Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased uncertainty worldwide, which has various negative impacts on psychological well-being. In times like these, it is important to explore how individual resources such as trait mindfulness would help people deal with uncertainty. The aim of the current study was to examine the role of intolerance to uncertainty (IU) as a mediator between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being, including stress, anxiety, depression, and emotional burnout, among employees. Two hundred ninety-three employees completed an online self-report questionnaire during the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns in Turkey. The nonparametric bootstrap procedure in AMOS 26.0 was used to test the proposed model. The findings indicated full mediation between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being measures among employees. In other words, employees who reported higher levels of mindfulness perceived their current situation as less threatening, and they were able to tolerate uncertainty, which decreased participants’ stress, anxiety, depression, and emotional burnout. The findings are important for understanding the impact of mindfulness on the psychological well-being of people and the role of intolerance uncertainty in this relationship. The results will be useful for the development of new interventions to promote resources that will increase individual awareness and control during difficult circumstances.

Plain Language Summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased uncertainty worldwide, which has various negative impacts on psychological well-being. However, little is known about the role of uncertainty during the pandemic and possible resources, such as mindfulness which might be helpful during difficult times. This study aims to explore how individual resources such as trait mindfulness would help people deal with uncertainty during the Covid-19 pandemic. Two hundred ninety-three employees completed an online self-report questionnaire during the first COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns in Turkey. According to the study, employees who reported higher levels of mindfulness perceived their current situation as less threatening and could tolerate uncertainty, which decreased participants’ stress, anxiety, depression and emotional burnout. The findings are important for understanding the impact of mindfulness on psychological well-being and the role of intolerance uncertainty in this relationship. The results will be useful for developing new interventions to promote resources that will increase individual awareness and control during difficult circumstances.

Keywords

mindfulness intolerance to uncertainty employee well-being psychological well-being COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has various psychological and physiological effects on people worldwide. Researchers from different regions have emphasized the psychological effects of the pandemic (e.g., Holmes et al., 2020) as the rates of anxiety, stress and depression have increased since the beginning of the pandemic (Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020 ). The pandemic has also led to an increase in uncertainty among people worldwide (Rettie & Daniels, 2021), and many companies were forced to implement rapid shutdowns as a first response to the situation. During shutdowns, some employees working in industries such as health, food, or logistics continued working in their regular work environment, whereas most of the other employees started to “work from home.” For all of us, uncertainty increased with the lockdowns as nobody knows when and how we will return to our normal life.

The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with several mental health problems all around the globe. In a study conducted during the pandemic, Xiong et al. (2020) found higher rates of anxiety, depression, PTSD, psychological distress, and stress reported by participants from several countries, including China, Spain, Italy, Iran, USA, Turkey, Nepal, and Denmark. In other studies conducted during the pandemic, Lee et al. (2021) showed a higher prevalence of depression in 33 countries. Pieh et al. (2021) found a higher prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia symptoms among people in the UK. Similar research also supported the finding that people reported higher mental health problems during lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic (Banks & Xu, 2020; Pierce et al., 2021; Wang, Chudzicka-Czupała, Tee, et al., 2021).

Uncertainty about a situation can be a risk factor affecting the physiological and psychological well-being of individuals (Satici et al., 2022). Moreover, for some people, it is more difficult to tolerate uncertainty. Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is described as a dispositional characteristic that is related to negative beliefs about uncertainty and general fear of the unknown (Carleton et al., 2012). Previous studies have shown an association between IU and general well-being (e.g., Satici et al., 2022). Additionally, IU is related to several emotional disorders, including anxiety- and depression-related conditions (Carleton et al., 2012). Because IU was described as a transdiagnostic factor for different psychological disorders (McEvoy & Mahoney, 2012), we thought it would be essential to investigate this trait during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has led to an increase in IU for many people around the world.

Uncertainty is an inevitable situation during any pandemic. In the literature, to measure reactions to uncertainty situations, experimental researchers manipulate the uncertainty associated with threat (e.g., Grillon et al., 2004 ) but there was no research investigating IU where people all are interacting with an environment affected by the uncertainties posed by the pandemic. One of the importance of this study was the time of the data collection. The study was conducted in the beginning of the lockdowns when people in the country origin of research have to deal with high uncertainty in their daily life.

