1012771

research-article2021
HPQ0010.1177/13591053211012771Journal of Health PsychologyTurliuc and Candel

Article

Journal of Health Psychology

The relationship between

1­–13
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
psychological capital and sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13591053211012771
https://doi.org/10.1177/13591053211012771
mental health during the journals.sagepub.com/home/hpq

Covid-19 pandemic: A
longitudinal mediation model

Maria Nicoleta Turliuc

and Octav Sorin Candel

Abstract
The new Coronavirus has impacted people’s lifestyles, stress, and well-being. Thus, they need personal
positive resources to help them during challenging circumstances. With this longitudinal study on 290
participants, we analyzed the relationship between psychological capital (PsyCap), measured at the beginning
of the lockdown period and some indicators of mental health (depression, anxiety, satisfaction with life)
measured after 2 months. Moreover, we examined whether stress (at Time 2) mediates the relationships.
Following structural equation modeling (SEM) analyses, the results show that PsyCap has a significant positive
effect on satisfaction with life and significant negative effects on depression and anxiety. Stress mediated all
the relationships.

Keywords
anxiety, depression, Covid-19, positive psychological capital, satisfaction with life, stress

Introduction ability to successfully maintain their mental

health by increasing their well-being and decreas-
The World Health Organization indicated that the ing their levels of anxiety and/or depression,
world has never faced a crisis like Covid-19 pan- especially during challenging circumstances. In
demic (WHO, 2020). It has impacted individuals, other words, individuals who are endowed with
families, and communities, has affected people’s greater resources are less negatively impacted by
lifestyles, daily routines, mental health, stress, stressful life circumstances. This study addresses
and their well-being (Holmes et al., 2020;
Rajkumar, 2020). As much as 30% of the popula-
tion can be affected by stress, depression, and Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iasi, Romania
anxiety following the quarantine (Odriozola-
González et al., 2020). In these times of fear and Corresponding author:
Octav Sorin Candel, Faculty of Psychology and
uncertainty, people need all their psychological Educational Sciences, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of
resources to minimize the mental strain. Iasi, Toma Cozma, No. 3, Iasi 700506, Romania.
Psychological capital (PsyCap) ensures people’s Email: [email protected]
2 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)

