connectedness and mindfulness. Subsequently, resilience and entrapment exhibit a negative correlation. The results of the network analysis between concepts are illustrated in Figure 1.

-Figure 1-

After the relationships between the concepts were discovered to be significant, the measurement model was developed. The measurement model includes five latent variables: resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty, as well as 11 observed variables that are related to each latent variable. Table 2 shows the fit values based on the results. The fit values can be stated as good. It is also understood that the factor loadings range from.82 to 1.01. As a result, the observed values can be interpreted as representing the latent variables.
The structural model tested the hypothesis that entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty serve as partial mediators between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. The partial mediation model shows a direct link between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. Furthermore, the prediction of resilience by mindfulness and social connectedness via entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty is explored. Table 2 shows the fit values for the model with entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty as full mediators. The best mediation model was also tested, which included full mediation of entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty. In the full mediation model, there is no direct link between mindfulness and social connectedness or resilience. Furthermore, mindfulness and social connectedness are used to predict resilience, as well as entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty. The fit values for the test results are shown in Table 2. All fit values for both models are acceptable. However, because the partial mediation model did not show a significant relationship between mindfulness (p:.834 p>.001), social connectedness (p:.556 p>.001), and resilience, the full mediation model was chosen. The path coefficients for this model are shown in Figure 2.

-Table 2-

-Figure 2-

All of these findings suggest that entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty levels play a parallel and fully mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience.

Humans live in society and have a social aspect. In this respect, people value loneliness, social isolation, healthy social relationships, a sense of belonging, and social connectedness. Problems encountered in the course of daily life, such as work, family, and school, can make it difficult for an individual to focus on the present moment. Individuals may be unable to tolerate the uncertain situations they face in these difficult circumstances. Individuals may feel trapped when all of these factors are taken into account. Individuals' ability to be resilient in the face of adversity allows them to cope, adapt, and return to their former selves. The current study sought to investigate the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. The analysis revealed that intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment function as parallel mediators. In other words, mindfulness and social connectedness predicted psychological resilience indirectly via aversion to uncertainty and entrapment. The current study's hypotheses and findings are discussed in light of the relevant literature.

First, the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty between mindfulness and resilience was investigated, and it was discovered that intolerance of uncertainty completely mediates the relationship between mindfulness and resilience, confirming the first hypothesis. The findings show that mindfulness predicts intolerance of uncertainty negatively, while intolerance of uncertainty predicts resilience negatively. There are studies in the literature that support this conclusion. It is well known that mindfulness has a significant negative relationship with the intolerance of uncertainty [31]. In addition, these two concepts are linked to anxiety. Worry has been identified as a partial mediator of mindfulness and anxiety [50, 51]. Other research has linked intolerance of uncertainty to worry [52, 53]. As a result, the current study supports the notion that mindfulness predicts the negative the negative intolerance of uncertainty. Another study, Karataş and Tagay [54], found that intolerance of uncertainty negatively predicts resilience, which supports the related hypothesis. Individuals can be expected to be tolerant in the face of uncertainty, to focus on the present moment, and thus to be more resilient to adversity. This allows them to take combative action while remaining resilient in the face of adversity.

Another hypothesis tested in the study is the mediating role of entrapment in mindfulness and resilience. The analysis revealed that entrapment is a complete mediator. Mindfulness predicts entrapment, which negatively predicts resilience. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy has been shown to reduce feelings of entrapment and other negative psychological states while increasing mindfulness [32]. Entrapment, whose main theme is the desire to act and escape, refers to negative feelings caused by the belief that an unsuccessful struggle experience cannot be resolved or escaped [20]. Both entrapment and resilience have been linked to depression and anxiety [21, 16]. The studies' results indicate that the relevant hypothesis of the current research is supported. Individuals who become mindfully aware are likely to feel less entrapped and will benefit from a more resilient psychology.

When one of the hypotheses was tested for the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty between social connectedness and resilience, it was discovered that intolerance of uncertainty played a full mediating role between these two. The findings showed that social connectedness predicted intolerance of uncertainty, while intolerance of uncertainty predicted resilience negatively. Social connectedness, as a self-aspect, reflects subjective awareness of interpersonal closeness and is an important component of one's sense of belonging [55]. A study found that people with a high tolerance for uncertainty were more socially isolated and experienced higher levels of anxiety [15]. Furthermore, Kasapoğlu [56] discovered a negative correlation between intolerance of uncertainty and resilient behavior. Individuals' feelings of isolation, loneliness, belonging, connectedness, and social relations are all important from this perspective. Individuals who feel socially connected may be less intolerant and more resilient in uncertain situations.