How people cope with uncertainty and respond to uncertainty is important for successfully handling an unknown situation (Einstein, 2014). Studies have shown that coping is associated with IU (Cai et al., 2020), even during the COVID-19 pandemic (Rettie & Daniels, 2021; Satici et al., 2022). In other words, by using different coping skills, it is possible to manage IU. According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), awareness is important because it determines the choice of behaviors, which are consistent with the needs, values and interests of an individual. During high uncertainty situations, individual awareness would be much more essential in the determination of behaviors relative to their needs. Mindfulness is defined as an attribute related to the state of being attentive to and being aware of the present (Brown & Ryan, 2003) and can uniquely predict anxiety, distress tolerance and uncertainty-related stress (O’Bryan et al., 2018). In this study, our initial aim was to examine the impact of mindfulness on IU and the mediation effect of IU on the relationship between mindfulness and the general well-being of employees during the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic. General well-being is described as a subjective feelings of contentment, happiness and satisfaction with one’s life experiences by Dhar et al. (2010) . Researchers also included that individuals report general well-being related to their role in the world of work feeling of no distress or worry (Dhar et al., 2010). In a general well-being measure developed by Fazio (1977) respondents are asked about their energy, mood of worry, depression, and anxiety. Following the literature in this study, general well-being was investigated by measuring stress, anxiety, depression, and emotional burnout of employees. In this research we investigated emotional burnout of participants related to family demands. Burnout is defined by Maslach and Jackson (1981) by using three dimensions including emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and decreased personal accomplishment. According to the researchers emotional exhaustion is the core dimension of burnout and described as feelings of fatigue and being unable to face the demands of job or engage with people in general. During the pandemic, one of the main issues was individuals have more difficulty dealing with the demands of their work and family (Lonska et al., 2021 ), and the border between life spheres were disappeared. In the work-family literature, burnout is one of the main consequences of demanding work and family roles of employees (e.g., Innstrand et al., 2008; Wang et al., 2012; Westman et al., 2004). Thus it is expected that employees were more prone to emotional burnout during lockdowns related with the demanding roles and increased uncertainty of their daily life which is also the reason why we examined burnout in this research. This study was conducted at the beginning of the lockdowns from April to May 2020 in Turkey, and all data were collected in a month. We believe it is important to examine the role of mindfulness on the psychological well-being of employees, especially during difficult times such as the global pandemic. The results of this study will provide direction for future studies that aim to develop new intervention methods for employees to deal with stress, anxiety, burnout, and depression that are elevated with environmental conditions.

Mindfulness and Well-Being

Mindfulness is defined as the state of awareness created by the individual in the present, consciously and without judgment, by paying attention to the instant development of the experience (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). There are several theoretical and conceptual models for mindfulness (Cebolla et al., 2012) that agree on the main elements of the concept: self-regulation of attention and adoption of the present moment (Bishop et al., 2004). Self-regulation of attention related to being aware and people who are mindful described as being able to regulate their focus of attention (Bishop et al., 2004). Moreover, people expected to have an orientation described with curiosity and openness (Bishop et al., 2004). Studies have reported that mindfulness can uniquely predict anxiety and that methods of mindfulness reduce the level of anxiety in clinical terms (Evans & Segerstrom, 2011).

There are two lines of research on mindfulness. In one line of research, trait mindfulness has been investigated for its influence on psychological functioning and well-being (Hülsheger et al., 2013). Mindfulness is an attribute of consciousness that leads to well-being (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Evidence suggests that trait mindfulness is related to several indicators of mental health and well-being (Brown et al., 2012). It decreases depression vulnerability (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017), and people who have higher trait mindfulness exhibit healthier physiological and psychological responses during stressful times (Brown et al., 2012). It is also related to confidence, emotional regulation, life satisfaction, perceived stress, negative emotions, and anxiety (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017). On the other hand, mindfulness-based interventions have been examined to determine their effectiveness on psychological well-being (e.g., Irving et al., 2009), which focuses on state mindfulness. State mindfulness is related to an individual’s satisfaction with life as well as many useful physiological, psychological and behavioral aspects, including self-esteem, level of stress felt, anxiety, and negative affect (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Studies on state mindfulness showed differences between individuals, which was accepted as evidence for trait mindfulness (Brown et al., 2012; Glomb et al., 2011; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017). Brown and Ryan (2003) discussed the important connection between traits and state mindfulness by highlighting their evidence that trait mindfulness predicts a reduction in daily negative affect while state mindfulness boosts positive affect. In this study, we aimed to study the role of trait mindfulness on individual responses during unexpected and uncertain situations, which were experienced by employees around the globe during the pandemic.

Studies of mindfulness in the workplace have also indicated its role in task performance (Dane, 2011) and work-family balance (Allen & Kiburz, 2012). Trait mindfulness has been shown to be related to both job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion (Hülsheger et al., 2013; Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017). Moreover, evidence shows that employee performance, interpersonal relations, and work withdrawal benefit from being mindful (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017). Although work outcomes were not examined in this study, it is important to highlight that all individual- and work-related outcomes are influenced by each other.

Intolerance of Uncertainty as a Mediator Between Mindfulness and Well-Being

One of the questions Brown and Ryan (2003) asked about mindfulness was possible self-regulation processes that it facilitates. Mindfulness strengthens and enhances talent to regulate one’s attention in an adaptive way (Jha et al., 2007). Individuals will show enhanced emotional awareness and low negative affect when they are higher in trait mindfulness (Creswell et al., 2007). Moreover, during stressful waiting periods, being mindful helps people deal with the situation (Sweeny & Howell, 2017). According to Brown and Ryan (2003), mindfulness has a self-regulation role that is associated with behavioral regulation and emotional well-being. Thus, it activates monitoring individual emotional states, which will lead to lower negative affect (Creswell et al., 2007). Parallel with this idea, Jimenez et al. (2010) found that affective regulations (self-acceptance, positive emotions, and mood regulation expectancies) mediate the relationship between trait mindfulness and depression. In other words, mindfulness improves regulatory function, which boosts individual well-being.