the need for research on mental health and on subjective well-being (Culbertson et al., 2010; Li
those solutions that can help alleviate the nega- et al., 2014). Although rooted in the models of
tive effects of the pandemic. Previous research positive organizational behavior, a growing body
has already shown that PsyCap can mitigate the of empirical research, both cross-sectional and
risk of Covid-19 by improving preventive behav- longitudinal, suggests that individuals’ PsyCap is
iors (Sarwar et al., 2020). However, to the best of positively related with well-being (Avey et al.,
our knowledge, this is the first study that has 2010; Culbertson et al., 2010; Luthans et al.,
investigated the psychological capital’s role 2008). A meta-analysis of 51 studies indicated
regarding mental health in the context of the significant relationships between employees’
Covid-19 health crisis. More specifically, we PsyCap, general well-being and a variety of
examined the psychological capital’s positive work-related outcomes (Avey et al., 2011).
association with satisfaction with life (SWL) and Satisfaction with relevant life domains is an
its negative associations with stress, depression, important component of well-being (Diener,
and anxiety. Moreover, we verified whether stress 2000). PsyCap has been shown to predict satis-
is a mediator of the relationship between positive faction within crucial life domains such as work,
psychological capital and depression, anxiety, relationships and health (Luthans et al., 2013).
and SWL. We assessed these variables twice, The positive significant associations between
2 months apart: first, during the first days of the PsyCap and life satisfaction were found more
lockdown period and second, immediately after it recently in youth (Sabaitytė and Diržytė, 2016)
was lifted. Thus, we examined the protective role and student samples (Zhang et al., 2018).
of PsyCap on mental health during the lockdown, Newman et al. (2014) also stated that low PsyCap
and we tried to pinpoint one of the mechanisms predicts less meaning of life, which should
explaining this role. decrease the level of life satisfaction. Finally, life
satisfaction is positively related to optimism and
Positive psychological capital and self-esteem (Lucas et al., 1996), thus suggesting
another link to PsyCap.
mental health Numerous studies pointed out that the Covid-
The theoretical model for positive psychological 19 pandemic and the lockdown have negatively
capital was inspired by both positive psychology impacted life satisfaction in various samples and
(Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2014) and posi- in various countries around the world (Ammar
tive organizational behavior (Wright, 2003). It et al., 2020; Trzebiński et al., 2020; Zhang et al.,
captures an individual’s psychological capacities 2020). However, none of these studies investi-
that can be measured and developed (Luthans and gated the role of PsyCap and how it can affect
Youssef, 2004). Positive psychological capital is life satisfaction. Accordingly, we hypothesized
a higher-order construct, defined as an individu- that: (H1) Psychological capital (at Time 1) sig-
al’s positive psychological state of development nificantly and positively predicts satisfaction
which comprises four positive psychological with life (at Time 2).
resources: self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and Anxiety and depression are negative indica-
resilience (Luthans et al., 2005). PsyCap is a tors of mental well-being. Research in organiza-
state-like variable, open to change, each compo- tional psychology has shown that PsyCap may
nent having the potential to be developed through reduce the risk of depression and anxiety disor-
training and practical interventions (Luthans et ders, PsyCap being negatively associated with
al., 2008). Therefore, clinical psychology anxiety and depression (Rahimnia et al., 2013;
researchers introduced PsyCap-based interven- Liu et al., 2015). For example, in their meta-
tions for coping strategies and enhanced func- analysis, Avey et al. (2011) indicated the exist-
tioning (Salanova and Ortega-Maldonado, 2019). ence of the relationship between PsyCap and
PsyCap has strong positive associations with undesirable employee outcomes, including anx-
both psychological well-being (Avey et al., 2010; iety. Zhou et al. (2018) show the significant
Youssef-Morgan and Luthans, 2015) and negative association between PsyCap and
Turliuc and Candel 3