Another hypothesis investigated in this study is the role of entrapment in mediating the relationship between social connectedness and resilience. The analyses revealed that entrapment serves as a full mediator between these two. In other words, social connectedness predicts entrapment, which negatively predicts resilience. Research indicates a strong negative correlation between entrapment and perceived social support [23]. Resilience and entrapment were found to be related concepts in various studies. These concepts include suicidal thoughts, which are critical in a person's life. Suicidal ideation is negatively related to entrapment and resilience [57, 58]. The current study's findings are consistent with previous research. Individuals with a healthy sociality may feel less entrapped, but they are psychologically resilient and can continue to live their lives without collapsing in the face of adversity.

Finally, the parallel mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment between social connectedness, mindfulness, and resilience, which is the study's main hypothesis, was investigated, and its accuracy was determined. There are studies that support the hypothesis in the literature. Mindfulness and intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment were examined in pairs [54, 31], while intolerance of uncertainty and resilience were investigated together [32]. Aside from these, it was discovered that the concepts investigated within the scope of the research were addressed with the same concepts as suicide, depression, and anxiety in various studies [52, 59, 57]. Furthermore, while the current research results show that social connectedness does not directly predict resilience, the relevant literature indicates that having healthy social relationships helps individuals be resilient. Furthermore, while the current study's results do not include the prediction of mindfulness on social connectedness, it is well known in the literature that mindfulness-based programs improve social connectedness [39]. Based on all of this, it is possible to conclude that healthy sociability and mindfulness are important because they indicate less intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment in people's lives, resulting in greater resilience.

The study's findings revealed that intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment played a partial mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. In other words, mindfulness and social connectedness predict psychological resilience by reducing uncertainty and entrapment. It was discovered that individuals with high levels of mindfulness and social connectedness may have higher levels of psychological resilience due to a low tolerance for uncertainty and entrapment. According to the literature, mindfulness is a quantitative model that describes the relationship between the concepts of social connectedness, intolerance of uncertainty, entrapment, and psychological resilience. Individuals can be psychologically resilient by being socially connected and mindful, which can help them control their intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment. Individuals may face difficult situations throughout their lives. If an individual is aware of their current situation and feels connected to their social environment, they will be more tolerant of uncertainty, less entrapped, and resilient in the face of challenges. Contributing to individuals' mental health and social connectedness through group counseling and psychoeducation programs will have a positive impact on intolerance of uncertainty, entrapment, and resilience.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the fact that the study's results are valuable to the field, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. The data for this study were initially collected using self-report-based measurement tools. This illustrates that the data collected can only account for variables that fall within the measurement tools' scope. Future studies may implement an assortment of methodologies, including peer assessment, interviewing, observation, and self-report. An additional constraint pertains to the research methodology. The cause-effect link should be approached with caution and care due to the cross-sectionality of the sample and the nature of the quantitative method, despite the fact that structural equation modeling, which can yield robust results from quantitative methods, was employed in the study and the number of samples was increased to 10,000 through bootstrapping.

Although the structural equation model suggests that resilience is induced by intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment, and psychological mindfulness and social connectedness are predicted to lead to this outcome, longitudinal and experimental studies are necessary to fully elucidate these causal orders. An additional constraint is that this investigation exclusively evaluates the variables specified. The interaction of a variety of concepts between resilience, social connectedness, and mindfulness can be investigated. Conversely, individuals may necessitate a diverse array of abilities to navigate challenging circumstances. It is now feasible to conduct individual research on entrapment. Conversely, it is feasible to establish initiatives that enhance psychological resilience. Mindfulness-based programs for emotion regulation can be advantageous for individuals who have an intolerance of uncertainty.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the participants who made a meaningful impact on our research.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Availability of Data and Material

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, YA, upon reasonable request.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol has been approved by the Yıldız Technical University Scientific Research and Ethical Review Board (16.07.2024). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its following updates.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants that were included in the study.

Author contributions

YA, SA, and BE designed the study. SA and BE drafted the manuscript; YA carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; YA, SA, and BE collected the data; and all authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing Interest

No conflict of interest exists for this manuscript for any of the authors.