Researchers of general anxiety disorders identified IU as one of the main constructs related to worry (Koerner & Dugas, 2008). IU was discussed as a cognitive disposition (Koerner & Dugas, 2008) that leads to cognitive vulnerability and information processing bias (Birrell et al., 2011); however, by using interventions, it is possible to decrease IU (Ladouceur et al., 2000). Since the development and maintenance of anxiety has been shown to be highly correlated with IU (Buhr & Dugas, 2006; Ladouceur et al., 2000), awareness and IU show extremely similar relationships (Kraemer et al., 2016). For example, awareness of health anxiety can contribute to individuals’ ability to move away from their fears and bodily sensations about their health, to regulate and develop their ability to accept and be unresponsive to them (Surawy et al., 2015). Thus, Kraemer et al. (2016) examined the mechanisms between mindfulness and health anxiety in which IU was a mediator. Because IU includes negative emotions, cognitions and behaviors (Birrell et al., 2011), attention and awareness of individuals are important. Thus, when we are exposed to uncertainty, mindfulness will be our effective path-tracking tool.

As summarized above, mindfulness and studies about awareness have attracted more attention because of their effect on well-being. However, little is known about the psychological mechanisms through how mindfulness might influence negative emotions and well-being. Moreover, bivariate relationships are not enough to explain the role of mindfulness on well-being, and it is important to explore possible mediators which describe the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Grounded on the Self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), mindfulness which leads to awareness and high choice of behaviors will be expected to change behaviors, and individuals would be more self-determined which increase their control during uncertainty. By examining this association, we would explore the importance of awareness during high-uncertainty situations during pandemic lockdown. The results of this study will also provide helpful information about possible intervention programs for employees working under pressure and high level uncertainty.

In conclusion, during the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic, a common theme for everyone was uncertainty. However, to the best of our knowledge, only a few researchers have studied IU during the pandemic, and one of the research gaps in the field is about understanding the role of individual resources, such as mindfulness, on the experience of IU, which would support psychological well-being. As discussed before, Evans and Segerstrom (2011) stated that mindfulness is an important predictor of well-being, and several studies showed mindfulness improves regulatory function (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Cresswell et al., 2007; Jimenez et al., 2010) which boosts individual well-being. Therefore, in this correlational study, we hypothesized that mindfulness would predict lower intolerance of uncertainty, leading to lower stress, anxiety, depression, and emotional exhaustion among employees during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. In other words, IU will mediate between mindfulness and psychological well-being. The model we hypothesized in this study is given in Figure 1. In our model, mindfulness is an independent variable, IU is a mediator, stress, anxiety, depression, and emotional exhaustion are dependent variables.

Figure 1.

Proposed model.

Interventions focusing on mindfulness have shown evidence to decrease psychopathological symptoms (Brown et al., 2007). However, more research is needed to explain the mechanism between mindfulness and psychological well-being. One of the main contributions of this research is to explore the role of IU in the association between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being, which would also support the previous research by Kraemer et al. (2016). Mindfulness-relevant practices and intervention programs have attracted attention in recent years (Brown et al., 2007); however, it is crucial to learn more about the possible core dimension, such as the role of being mindful in dealing with unexpected experiences, which would be beneficial in the development of specific training to occupational settings.

Methods

Participants

Participants included 293 employees; 54% were women, and 46% were men. They were recruited through snowball sampling in which recruitment emails were sent directly to personal contacts who were then asked to forward the invitation to their network. Participants who accepted the invitation to the study were reached to informed consent before completing an online questionnaire on the Google survey platform. All study procedures were approved by the institutional ethics review board. Data were collected between April 2020 and May 2020 when COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic and national lockdowns were on in the country. In the sample, 59.7% of the participants were working at home, while 40.3% were continuing their job at the workplace. Married participants accounted for 56% of the sample, 50% had a child, and 24.6% of the participants held a supervisor position in their job. The mean organizational tenure was 7.3 year (SD = 6.9).

Measures

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), which was developed by Brown and Ryan (2003), was used to measure the dispositional mindfulness of employees. According to Brown et al. (2007) “dispositional mindfulness” describes a tendency of individuals being able to remain in mindful state over time. It consists of 15 items with a 6-point Likert scale (i.e., I observe how my thoughts come and go; I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughts and behavior). The scale was standardized into Turkish by Özyeşil et al. (2011). Researchers collected data by using the translated form of the questionnaire in four different samples living in Turkey (n = 160, 289, 302,122). Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported a single factor consisted with the original questionnaire (Özyeşil et al., 2011). In their validation study, researchers found the Cronbah’s Alpha of the scale as .80 and test-retest correlation as .86.

Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale

The scale, which was first developed in French, was translated into English by Buhr and Dugas in 2002. The scale was standardized into Turkish by Sarı and Dag (2009). The scale consists of 26 items and four factors (i.e., “Uncertainty makes me uneasy, anxious, or stressed”; “My mind can’t be relaxed if I don’t know what will happen tomorrow”). The scale aims to measure intolerance to uncertainty, and it assesses positive beliefs about worry, and negative appraisals about worry. The reliability of the scale was found to be 0.84.