anxiety in the case of nurses. Also, lower PsyCap beyond his or her perceived ability to cope
levels predict deleterious emotional states such with them” (Lazarus, 1966). Although stress is
as cynicism, anxiety, and exhaustion (Avey et present in everyone’s life, a high level of stress
al., 2011). Finally, positive traits like optimism, such as the stress induced by the Covid-19
resilience, hope, and self-efficacy may help pandemic can have an important negative
individuals to avoid negative emotions such as effect on people's mental health (Bao et al.,
acute anxiety, uncertainty, and bewilderment, 2020; Rajkumar, 2020). Stress has been previ-
which are present in many adults (Tugade and ously associated with higher levels of depres-
Fredrickson, 2004). sion and anxiety and with lower levels of
The relationship of PsyCap with depression psychological well-being (Berkman, 1971;
is documented in work and organizational psy- Daviu et al., 2019; Gustems-Carnicer et al.,
chology as well as developmental psychology 2019; Hammen, 2005).
research. PsyCap is negatively associated with PsyCap’s stress buffering effects have been
depressive symptoms (Han et al., 2019), all its identified in many studies. Most of them indi-
four components (i.e. self-esteem, optimism, cate that each component of PsyCap is nega-
hope, resilience) being positively associated tively related to stress (see Avey et al., 2011 for
with an adaptive response to depression and a meta-analysis). Psychological capital appears
with an improvement in depressive symptoma- to provide individuals with mental hardiness to
tology (Bakker et al., 2017). Recent studies effectively cope with challenging situations.
have indicated that positive psychological Self-efficacy allows people to set challenging
resources protect against the development of goals, to follow them with perseverance and
depression (Boumparis et al., 2016; Lindahl to believe that they can achieve them even
and Archer, 2013). They also suggest that inter- under difficult circumstances (Matsushima and
vention targeting positive resources may be Shiomi, 2003). Similarly, optimists believe that
helpful when it comes to treatment for depres- they will experience positive outcomes in
sion. As such, psychological capital empowers almost any situation, and this positive cognition
people with the necessary strength to cope with may also help individuals to cope better with
adverse events and circumstances. stress (Hmieleski and Baron, 2009). Individuals
The Covid-19 pandemic was associated with high in hope can imagine multiple pathways
higher levels of depression and anxiety (Rehman through which they can achieve their goals and
et al., 2021; Salari et al., 2020). Moreover, other overcome challenges, reducing the probability
studies showed that the level of symptoms at the of becoming highly stressed (Snyder et al.,
start of the pandemic was generally low, but 1996). Finally, the persons high in resilience
when the stay-at-home lockdown orders were were confronted with aversive contexts in the
issued, depression and anxiety increased past and learned how to overcome them. This
(Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020). Thus, it was allows them to trust their coping skills and to
important to test the prospective role of PsyCap approach present or future obstacles without
in the protection of mental health. Drawing becoming overwhelmed by stressors (Tugade et
from the literature, we assumed that: (H2) al., 2004). Therefore, both theory and empirical
Psychological capital (at Time 1) significantly findings suggest that psychological capital can
and negatively predicts depression and anxiety offer a buffer against high experienced stress
(at Time 2 (see Figure 1)). (Baron et al., 2013).
The previous research shows that psycho-
logical capital is a protective factor of mental
Positive psychological capital and
health such as anxiety and depressive symp-
stress toms. However, little attention has been paid to
Stress occurs when a person “perceives that the underlying explanatory mechanism and few
the demands of an external situation are studies, if any, have attempted to address the
4 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)

Figure 1.  Hypothesized model.

role of stress in the relationship between PsyCap relationship between psychological capital (at
and mental health. Moreover, to our knowledge, Time 1) and satisfaction with life, depression,
no study has verified the protective role of and anxiety (at Time 2) (see Figure 1).
PsyCap on mental health in the context of a
health crisis. Therefore, building from these
theoretical perspectives, we considered that Method
lower levels of stress in such aversive condi-
Sample
tions would be an outcome of higher PsyCap
and that, in turn, would be related to a more The sample consisted of married individuals from
positive state of mental health. the general population. The participants were
Some studies showed that psychological gathered by undergraduate students as a course
stress is present in one-in-four adults during the assignment. Each student had to refer two married
Covid-19 pandemic (Cooke et al., 2020). Thus, individuals from their closest people (e.g. parents,
it is crucial to find out how to mitigate stress close friends etc.) to complete the instruments.
and its effects on other components of mental Each participant had to complete the instrument
health. Based on the literature, we hypothesized twice, once at the beginning of the state-of-emer-
that: H3: Stress (at Time 2) mediates the gency (the second half of March) and once after
Turliuc and Candel 5