Author Details

YA, Avcılar Anatolian High School, Ministry of National Education, Türkiye

SA, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Türkiye

BE, Yildiz Technical University, Türkiye

Henderson N, Milstein MM. Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. California: Corwin press; 2003.
Lee HH, Cranford JA. Does resilience mosderate the associations between parental problem drinking and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors?: A study of Korean adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;96(3):213-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.007
Öz F, Yılmaz EB. Ruh sağlığının korunmasında önemli bir kavram: Psikolojik sağlamlık. Hacettepe ÜniversitesiHemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009;16(3):82-89.
Yates TM, Tyrell FA, Masten AS. Resilience theory and the practice of positive psychology from individuals to societies. Positive Psychology in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life. 2015:773-788. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch44
Windle M. Critical conceptual and measurement issues in the study of resilience. Resilience and Development: Positive Life Adaptations. 2002:161-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47167-1_8
Zheng Y, Cai D, Zhao JL, Yang C, Xia T, Xu Z. Bidirectional relationship between emotional intelligence and perceptions of resilience in young adolescents: A twenty-month longitudinal study. Child & Youth Care Forum. 2021;50:363-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09578-x
Jakobsen IS, Madsen LMR, Mau M, Hjemdal O, Friborg O. The relationship between resilience and loneliness elucidated by a Danish version of the resilience scale for adults. BMC Psychology. 2020;8:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00493-3
Santini ZI, Koyanagi A, Tyrovolas S, Mason C, Haro JM. The association between social relationships and depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2015;175:53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.049
Lee RM, Draper M, Lee S. Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2001;48(3):310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310
Joshi K, Kate S, Shitole S, Kashikar S, Date P. A correlational and comparative study of perceived stress, intolerance of uncertainty and resilience among students and working individuals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology. 2020;6(3):965-971.
Freeston MH, Rhéaume J, Letarte H, Dugas MJ, Ladouceur R. Why do people worry?. Personality and Individual Differences. 1994;17(6):791-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5
Dugas MJ, Gosselin P, Ladouceur R. Intolerance of uncertainty and worry: Investigating specificity in a nonclinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2001;25:551-558.
Lee JS. Effect of resilience on intolerance of uncertainty in nursing university students. Nursing forum. 2019;54(1):53-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12297
Xu X, Yan X, Zhang Q, Xu C, Li M. The chain mediating role of psychological resilience and neuroticism between intolerance of uncertainty and perceived stress among medical university students in Southwest China. BMC psychiatry. 2023;23(1):861. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05345-z
Smith BM, Twohy AJ, Smith GS. Psychological inflexibility and intolerance of uncertainty moderate the relationship between social isolation and mental health outcomes during COVID-19. Journal of contextual behavioral science. 2020;18:162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.005
Hu T, Zhang D, Wang J. A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;76:18-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039
Cooke GP, Doust JA, Steele MC. A survey of resilience, burnout, and tolerance of uncertainty in Australian general practice registrars. BMC Medical Education. 2013;13:1-6.
Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;117(3):497-529.
Jensen D, Cohen JN, Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG. Clarifying the unique associations among intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2016;45(6):431-444.
Gilbert P, Allan S. The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: an exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine. 1998;28(3):585-598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291798006710
Griffiths AW, Wood AM, Maltby J, Taylor PJ, Tai S. The prospective role of defeat and entrapment in depression and anxiety: A 12-month longitudinal study. Psychiatry Research. 2014;216(1):52-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.037
Taylor PJ, Gooding P, Wood AM, Tarrier N. The role of defeat and entrapment in depression, anxiety, and suicide. Psychological bulletin. 2011;137(3):391.
Kerkez M, Çapuk H. Percevied social support and feelings of entrapment among liables with on probation. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet. 2024;35(1):21-39. https://doi.org/10.33417tsh.1347502
Aydın A. The moderator role of career decision making Self-Efficacy on the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and resilience of university Students. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University; 2022.
Seligman ME, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: An introduction, American Psychological Association. 2000;55(1):5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
Kabat-Zinn J. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:Science And Practice. 2003;10(2):144-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg016
Creswell, JD. Mindfulness interventions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2017;68:491-516. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139
Good DJ, Lyddy CJ, Glomb TM, Bono JE, Brown KW, Duffy MK, et al. Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of Management. 2016;42(1):114-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003
Cohen JS, Miller LJ. Interpersonal mindfulness training for well-being: A pilot study with psychology graduate students. Teachers College Record. 2009;111(12):2760-2774. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911101202
Teoh SL, Letchumanan V, Lee LH. Can mindfulness help to alleviate loneliness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:633319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633319
Turan M. Predicting subjective wellbeing of graduate students by mindfulness, intolerance to uncertainty, rumination and anxiety sensitivity. MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University; 2019.
De Jaegere E, Dumon E, Van Heeringen K, Van Landschoot R, Stas P, Portzky G. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for individuals who are suicidal: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Suicide Research. 2023:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2023.2282663
Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84:822-848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Özyeşil Z, Arslan C, Kesici Ş, Deniz ME. Bilinçli farkındalık ölçeği’ni Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2011;36(160).
De Beurs D, Cleare S, Wetherall K, Eschle-Byrne S, Ferguson E, O'Connor DB, O'Connor RC. Entrapment and suicide risk: the development of the 4-item Entrapment Scale Short-Form (E-SF). Psychiatry Research. 2020;284:112765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112765
Türk N, Yasdiman MB, Kaya A. Defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation in a Turkish community sample of young adults: An examination of the Integrated Motivational-Volitional (IMV) model of suicidal behaviour. International Review of Psychiatry. 2024:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2024.2319288
Lee RM, Robbins BS. Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1995;42(2):232-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232
Duru E. Sosyal bağlılık ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Eğitim Araştırmaları. 2007;26:85-94.
Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine. 2008;15:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972
Doğan T. Kısa psikolojik sağlamlık ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being. 2015;3(1):93-102.
Carleton RN, Norton MA, Asmundson GJG. Fearing the unknown: A short version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2007;21(1):105-117. https://doi.org/S0887-6185(06)00051-X [pii]10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014
Sarıçam H, Erguvan FM, Akın A, Akça MŞ. Belirsizliğe tahammülsüzlük ölçeği (BTÖ-12) Türkçe formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Route Educational and Social Science Journal. 2014;1(3):148-157.
Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.
Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th. ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2001.
Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika. 1987;52(3):317-332.
Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions. 1993;154:136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005
Nasser-Abu Alhija F, Wisenbaker JA Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling. 2006;13(2):204-228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3
Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. 2006:269-314.
Maddock A, Hevey D, D’Alton P, Kirby B. Testing a moderated mediation model of MBCT’s effects for psoriasis patients. Mindfulness. 2019;10:2673-2681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01249-w
Parmentier FB, García-Toro M, García-Campayo J, Yañez AM, Andrés P, Gili M. Mindfulness and symptoms of depression and anxiety in the general population: The mediating roles of worry, rumination, reappraisal and suppression. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:438030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00506
Berenbaum, H., Bredemeier, K., & Thompson, R. J. Intolerance of uncertainty: Exploring its dimensionality and associations with need for cognitive closure, psychopathology, and personality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2008;22(1):117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.01.004
Ladouceur R, Gosselin P, Dugas MJ. Experimental manipulation of intolerance of uncertainty: A study of a theoretical model of worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2000;38(9):933-941. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00133-3
Karataş Z, Tagay Ö. The relationships between resilience of the adults affected by the covid pandemic in Turkey and Covid-19 fear, meaning in life, life satisfaction, intolerance of uncertainty and hope. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021;172:110592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110592
Lee RM, Robbins SB. Understanding social connectedness in college women and men. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2000;78(4):484-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01932.x
Kasapoğlu F. COVID-19 salgını sürecinde kaygı ile maneviyat, psikolojik sağlamlık ve belirsizliğe tahammülsüzlük arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies. 2020;15(4). https://doi.org/10.7827/turkishstudies.44284
Stark L, Seff I, Yu G, Salama M, Wessells M, Allaf C, Bennouna C. Correlates of suicide ideation and resilience among native-and foreign-born adolescents in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2022;70(1):91-98.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.012
Höller I, Rath D, Teismann T, Glaesmer H, Lucht L, Paashaus L, Schönfelder A, Juckel G, Forkmann T. Defeat, entrapment, and suicidal ideation: Twelve‐month trajectories. Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior. 2022;52(1):69-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12777
Dailey SF, Parker MM, Campbell A. Social connectedness, mindfulness, and coping as protective factors during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2023;101(1):114-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12450