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21)

The Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) was developed by Lovibond and Lovibond (1995). In this study the scale which was translated into Turkish by Akin and Çetin (2007) was used with the Cronbach alpha validity coefficient ranged from .75 to .82. DASS-21 is a self report scale which designed to measure the negative emotional states of depression (i.e., I could not seem to experience any positive feelings at all), anxiety (i.e., I was aware of dryness of my mouth) and stress (i.e., I found it hard to wind down). During COVID-19 pandemic, DASS-21 questionnaire was also used and validated to collect data in several different countries (e.g.,Tee et al., 2020; Wang, López-Núñez, Pan, et al., 2021; Wang, Tripp, Sears, et al., 2021; Wang, Chudzicka-Czupała et al., 2020; Wang, Pan et al., 2020).

Emotional Burnout in Family Scale (Maslach Burnout Inventory)

The emotional burnout dimension of the Maslach Burnout Scale (Maslach et al., 1986) was used in this study. The scale consists of five items which aim to measure emotional exhaustion related to burnout. Items measuring work-related emotional burnout were edited to be family-related by Yalçın (2017) (i.e., I feel I’m working too hard in order to maintain the order in family life). Each item used a 5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The internal consistency coefficient of the Turkish version was found to be 0.81 (Yalçın, 2017).

Demographics

Participants were also asked about whether they continued working at home or at the office during data collection, marital status, number of children, position, age and gender, and their sector of employment, tenure and position (supervisor or employee).

Results

Means, standard deviations, reliabilities, and correlations for the measured variables are shown in Table 1. All variables were significantly related to each other. Before testing our hypothesized model, the differences between men (n = 134) and women (n = 159), employees who were working at home (n = 175) and at the workplace (n = 118) during the lockdown and married (n = 165) and single (n = 128) employees were examined in terms of their mindfulness, intolerance to uncertainty, stress, anxiety, depression, and emotional burnout using 2 × 2 × 2 MANOVA. A test of homogeneity of variances was not significant (p = .07). The results showed significant differences in intolerance to uncertainty, burnout, depression, and stress scores of married and single employees. According to the results, single employees reported higher intolerance to uncertainty, emotional burnout, depression and stress than married employees (intolerance to uncertainty, married M = 73.63, SD = 22.05; single M = 79.74, SD = 21.75, F = 4.70, p = .03) (burnout scores, married M = 5.81, SD = 4.83; single M = 7.49, SD = 4.49, F = 6.30, p = .01) (depression scores married M = 5.07,SD = 3.89; single M = 6.14, SD = 3.91, F = 4.76, p = .03) (stress scores married M = 7.59, SD = 3.53; single M = 8.58, SD = 3.74, F = 4.48, p = .04). Additionally, the anxiety scores of employees working at home and those working at the workplace during lockdown were found to be significantly different (home M = 4.33, SD = 3.24; office M = 3.25, SD = 3.05, F = 7.48, p = 007). The interaction effect of gender and marital status was significant on anxiety and mindfulness. According to the analysis, single women reported higher anxiety (M = 4.50, SD = 3.35) than married women (M = 3.53, SD = 3,20). However, married men (M = 3.91, SD = 2.94) reported higher anxiety than single men (M = 3.45, SD = 3.38, F = 4.77, p = .03).

Table 1.

Means, Standard Deviations, Min-Max scores, Reliabilities, and Inter-scale Correlations for Measured Research Variables.

	M	SD	Min.	Max.	1	2	3	4	5
1. Mindfulness	60.23	12.42	20	90
2. Intolerance of uncertainty	76.30	22.09	25	123	−0.23^***
3. Stress	8.03	3.65	1	21	−0.22^***	0.54^***
4. Anxiety	3.90	3.21	0	16	−0.15^**	0.40^***	0.46^***
5. Depression	5.54	3.93	0	18	−0.21^***	0.55^***	0.62^***	0.53^***
6. Emotional burnout	6.55	4.75	0	19	−0.13^*	0.35^***	0.40^***	0.35^***	0.39^***

Note. N = 293.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

A path analysis with the maximum likelihood estimation was used to test our proposed model in IBM SPSS AMOS 26. In the evaluation of the model, the goodness of the fit indexes such as the chi-square, CMIN/df, RMSEA, CFI, and GFI were used (Kline, 1998). Six composite scores (mindfulness, intolerance to uncertainty, anxiety, stress, depression, exhaustion) were calculated by using the sum of questionnaire items. The bootstrap method was used tests both direct and indirect effects between the variables. Shrout and Bolger (2002) recommended this method as it is possible to evaluate mediation for small to moderate sample sizes. It would be possible to reach the most accurate confidence intervals for indirect effects by using this method (Mackinnon et al., 2004). Researchers underlined that confidence intervals and standard error estimates will not be accurate as the indirect effect estimates generally do not follow a normal distribution (see in Mackinnon et al., 2004; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). According to Shrout and Bolger (2002) by using this method it would be possible to deal with the mediation problems in testing both direct and indirect effects. In the proposed model, the effects of mindfulness and intolerance to uncertainty on anxiety, stress, exhaustion, and depression were tested by adopting the bootstrap estimation procedure with a sample of 2000 in Amos 26.0.