its ending (the second half of May). Thus, there before the pandemic, marital status, length of
were 2 months between the assessments. Forty- the relationship, and number of children.
seven participants completed the instruments only
during the first wave. They were removed from Compound PsyCap Scale (CPC-12, Lorenz et al.,
the dataset, leaving 290 participants (50% 2016).  The psychological capital was meas-
women). The average age of our sample was ured using the CPC-12 scale. This instrument
43.80 years, with a range from 24 to 82. The aver- presents four PsyCap dimensions (hope, opti-
age relationship length was 224.6 months, with a mism, resilience, self-efficacy) and also permits
minimum of 12  months and a maximum of the use of a total score, obtained by computing
660  months. Among participants, 55 of them the responses from all the items. The scale con-
(19%) had no children, with the rest having tains 12 items (“Overall, I expect better things
between 1 and 5 children. Eleven of the partici- to happen to me than bad”), rated on a 5-point
pants reported that their monthly household scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
income was equivalent to less than 500 euros, 116 (strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a higher
participants between 500 and 1000 euros, 132 par- level of PsyCap. The Cronbach’s alpha for this
ticipants between 1000 and 2000 euros, and 31 study was 0.927.
participants more than 2000 euros. During the sec-
ond wave, 98 of the participants reported that their Stress in General Scale (Stanton et al.,
household income was lower compared with the 2001).  This 15-item scale was used to assess
first wave, 186 participants reported that it the participants’ levels of stress. The scale was
remained the same, and 6 participants reported initially created for the work domain, but for
that it had grown. this study, we modified it to measure stress in
day-to-day life. The participants were instructed
to indicate how they generally felt during the
Procedure
last day on a 3-point scale (1 = This does not
We used a web-based survey designed to gather describe how I am feeling right now, 2 = Unable
the data. The instruments were administered to decide how I am feeling right now, 3 = This
online by each student, between March 18th and does describe how I am feeling right now) of
March 24st, 2020 (T1) and between May 17th descriptive words/phrases (“tense,” “agitated,”
and May 25th, 2020 (T2). The completion time “anxious,” “pressured to do well,” etc.). Some
was approximately 20 minutes. Firstly, the ques- items were reversed scored. For the total score,
tionnaire introduced the purpose of the research, we computed the mean for all 15 items. A higher
followed by a field where the participants gave score indicated a higher level of stress. The
their informed consent. The participation was Cronbach’s alpha for this study was 0.87 (at T1)
voluntary, and the participants could withdraw and 0.905 (at T2).
from the study at any moment without giving
any justification. The students gathered course The Depression, Anxiety and Stress-21 scale
credits for their involvement, but the participants (DASS-21; Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995). The
were not rewarded. DASS-21 scale is used to assess the negative
The study’s procedure and the administered emotional state related to depression (“I
instruments were fully compliant with the couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling
Declaration of Helsinki and with the Ethics at all”), anxiety (“I felt I was close to panick­
Code of the University. ing”), and stress. The scale has 21 items, equally
distributed among the three sub-scales. For this
study, we used only the depression and anxiety
Measures
dimensions. The participants were asked to rate
Sociodemographic data. The sociodemographic how many of each of the items applied to them
data included gender, age, household income over the past week. The answers range from 0
6 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)