Table 1

	N	Mean	SD	Skewness	Kurtosis	McDonald's ω	Cronbach's α	Guttman's λ6	1	2	3	4
1-Mindfulness	351	61.6	12.6	-.343	-.203	.878	.876	.886	-
2-Social connectedness	351	36.2	10.0	-.706	-.269	.933	.930	.931	.57**	-
3-Intolerance of uncertainty	351	38.2	10.6	.025	-.510	.923	.922	.928	-.47**	-.42**	-
4-Entrapment	351	6.9	4.8	.261	-1.071	.900	.896	.881	-.55**	-.68**	.54**	-
5-Resilience	351	18.2	5.2	-.246	-.299	.860	.856	.851	.40**	.44**	-.54**	-.60**
**p<.001

Table 2

	N	CMIN	DF	CMIN/DF	GFI	NFI	RFI	IFI	TLI	CFI	RMSEA	SRMR	AIC	ECVI
Measure	351	67.295	34	1.979	.968	.976	.962	.988	.981	.988	.05	.02	-	-
Partial Mediator Model	351	96.815	35	2.766	.953	.966	.947	.978	.965	.978	.07	.04	158.815	.454
Full Mediator Model	351	97.173	37	2.626	.953	.966	.950	.979	.968	.979	.06	.04	155.173	.443
**p<.001

No competing interests reported.

Parallel Mediators between Resilience, Mindfulness and Social Connectedness: Entrapment and Intolerance of Uncertainty

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Method

Participants and Procedure

Measures

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

Entrapment Scale Short-Form (E-SF)

Social Connectedness Scale

Brief Psychological Resilience Scale

Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Limitations and Future Research

Declarations

References

Table

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1