Specifically, by using random sampling with the replacement of the data set (N = 293), 2000 bootstrap samples were generated. Composite scores for each of the six variables were used in the model. Since gender, workplace during lockdown and marital status showed significant differences for variables they were analyzed as control variables in the model. The initial test of the measurement model which was the full mediation model, resulted in a good fit to the data (χ² = 6.75, χ²/df = 0.97, p = .46, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = 0.00). In Figure 2, all path coefficients of the relationships between main variables are given. Moreover, in Table 2, standardized total, direct, and indirect, effects of mindfulness on IU, stress, depression, anxiety and burnout, their associated 95% confidence intervals are displayed.

Figure 2.

Significant standardized regression weights were given. ^***p < .001.

Table 2.

Summary of Mediation Results for the Mediation Model (Standardized Regression Weights are given for 2000 Bootstrapped Samples).

Independent variable	Mediating variable	Dependent variable	Effect of IV on M	Effect of M on DV	Direct effects	Indirect effects	Total effects
Mindfulness	IU	Stress	−0.23^**	0.53^***	−.09	−0.12^***	−0.21^**
		Anxiety		0.38^***	−.06	−0.09^***	−0.15^*
		Depression		0.55^***	−.08	−0.13^***	−0.20^**
		Burnout		0.33^***	−.06	−0.08^***	−0.13^*

Note. IU = Intolerance to uncertainty.

p < .05. ^**p < .01. ^***p < .001.

As seen in Figure 2, the path leading from mindfulness to IU was significant. According to the model, mindfulness had a negative relationship with IU, β = −.23 (p < .01), which was in parallel with the expectations. On the other hand, for mindfulness, the estimated parameters indicated that a direct path for stress (β = −.09, p = .13, 95% CI [−0.20, 0.02]), for anxiety (β = −.06, p = .29, 95% CI [−0.19, 0.06]), for depression (β = −.08, p = .27, 95% CI [−0.19, 0.05), and for emotional burnout (β = −.06 p = 28, 95% CI [−0.17, 0.05]) were not significant, while the indirect effect of mindfulness on stress (β = −.12. p = .001, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.18]), anxiety (β = −.09 p = .001, 95% CI [−0.04, −0.14]), depression (β = −.13. p = .001, 95% CI [−0.06, −0.13]), and emotional burnout (β = −.08. p = .001, 95% CI [−0.04, −0.12]), were all significant, which supports full mediation between mindfulness and psychological well-being variables (stress, depression anxiety, and emotional burnout) through IU. Results showed that 10% of the variance in IU is accounted for by mindfulness, 14% of the variance in emotional burnout, 32% of the variance in depression, 18% of the variance in anxiety and 30% of the variance in stress is accounted for by mindfulness and IU.

Discussion

The COVID-19 pandemic is described as an uncontrollable stressful life event by López et al. (2020). During lockdowns, people have experienced higher uncertainty, and their psychological well-being has been affected by the increase in social isolation and strict quarantine measures. In this context, we believe that with the start of the pandemic, individual resources such as mindfulness have become more important, as they support people in dealing with uncertainty and increase their psychological well-being. Thus, we wanted to investigate the role of trait mindfulness on the psychological well-being of employees and IU as a mediator between those variables during any unexpected circumstances. Parallel with our expectations, we found that mindfulness is an important predictor of psychological well-being through its influence on IU during the lockdowns of the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. According to the results, employees with high levels of trait mindfulness also reported lower IU, which leads to lower levels of anxiety, stress, depression, and emotional burnout, which is parallel with the findings of Kraemer et al. (2016), who found that IU fully mediated the relationship between mindfulness and health anxiety. The results suggest that employees who were higher in attribute of consciousness and awareness were also reported lower levels of stress, anxiety, depression and emotional burnout as they had higher tolerance to uncertainty.

IU is an important vulnerability factor for several mental health disorders, including anxiety and depression (Carleton et al., 2012). Because uncertainty has become more widespread with the COVID-19 pandemic, people are more likely to report higher levels of IU as it results from negative beliefs about uncertainty and its consequences (Dugas & Robichaud, 2007). Rettie and Daniels (2021) reported that more people than normal have struggled with uncertainty in the UK with the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. In a study by Satici et al. (2022) in Turkey, IU was associated with the fear of COVID-19 and mental well-being. It is important to clarify what kind of resources help people deal with psychological distress during the pandemic (Rettie & Daniels, 2021), such as mindfulness, in our study. Mindfulness increases self-regulated behavior and decreases the number of automatic behaviors with higher awareness and control (Mesmer-Magnus et al., 2017). In other words, mindful individuals are more self-determined (Glomb et al., 2011). As discussed in self-determination theory by Deci and Ryan (1985), awareness is an important concept because it is related to the needs, values and interests of an individual. During the lockdowns, high mindfulness increases individual awareness and their control over their choices, which would help individuals to be more self-determined and decrease their IU. Moreover, people who have higher mindfulness focus on their emotions more and define their emotions to cope with the situation (Hanh, 1987), which would decrease their IU and increase their psychological well-being. Thus, focusing adaptive resources during the pandemic is important for enhancing uncertainty tolerance in the public (Rettie & Daniels, 2021).