(never) to 3 (always). In this study, the Cron- model fit for each model was assessed based on
bach’s Alpha varied between 0.827 and 0.916 a Chi-square, the goodness of fit index
for the two sub-scales. (GFI > 0.90), comparative fit index (CFI > 0.95),
and root mean square error of approximation
Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS, Diener et al., (RMSEA < 0.06–0.08) (Schreiber et al., 2006).
1985).  This is a 5-item scale (“In most ways, The variables were allowed to covariate.
my life is close to my ideal”) designed to meas-
ure global cognitive judgments of one’s psy-
Data sharing statement
chological well-being. The participants indi-
cated how much they agreed or disagreed with This current article includes the complete raw
each of the 5 items using a 7-point scale that data set collected in the study, including the par-
ranges from 7 strongly agree to 1 strongly disa- ticipants’ data set, commands for the analyses
gree. Higher scores indicate higher satisfaction performed in SPSS AMOS software and the
with life. The Cronbach’s alpha for this study outputs.
was 0.874 (for the first wave) and 0.896 (for the
second wave).
Results
The descriptive statistics and correlational anal-
Data analysis ysis are presented in Table 1. PsyCap correlates
As a first step, we performed the descriptive sta- significantly and negatively with stress at T2
tistics and the correlational analysis. SPSS 21 (r = −0.44, p < 0.001), anxiety at T2 (r = −0.35,
was used for these analyses. As a second step, we p <  0.001), depression at T2 (r = −0.47,
computed a series of Structural Equation Models p < 0.001), and positively with SWL at T2
to verify whether stress (measured during the (r = 0.44, p < 0.001). Also, stress at T2 is sig-
second wave) mediated the relationship between nificantly associated with higher anxiety
the PsyCap (measured at the beginning of the (r = 0.58, p < 0.001), depression at T2 (r = 0.69,
lockdown period) as well as depression, anxiety, p < 0.001), and with lower SWL at T2 (r = −0.38,
and SWL (measured at the beginning of the p < 0.001).
relaxation period). IBM SPSS Amos was used
for this analysis. The first model assessed the
The mediating role of stress at T2
total effect of PsyCap at T1 on the indicators of
mental health at T2 (anxiety, depression, SWL). The first model tested whether PsyCap at T1
In the second model, we added stress at T2 as a predicted the levels of depression, anxiety, and
mediator. Bootstrapping with 5000 re-samples SWL at T2. The fit indicators for this model
was used to obtain parameter estimates for both were very good (χ2 = 11.899, df = 6, p = 0.064,
total and specific indirect effects. The 95% bias- GFI = 0.989, CFI = 0.994, RMSEA = 0.058).
corrected confidence intervals (CIs) were used to PsyCap at T1 has significant and negative
determine whether effects were statistically sig- effects on anxiety at T2 (β = −0.22, p < 0.001),
nificant: if the 95% bias-corrected CI does not depression at T2 (β = −0.26, p < 0.001), and a
contain zero, then the indirect effect is consid- significant and positive effect on SWL at T2
ered statistically significant and mediation has (β = 0.16, p = 0.002).
been demonstrated (Hayes, 2018). The first The second model tested the mediator role of
wave’s measurements of the mental health indi- stress at T2. After introducing it in the model,
cators were controlled in both models. In the sec- the direct effects of PsyCap at T1 on anxiety,
ond model, we also controlled for stress measured depression and SWL at T2 become non-signifi-
during the first wave. We allowed all the T1 vari- cant (see Table 2). The results show that higher
ables to correlate among them, as well as the PsyCap at T1 is associated with lower stress at
three outcome variables measured at T2. The T2 (β = −0.26, p = 0.005). Higher stress at T2
Turliuc and Candel 7

Table 1.  Means, standard deviations and correlations among the study’s variables.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. PsyCap T1 4.90 0.71 1  
2. Stress T1 1.55 0.46 −0.47*** 1  
3. Stress T2 1.62 0.46 −0.44*** 0.56*** 1  
4. Anxiety T1 0.53 0.56 −0.42*** 0.51*** 0.33*** 1  
5. Anxiety T2 0.49 0.56 −0.35*** 0.34*** 0.58*** 0.46*** 1  
6. Depression T1 0.59 0.62 −0.60*** 0.60*** 0.42*** 0.70*** 0.43*** 1  
7. Depression T2 0.51 0.63 −0.47*** 0.45*** 0.69*** 0.43*** 0.76*** 0.58*** 1  
8. SWL T1 5.25 1.01 0.53*** −0.41*** –0.34*** −0.24*** −0.19*** −0.46*** −0.31*** 1
9. SWL T2 5.32 1.00 0.44*** −0.32*** −0.38*** −0.29*** −0.25*** −0.43*** −0.44*** 0.62***

***p < 0.001.

Table 2.  Total, direct, and indirect effects form psychological capital in stress, depression, anxiety, and
psychological well-being.

