Mental Well-Being During Pandemic: The Role of Cognitive Biases and Emotion Regulation Strategies in Risk Perception and Affective Response to COVID-19.

Anna Schudy, Karolina Żurek, Marcelina Wiśniewska, Aleksandra Piejka, Łukasz Gawȩda, Łukasz Okruszek
Author Information
  1. Anna Schudy: Department of Cognitive Psychology and Neurocognition, Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
  2. Karolina Żurek: Social Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
  3. Marcelina Wiśniewska: Social Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
  4. Aleksandra Piejka: Social Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
  5. Łukasz Gawȩda: Experimental Psychopathology Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.
  6. Łukasz Okruszek: Social Neuroscience Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland.

Abstract

Both cognitive appraisals of risks associated with the specific disease and affective response to crisis situations have been shown to shape an individual response to pandemics. COVID-19 pandemic and measures introduced to contain it present an unparalleled challenge to mental well-being worldwide. Here, we examine the relationship between self-reported cognitive biases (CB) and emotion regulation skills (ER), COVID-19 risk perception and affective response, and mental well-being (MWB). Five Hundred and Eleven individuals completed General Health Questionnaire, Emotion Regulation Questionnaire, Davos Assessment of Cognitive Biases Scale (DACOBS) as well as scales measuring COVID-19 risk perception and affective response during the initial days of the epidemic in Poland. We used path and bootstrapping analyses to examine the hypothesis that CB may shape MWB during COVID-19 pandemic both directly and indirectly by (i) decreasing ER capacity and (ii) by increasing COVID-19 risk perception and affective response. Negative effect of CB and positive effect of ER via cognitive reappraisal on MWB were observed in participants. Furthermore, in line with our hypothesis, we observed indirect effects of CB via increased COVID-19 risk perception and affective response and decreased use of reappraisal strategy, which all, in turn, were related to MWB. Finally, we found an indirect effect of CB on MWB through double mediation of suppression strategies and COVID-19 affective response. Results of the current study suggest that CB, which have been shown to be linked to a variety of mental health symptoms in non-clinical populations, may exacerbate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health outcomes.

Keywords

References

  1. Health Psychol. 2007 Mar;26(2):136-45 [PMID: 17385964]
  2. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2011 Sep;42(3):349-54 [PMID: 21411041]
  3. Front Psychol. 2020 Sep 04;11:2166 [PMID: 33013555]
  4. Schizophr Res. 2013 Mar;144(1-3):63-71 [PMID: 23332365]
  5. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010 Mar;30(2):203-16 [PMID: 20005616]
  6. Psychiatr Pol. 2010 May-Jun;44(3):341-59 [PMID: 20672514]
  7. J Vocat Behav. 2020 Jun;119:103440 [PMID: 32390659]
  8. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017 Dec;58:33-48 [PMID: 28974339]
  9. Clin Rehabil. 2019 Feb;33(2):327-334 [PMID: 30168362]
  10. Sage Open. 2017 Jul 14;7(3):2158244017718890 [PMID: 32455056]
  11. Ann Behav Med. 2004 Apr;27(2):125-30 [PMID: 15026296]
  12. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2020 Feb;14(1):87-96 [PMID: 31099186]
  13. Schizophr Res. 2018 Feb;192:317-326 [PMID: 28601498]
  14. Front Psychol. 2020 Dec 04;11:579181 [PMID: 33343454]
  15. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021 Mar-Apr;35(2):486-496 [PMID: 33362344]
  16. Psychol Sci. 2003 Mar;14(2):144-50 [PMID: 12661676]
  17. Psychol Med. 2006 Jun;36(6):771-8 [PMID: 16563206]
  18. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2020 Sep 1;13(5):228-232 [PMID: 31968120]
  19. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2020 Jun;58:102861 [PMID: 32280053]
  20. Int J Ment Health Addict. 2021;19(5):1875-1888 [PMID: 32346359]
  21. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2012 Sep;18(3):314-30 [PMID: 22564084]
  22. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34 [PMID: 15471760]
  23. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012 Jun;102(6):1198-213 [PMID: 22329656]
  24. Psychiatry Res. 2020 Jul;289:113045 [PMID: 32388418]
  25. Psychol Sci. 2004 Jul;15(7):482-7 [PMID: 15200633]
  26. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2014 Jul;49(7):1011-22 [PMID: 24919446]
  27. Soc Sci Med. 2018 Sep;212:50-59 [PMID: 30005224]
  28. Schizophr Res Cogn. 2016 Mar;3:33-38 [PMID: 27990352]
  29. Aging Ment Health. 2008 Nov;12(6):746-60 [PMID: 19023726]
  30. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003 Aug;85(2):348-62 [PMID: 12916575]
  31. Psychiatry Res. 2015 Jan 30;225(1-2):50-57 [PMID: 25453635]
  32. Risk Anal. 2011 Apr;31(4):645-56 [PMID: 21077927]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0COVID-19responseaffectiveCBmentalriskperceptionMWBcognitivepandemicwell-beingEReffectshownshapeexaminebiasesemotionregulationQuestionnaireEmotionRegulationCognitiveBiaseshypothesismayviareappraisalobservedindirecthealthappraisalsrisksassociatedspecificdiseasecrisissituationsindividualpandemicsmeasuresintroducedcontainpresentunparalleledchallengeworldwiderelationshipself-reportedskillsFiveHundredElevenindividualscompletedGeneralHealthDavosAssessmentScaleDACOBSwellscalesmeasuringinitialdaysepidemicPolandusedpathbootstrappinganalysesdirectlyindirectlydecreasingcapacityiiincreasingNegativepositiveparticipantsFurthermorelineeffectsincreaseddecreasedusestrategyturnrelatedFinallyfounddoublemediationsuppressionstrategiesResultscurrentstudysuggestlinkedvarietysymptomsnon-clinicalpopulationsexacerbateimpactoutcomesMentalWell-BeingPandemic:RoleStrategiesRiskPerceptionAffectiveResponse

Similar Articles

Cited By