This study also shed light on the differences among employees related to demographics, including gender, marital status, and place of work, during lockdowns. Our study results showed that being married was a protective factor during lockdowns, such that married employees reported lower levels of intolerance to uncertainty, emotional burnout, depression, and stress than single employees. The results were parallel with the previous studies conducted during pandemic (e.g., Holmes et al., 2020). In addition, employees who were working remotely reported higher anxiety than employees who were working at their regular workplaces during lockdowns. As working remotely is a very new experience for some people, higher anxiety among those people is something we would expect.

The current study also has some limitations. First, our data were self-reported and cross-sectional, which may limit the inference of causality among variables. Longitudinal studies during the COVID-19 pandemic would yield more knowledge regarding the role of mindfulness in IU and the psychological well-being of employees. Second, the data was collected by using convenience sampling via an online survey, which might be related to collecting data from the respondents who are highly educated and we have relatively homogenous sample of employees living in Turkey. Therefore, it remains unclear to what extent the results generalize to different populations in different cultures or countries. Third, the present study analyzed the role of trait mindfulness on IU and psychological well-being. It will be important for future studies to examine both trait and state mindfulness to examine the role of mindfulness interventions during difficult circumstances such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite these limitations of the study, it is one of the studies in which the data were collected at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns among employees. In this study, we found that trait mindfulness predicts IU, which mediates the association between mindfulness and psychological well-being, including stress, anxiety, depression, and emotional burnout, during lockdowns. These findings inspire a host of questions regarding the role of trait mindfulness on IU and well-being among employees, especially during difficult times. The current study focused on the role of trait mindfulness, but future studies might also consider studying the role of state mindfulness with trait mindfulness on IU and psychological well-being, as two types of mindfulness are related to each other (Brown et al., 2012; Brown & Ryan, 2003). It is important to examine the role of trait mindfulness as a source for individuals to cope with uncertainty; however, it is also important to explore how mindfulness-based interventions would help people, which was examined in studies to test for their effectiveness on psychological well-being (e.g., Irving et al., 2009). Mindfulness is an important resource for employees to protect their psychological well-being. Furthermore, future studies should give more importance to other environmental factors, including social support, to understand the impact of other variables on IU and well-being. Additional research focusing into this area would provide a valuable contribution to the field.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Compliance with the Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the University Research Ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.

ORCID iD

Doruk Uysal Irak

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

Akin

Çetin

(2007). The depression anxiety and stress scale (DASS): The study of validity and reliability. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Bilimleri, 7(1), 260–268. http://search.proquest.com.libproxy.mta.ca/scholarly-journals/depression-anxiety-stress-scale-dass-study/docview/236995712/se-2

Allen

T. D.

Kiburz

K. M.

(2012). Trait mindfulness and work–family balance among working parents: The mediating effects of vitality and sleep quality. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.002

Banks

(2020). The mental health effects of the first two months of lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. Fiscal Studies, 41(3), 685–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-5890.12239

Birrell

Meares

Wilkinson

Freeston

(2011). Toward a definition of intolerance of uncertainty: A review of factor analytical studies of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(7), 1198–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.009

Bishop

S. R.

Lau

Shapiro

Carlson

Anderson

N. D.

Carmody

Segal

Z. V.

Abbey

Speca

Velting

Devins

(2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M.

(2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M.

Creswell

J. D.

(2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298

Brown

K. W.

Weinstein

Creswell

J. D.

(2012). Trait mindfulness modulates neuroendocrine and affective responses to social evaluative threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(12), 2037–2041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.04.003

Buhr

Dugas

M. J.

(2006). Investigating the construct validity of intolerance of uncertainty and its unique relationship with worry. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 20(2), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2004.12.004

10.

Cai

Yang

Liu

Chen

Shu

Xia

Liao

Cai

Yang

Shen

Peng

Huang

Zhang

Wang

Liu

Chen

…Liu

(2020). Experimental treatment with favipiravir for COVID-19: An open-label control study. Engineering, 6(10), 1192–1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2020.03.007

11.

Carleton

R. N.

Mulvogue

M. K.

Thibodeau

M. A.

McCabe

R. E.

Antony

M. M.

Asmundson

G. J.

(2012). Increasingly certain about uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty across anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 26(3), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.01.011

12.

Cebolla

García-Palacios

Soler

Guillen

Baños

Botella

(2012). Psychometric properties of the Spanish validation of the five facets of mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ). The European Journal of Psychiatry, 26(2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.4321/S0213-61632012000200005

13.

Creswell

J. W.

Hanson

W. E.

Clark Plano

V. L.

Morales

(2007). Qualitative research designs: Selection and implementation. Counseling Psychologist, 35(2), 236–264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006287390

14.

Dane

(2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37(4), 997–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310367948

15.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

16.

Dhar

Sen

Basu

(2010). Identity consistency and general well-Being in college students. Psychological Studies, 55, 144–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12646-010-0022-5

17.