β SE p 95% CI
Total effects
  PsyCap T1 – depression T2 −0.267 0.048 <0.001  
  PsyCap T1 – anxiety T2 −0.223 0.043 <0.001  
  PsyCap T1 – PWL T2 0.167 0.075 0.002  
Direct effects
  PsyCap T1 – stress t2 −0.268 0.052 0.005  
  PsyCap T1 − depression T2 –0.059 0.047 0.265  
  Stress T2 − depression T2 0.554 0.040 0.023  
  PsyCap T1 − anxiety T2 −0.043 0.057 0.471  
  Stress T2 – anxiety T2 0.433 0.050 0.009  
  PsyCap T1 – SWL T2 0.098 0.056 0.201  
  Stress T2 – SWL T2 −0.170 0.054 0.027  
Indirect effects
  PsyCap T1 – stress T2 – depression T2 −0.148 0.030 0.005 [−0.204; −0.105]
  PsyCap T1 – stress T2 – anxiety T2 −0.116 0.027 0.004 [−0.171; −0.083]
  PsyCap T1 – stress T2 – SWL T2 0.045 0.017 0.009 [0.022; 0.078]

was linked with higher depression (β = 0.54, hypothesized relationships. The autoregressive
p = 0.023) and anxiety (β = 0.43, p = 0.009) at T2 coefficients were also significant (see Figure 2).
and with lower SWL (β = −0.17, p = 0.027). This model also presents excellent fit indicators
Finally, the analysis supports the hypothesis, @@(χ2 = 15.76, df = 12, p = 0.202, GFI = 0.988,
assuming that stress is a significant mediator CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.033).
between PsyCap and depression, anxiety, and
SWL. The indirect effects of PsyCap through
stress at T2 on depression (β = −0.14, p = 0.006,
Discussion
95% CI [−0.20; −0.10]), anxiety (β = −0.11 This current study aimed to analyze the protective
p = 0.004, 95% CI [−0.17; −0.08]), and SWL role of psychological capital on mental health dur-
(β = 0.04, p = 0.009, 95% CI [0.02; 0.07]) are all ing the Covid-19 pandemic, by examining the
significant. Thus, stress fully mediates the relationship between PsyCap, depression, anxiety,
8 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)

Figure 2.  Results of the mediation model (standardized effects).

*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

and satisfaction with life. Moreover, we investi- crisis, foster SWL measured after 2 months.
gated the mediating role of stress. We used a lon- These findings support previous results also
gitudinal design allowing us to draw some causal derived from longitudinal data (Avey et al.,
conclusions from the results. The Covid-19 pan- 2010; Culbertson et al., 2010). This shows that
demic, the quarantine and the isolation can nega- PsyCap is an important resource for happiness,
tively affect mental well-being (Brooks et al., flourishing, and thriving. People who have
2020; Matias et al., 2020) and our findings can more psychological resources, PsyCap among
contribute to a better understanding of the per- them, tend to be better adapted to face impor-
sonal resources that can protect it, including the tant crises. They also receive more social sup-
underlying mechanism supporting the process. port, thus gaining a supportive social network
The first hypothesis stated that PsyCap helping them to remain satisfied with their life,
would be positively related to satisfaction with even in dire situations (Li et al., 2014).
life. Our results confirm that higher levels of In agreement with the second hypothesis,
PsyCap, during the first days of the Covid-19 PsyCap has a role in reducing the levels of
Turliuc and Candel 9

