From fear and vulnerability to fortitude: sustaining psychological well-being in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic

Despite the societal increase in mental health disorders during the initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, many individuals were able to cope effectively with new mental health challenges. The heterogeneity in responses to adversity underscores the influence of protective factors in promoting coping behaviour. The current study investigates fortitude as a potential protective resource by examining the potential direct, mediating, and moderating roles of fortitude in the relationship between perceived vulnerability to disease, fear of COVID-19, and indices of psychological well-being. Participants (n = 355) were schoolteachers who completed the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire, Fear of COVID-19 Scale, Fortitude Questionnaire, UCLA Loneliness Scale, trait scale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Hopelessness Scale, and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale. Path analysis indicated that fortitude had a health-sustaining effect that was evident in its association with all indices of psychological well-being. Fortitude also mediated the relationship between perceived vulnerability to disease and depression, anxiety, and loneliness. In addition, fortitude moderated the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and depression. The significant moderating and mediating effects of fortitude on psychological outcomes support its potential for counterbalancing the negative mental health impacts of COVID-19. Interventions aimed at enhancing fortigenic appraisals of self and others may prove beneficial in promoting psychological well-being.

The Resilience of South African School Teachers in the Time of COVID-19: Coping with Risk of Infection, Loneliness, and Anxiety

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated an overall increase in the global prevalence of mental health disorders and psychological distress. However, against this backdrop, there was also evidence of adaptation and coping, which suggested the influence of protective factors. The current study aims to extend previous research on the role of protective factors by investigating the health-sustaining and mediating roles of resilience in the relationship between perceived vulnerability to disease, loneliness, and anxiety. Participants consisted of a convenience sample of schoolteachers (N = 355) who completed the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Questionnaire, the short form of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, the University of California, Los Angeles Loneliness Scale, and the trait scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Scale, through an online link created with Google Forms. The results of path analysis indicated significant negative associations between resilience and both loneliness and anxiety. These results indicate the health-sustaining role of resilience. In addition, resilience mediated the relationships between germ aversion and perceived infectability, on the one hand, and loneliness and anxiety, on the other hand. The findings confirm that resilience can play a substantial role in counteracting the negative impact of the pandemic on mental health.

Comparing the Psychometric Properties among Three Versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale in Individuals with Schizophrenia or Schizoaffective Disorder

The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3; UCLA-LSV3) is widely used for assessing loneliness. Nevertheless, the validity of this scale for assessing loneliness in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder has not been determined. Additionally, studies validating the eight-item and three-item versions of UCLA-LSV3 have not included individuals with severe mental illness; therefore, whether the short versions are comparable to the full 20-item version of UCLA-LSV3 for this population is unclear. The present study examined the unidimensional structure, internal consistency, concurrent validity, and test–retest reliability of the Chinese versions of UCLA-LSV3 (i.e., 20-item, 8-item, and 3-item versions) to determine which version is most appropriate for assessing loneliness in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder in Taiwan. A total of 300 participants (267 with schizophrenia and 33 with schizoaffective disorder) completed the scales, comprising UCLA-LSV3, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), the suicidality module of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia–Epidemiological Version (K-SADS-E), and the family and peer Adaptation, Partnership, Growth, Affection, and Resolve (APGAR) index. Construct validity was evaluated through confirmatory factor analysis. The three versions of UCLA-LSV3 were compared with the CES-D, the suicidality module of the K-SADS-E, and the family and peer APGAR index to establish concurrent validity. The results indicated that all three versions of UCLA-LSV3 exhibited acceptable to satisfactory psychometric properties in terms of unidimensional constructs, concurrent validity, and test–retest reliability. The full version of UCLA-LSV3 had the best performance, followed by the eight-item version and the three-item version. Moreover, the three versions had relatively strong associations with each other. Therefore, when deliberating which version of UCLA-LSV3 is the best choice for assessing loneliness in individuals with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, healthcare providers and therapists should consider time availability and practicality.

Psychometric Evaluation of Three Versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Full, Eight-Item, and Three-Item Versions) among Sexual Minority Men in Taiwan

The UCLA Loneliness Scale, with different short versions, is widely used to assess levels of loneliness. However, whether the scale is valid in assessing loneliness among sexual-minority men is unknown. Additionally, it is unclear whether the 8-item and 3-item short versions are comparable to the full 20-item version. The present study compared the validity of the three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale (i.e., 20-item, 8-item, and 3-item versions) among gay and bisexual men in Taiwan. The participants comprised 400 gay and bisexual men in Taiwan who completed a cross-sectional online survey, which included the UCLA Loneliness Scale, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate factorial validity. Convergent validity was examined between the three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the CES-D and STAI. Known-group validity was investigated with participants’ sexual orientation and educational levels. The unidimensional construct was supported in all three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale tested in the present study. Convergent validity was supported as the level of loneliness was correlated with the level of depression and anxiety for all three versions. There were no significant differences between gay and bisexual men, although significant differences were found across different educational levels. The study confirmed that all three versions of the UCLA Loneliness Scale were comparable with satisfactory reliability and validity in Taiwanese sexual-minority men.

Associations among Perceived Sexual Stigma from Family and Peers, Internalized Homonegativity, Loneliness, Depression, and Anxiety among Gay and Bisexual Men in Taiwan

This study aimed to examine the moderating factors of the association between perceived sexual stigma from family and peers and internalized homonegativity, as well as to compare the effects of perceived sexual stigma from family and peers and internalized homonegativity on loneliness, depression, and anxiety in gay and bisexual men. In total, 400 gay and bisexual men participated in this study. The experiences of perceived sexual stigma from family and peers on the Homosexuality subscale of the HIV and Homosexuality Related Stigma Scale, internalized homonegativity on the Measure of Internalized Sexual Stigma for Lesbians and Gay Men, loneliness on the UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3), depression on the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, and anxiety on the State subscale of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory were collected. The results indicated that perceived sexual stigma from family and peers was significantly associated with internalized homonegativity in both gay and bisexual men, and that sexual orientation moderated the association. Moreover, the association between internalized homonegativity and loneliness was significantly greater than that between perceived sexual stigma from family and peers and loneliness, although no significant differences were observed in their associations with depression and anxiety. Intervention programs that promote changes in the attitudes toward gay and bisexual men among the general population are needed to help prevent the development of internalized homonegativity and further loneliness, depression and anxiety.