Dugas

M. J.

Robichaud

(2007). Cognitive-behavioral treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: From science to practice. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

18.

Einstein

D. A.

(2014). Extension of the transdiagnostic model to focus on intolerance of uncertainty: A review of the literature and implications for treatment. Clinical Psychology, 21, 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/cpsp.12077

19.

Evans

D. R.

Segerstrom

S. C.

(2011). Why do mindful people worry less? Cognitive Therapy and Research, 35, 505–510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-010-9340-0

20.

Fazio

A. F.

(1977). A concurrent validational study of the NCHS General Well-Being Schedule. In Vital and health statistics. Series 2, Data evaluation and methods research (pp. 1–53).

21.

Glomb

T. M.

Duffy

M. K.

Bono

J. E.

Yang

(2011). Mindfulness at work. In Martocchio

Liao

Joshi

(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (pp. 115–157). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

22.

Grillon

Baas

J. P.

Lissek

Smith

Milstein

(2004). Anxious responses to predictable and unpredictable aversive events. Behavioral Neuroscience, 118(5), 916–924.

23.

Hanh

T. N.

(1987). The miracle of mindfulness: A manual for meditation. Beacon.

24.

Holmes

E. A.

O'Connor

R. C.

Perry

V. H.

Tracey

Wessely

Arseneault

Ballard

Christensen

Cohen Silver

Everall

Ford

John

Kabir

King

Madan

Michie

Przybylski

A. K.

Shafran

Sweeney

… Bullmore

(2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry, 7(6), 547–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(20)30168-1

25.

Hülsheger

U. R.

Alberts

H. J. E. M.

Feinholdt

Lang

J. W. B.

(2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031313

26.

Innstrand

Melbye Langballe

Arild Espnes

Falkum

Gjerlw Aasland

(2008). Positive and negative work–family interaction and burnout: A longitudinal study of reciprocal relations. Work & Stress, 22(1), 1–15.

27.

Irving

J. A.

Dobkin

P. L.

Park

(2009). Cultivating mindfulness in health care professionals: A review of empirical studies of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR). Complementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, 15, 61–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctcp.2009.01.002

28.

Jha

A. P.

Krompinger

Baime

M. J.

(2007). Mindfulness training modifies subsystems of attention. Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience, 7, 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.2.109

29.

Jimenez

S. S.

Niles

B. L.

Park

C. L.

(2010). A mindfulness model of affect regulation and depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 645–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.041

30.

Kabat-Zinn

(2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg016

31.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

32.

Koerner

Dugas

M. J.

(2008). An investigation of appraisals in individuals vulnerable to excessive worry: The role of intolerance of uncertainty. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 32(5), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-007-9125-2

33.

Kraemer

K. M.

O’Bryan

E. M.

McLeish

A. C.

(2016). Intolerance of uncertainty as a mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and health anxiety. Mindfulness, 7, 859–865. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0524-x

34.

Ladouceur

Gosselin

Dugas

M. J.

(2000). Experimental manipulation of intolerance of uncertainty: A study of a theoretical model of worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38, 933–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00133-3

35.

Lee

Lui

L. M. W.

Chen-Li

Liao

Mansur

R. B.

Brietzke

Rosenblat

J. D.

Rodrigues

N. B.

Lipsitz

Nasri

Cao

Subramaniapillai

Gill

McIntyre

R. S.

(2021). Government response moderates the mental health impact of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of depression outcomes across countries. Journal of Affective Disorders, 290, 364–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.04.050

36.

Lonska

Mietule

Litavniece

Arbidane

Vanadzins

Matisane

Paegle

(2021). Work–life balance of the employed population during the emergency situation of COVID-19 in Latvia. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 682459. https://doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.6824

37.

Lovibond

P. F.

Lovibond

S. H.

(1995). The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the depression anxiety stress scales (DASS) with the beck depression and anxiety inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-u

38.

López

Perez-Rojo

Noriega

Carretero

Velasco

Martinez-Huertas

J. A.

López-Frutos

Galarraga

(2020). Psychological well-being among older adults during the COVID-19 outbreak: A comparative study of the young-old and the old-old adults. International Psychogeriatrics, 32(11), 1365–1370. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220000964

39.

Mackinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Williams

(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

40.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

(1981). A scale measure to assess experienced burnout: The Maslach burnout inventory. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99–113.

41.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

Schaufeli

W. B.

Schwab

R. L.

(1986). Maslach burnout inventory (Vol. 21, pp. 3463–3464). Consulting Psychologists Press.

42.

McEvoy

P. M.

Mahoney

A. E.

(2012). To be sure, to be sure: Intolerance of uncertainty mediates symptoms of various anxiety disorders and depression. Behavior Therapy, 43, 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.02.007

43.

Mesmer-Magnus

Manapragada

Viswesvaran

Allen

J. W.

(2017). Trait mindfulness at work: A meta-analysis of the personal and professional correlates of trait mindfulness. Human Performance, 30(23), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2017.1307842

44.