depression and anxiety during the Covid-19 studies examining the mental health-related
pandemic. Similar results were found in both implications of PsyCap outside of an organiza-
the general population (Selvaraj and Bhat, tional context. Moreover, it is, as far as we
2018) and populations facing health problems know, the only research to use it concerning the
(such as HIV/AIDS; Liu et al., 2013). The four Covid-19 pandemic. Thus, it expends the con-
components of PsyCap (hope, optimism, self- ceptual model of PsyCap across further life
efficacy, resilience) allow people to experience domains. From a practical perspective, showing
less vulnerability, more positive emotions, and that stress mediated all the relationships
more opportunities to succeed (Liu et al., 2013). between the PsyCap, SWL, depression, and
Although faced with a significant burden (the anxiety suggests that therapeutic interventions
risk of losing one’s job or getting sick), people should focus first on alleviating stress. To
with higher PsyCap might have a highly adapt- improve individuals’ mental well-being in times
able coping mechanism, allowing them to suc- of stress, employers are required to provide safe
cessfully fight against depression and anxiety. working conditions and fair wages, and govern-
The results are also in line with research indi- mental social services programs should focus
cating the positive effects of individual strengths on helping people with low-income (Fischer et
on enhancing satisfaction with life and reducing al.; 2020; Lupe et al., 2020; Pieh et al., 2020).
psychological symptoms (e.g. depression, anxi- Also, therapeutical intervention may address
ety, stress) (Duan, 2016; Niemiec, 2013; Park two sets of variables that are directly within the
and Peterson, 2009). people’s control: definitions of stressor and
With our third hypothesis, we further concen- resources. Thus, therapists may change peo-
trated on one of the explaining mechanisms. We ples’ perceptions by using cognitive interven-
found that people who benefit from higher lev- tions and coping improving strategies such as
els of PsyCap, those more resourceful during the active coping, support seeking, distraction, and
first assessment, reported lower levels of stress disengagement (Carver et al.,1989; Randall and
during the subsequent time point. While past Bodenmann, 2009). Also, PsyCap is a core con-
research showed PsyCap’s buffering effects on struct of positive psychological resources that
stress in the organizational domain, this study many psychological interventions can be based
shows that Psycap can protect against stressors on. Given that PsyCap is a state-like construct
regardless of their source. PsyCap allows people that can be developed (Luthans et al., 2007) and
to use better coping strategies when facing vari- taking into account that the Covid-19 pandemic
ous stressful situations (Rabenu et al., 2016). represents a significant risk factor for the devel-
PsyCap might make people cope through change opment of various mental health issues, some
and acceptance, not through withdrawal. Being interventions based on the expansion of PsyCap
more flexible and adaptable, more optimistic can be implemented (Luthans et al., 2008).
toward the future and having greater trust in Interventions based on fostering PsyCap were
their abilities might provide people with the nec- shown to be effective in the case of depression
essary resources to overcome stressful situa- (Song et al., 2019). They help to develop all the
tions. Similar results were also found in other core components of PsyCap (hope, self-effi-
highly stressful contexts such as military deploy- cacy, optimism, resilience), thus offering
ment (Krasikova et al., 2015). Nevertheless, greater results compared to the programs target-
previous studies describing how stress leads to ing each positive outcome separately. Hence,
both depression and anxiety provide further sup- developing positive resources might be espe-
port to our mediation findings (Daviu et al., cially important during Covid-19 pandemic,
2019; Hammen, 2005). because it can reduce the level of stress and
These findings are important from both theo- subsequent depression and anxiety. Moreover,
retical and practical perspectives. Firstly, from our longitudinal design showed that this line of
a theoretical perspective, this is one of the few research is particularly promising. Not only that
10 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)