O’Bryan

E. M.

Luberto

C. M.

Kraemer

K. M.

McLeish

A. C.

(2018). An examination of mindfulness skills in terms of affect tolerance among individuals with elevated levels of health anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 31(6), 702–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2018.1521515

45.

Ozamiz-Etxebarria

Dosil-Santamaria

Picaza-Gorrochategui

Idoiaga-Mondragon

(2020). Stress, anxiety, and depression levels in the initial stage of the COVID-19 outbreak in a population sample in the northern Spain. Cadernos de saude publica, 36, e00054020.

46.

Özyeşil

Arslan

Kesici

Ş.

Ve Deniz

M. E.

(2011). Bilinçli Farkındalık ölçeği’ni türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması (Turkish standardization of Mindful Attention Awareness Scale). Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(160), 224–235.

47.

Pieh

Budimir

Delgadillo

Barkham

Fontaine

J. R. J.

Probst

(2021). Mental health during COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. Psychosomatic Medicine, 83(4), 328–337. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000871

48.

Pierce

McManus

Hope

Hotopf

Ford

Hatch

S. L.

John

Kontopantelis

Webb

R. T.

Wessely

Abel

K. M.

(2021). Mental health responses to the COVID-19 pandemic: A latent class trajectory analysis using longitudinal UK data. Lancet Psychiatry, 8(7), 610–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(21)00151-6

49.

Rettie

Daniels

(2021). Coping and tolerance of uncertainty: Predictors and mediators of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist, 76(3), 427–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000710

50.

Sarı

Dağ

(2009). Belirsizlige tahammülsüzlük ölçeği, endişe ile ilgili olumlu inançlar ölçeği ve endişenin sonuçlarıölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanması, geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, 10, 261–270.

51.

Satici

Saricali

Satici

S. A.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2022). Intolerance of uncertainty and mental wellbeing: Serial mediation by rumination and fear of COVID-19. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20, 2731–2742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00305-0

52.

Shrout

P. E.

Bolger

(2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.

53.

Surawy

McManus

Muse

Williams

J. M.

(2015). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) for health anxiety (hypochondriasis): Rationale, implementation and case illustration. Mindfulness, 6, 382–392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0271-1

54.

Sweeny

Howell

J. L.

(2017). Bracing later and coping better: Benefits of mindfulness during a stressful waiting period. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(10), 1399–1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217713490

55.

Tee

M. L.

Tee

C. A.

Anlacan

J. P.

Aligam

K. J. G.

Reyes

P. W. C.

Kuruchittham

R. C.

(2020). Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.043

56.

Wang

Chudzicka-Czupała

Grabowski

Pan

Adamus

Wan

Hetnał

Tan

Olszewska-Guizzo

McIntyre

R. S.

Quek

(2020). The association between physical and Mental Health and face mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic: A comparison of two countries with different views and practices. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 569981. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.569981

57.

Wang

Chudzicka-Czupała

Tee

M. L.

Núñez

M. L.

Tripp

Fardin

M. A.

Habib

H. A.

Tran

B. X.

Adamus

Anlacan

García

M. E. A.

Grabowski

Hussain

Hoang

M. T.

Hetnał

X. T.

Pham

H. Q.

Reyes

P. W. C.

… Sears

S. F.

(2021). A chain mediation model on COVID-19 symptoms and mental health outcomes in Americans, Asians and Europeans. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 6481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-85943-7

58.

Wang

López-Núñez

M. I.

Pan

Wan

Tan

Choo

Aparicio García

M. E.

(2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in China and Spain: Cross-sectional study. JMIR Formative Research, 5(5), e27818. https://doi.org/10.2196/27818

59.

Wang

Pan

Wan

Tan

C. S.

R. C.

(2020). Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 1729. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17051729

60.

Wang

Tripp

Sears

S. F.

Tan

Zhou

Chan

N. A.

(2021). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in the two largest economies in the world: A comparison between the United States and China. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 44(6), 741–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-021-00237-7

61.

Wang

Chang

Wang

(2012). Work-family conflict and burnout among Chinese female nurses: The mediating effect of psychological capital. BMC Public Health, 12, 915. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-915

62.

Westman

Etzion

Gortler

(2004). The work-family interface and burnout. International Journal of Stress Management, 11(4), 413–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.11.4.413

63.

Xiong

Lipsitz

Nasri

Lui

L. M. W.

Gill

Phan

Chen-Li

Iacobucci

Majeed

McIntyre

R. S.

(2020). Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 277, 55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001

64.

Yalçın

(2017). An examination of work-family conflict from the self-determination theory perspectives [Doctoral dissertation, Middle East Technical University].

Mindfulness During the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdowns: Intolerance Uncertainty and Psychological Well-Being Among Employees

Abstract

Plain Language Summary

Keywords

Introduction

Mindfulness and Well-Being

Intolerance of Uncertainty as a Mediator Between Mindfulness and Well-Being

Methods

Participants

Measures

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale

Intolerance to Uncertainty Scale

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21)

Emotional Burnout in Family Scale (Maslach Burnout Inventory)

Demographics

Results

Discussion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

Compliance with the Ethical Standards

Informed Consent

ORCID iD

Data Availability Statement

References