people with higher levels of PsyCap show its importance during the Covid-19 pandemic.
greater momentary SWL during the pandemic, Using a longitudinal design, we did not only
but the results remain significant despite the show that PsyCap predicts important mental
passing of time. Although further study is health outcomes (depression, anxiety, SWL)
needed, this suggests that PsyCap can be used but also identified a psychological mechanism
as an “active ingredient” that can facilitate men- that explained this relationship. Specifically, we
tal well-being during and even beyond the showed that the positive effects of PsyCap on
pandemic. mental health were mediated by reduced stress.
We believe that the findings have important
practical implications, proposing a mechanism
Limitations
that can alleviate mental health problems dur-
This study proposes a timely examination of how ing this present crisis.
mental health could be protected during the
Covid-19 pandemic. It draws from longitudinal Declaration of conflicting interests
data and presents the causal relationship between The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of inter-
PsyCap, stress, depression anxiety, and SWL. est with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
However, some limitations must be noted. publication of this article.
Firstly, the data is self-reported. Although all the
questionnaires present high reliability, different Funding
data-gathering methods (such as interviews and The author(s) received no financial support for the
peer-reported data) could be used in future research, authorship, and/or publication of this
research to examine mental health in more objec- article.
tive ways. Secondly, while we tried to control the
results from Time 1, we did not assess the previ- ORCID iD
ous mental health problems of our participants.
Octav Sorin Candel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-
Thus, our data is biased in favor of a generally 4472-5754
healthy population and might not offer the oppor-
tunity to generalize for more vulnerable individ-
References
uals (those with previously diagnosed depression
or anxiety issues). Third, to measure the general Ammar A, Chtourou H, Boukhris O, et al. (2020)
COVID-19 Home confinement negatively
stress we used a scale created to assess the job
impacts social participation and life satisfaction:
stress that was not previously validated in the A worldwide multicenter study. International
context of the present health crisis. Also, the Journal of Environmental Research and Public
restricted range of the scale may limit the vari- Health 17(17): 6237.
ance in the regression models. In future studies, Avey JB, Luthans F, Smith RM, et al. (2010) Impact
more well-established stress scales should be of positive psychological capital on employee
used. Finally, our sample consisted only of mar- well-being over time. Journal of Occupational
ried individuals. This can be considered as a Health Psychology 15(1): 17–28.
limitation of our study because the sample selec- Avey JB, Reichard RJ, Luthans F, et al. (2011) Meta-
tion could lead to potential bias. Also, the fact analysis of the impact of positive psychological
that we tested our hypotheses on a specific popu- capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and
performance. Human Resource Development
lation negatively impacts our ability to general-
Quarterly 22(2): 127–152.
ize the results. Bakker DJ, Lyons ST and Conlon PD (2017) An
exploration of the relationship between psy-
Conclusions chological capital and depression among first-
year doctor of veterinary medicine students.
Despite these limitations, this study expands the Journal of Veterinary Medical Education
concept of psychological capital and highlights 44(1): 50–62.
Turliuc and Candel 11

Bao Y, Sun Y, Meng S, et al. (2020) 2019-nCoV epi- Fischer R, Bortolini T, Karl JA, et al. (2020) Rapid
demic: Address mental health care to empower review and meta-meta-analysis of self-guided
society. The Lancet 395(10224): e37–e38. interventions to address anxiety, depression,
Baron RA, Franklin RJ and Hmieleski KM (2013) and stress during COVID-19 social distancing.
Why entrepreneurs often experience low, not Frontiers in Psychology 11: 563876.
high, levels of stress. Journal of Management Hammen C (2005) Stress and depression. Annual
42(3): 742–768. Review of Clinical Psychology 1(1): 293–319.
Berkman PL (1971) Life stress and psychological Han X, Li Q, Wang C, et al. (2019) The association
well-being: A replication of Langner’s analy- of occupational stress and depressive symptoms
sis in the midtown Manhattan study. Journal of among employed persons with benign breast
Health and Social Behavior 12(1): 35–45. disease: The mediating role of psychological
Boumparis N, Karyotaki E, Kleiboer A, et al. (2016) capital. Psychopathology 52(3): 1–7.
The effect of psychotherapeutic interventions Hayes AF (2018) Introduction to Mediation,
on positive and negative affect in depression: A Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis
systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach.
Affective Disorders 202: 153–162. New York, NY: The Guilford Press
Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, et al. (2020) The Hmieleski KM and Baron RA (2009) Entrepreneurs’
psychological impact of quarantine and how to optimism and new venture performance: A
reduce it: Rapid review of the evidence. The social cognitive perspective. Academy of
Lancet 395(10227): 912–920. Management Journal 52(3): 473–488.
Carver CS, Scheier MF and Weintraub JK (1989) Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, et al. (2020)
Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically Multidisciplinary research priorities for the
based approach. Journal of Personality and COVID-19 pandemic: A call for action for men-
Social Psychology 56(2): 267–283. tal health science. The Lancet Psychiatry 7(6):
Cooke JE, Eirich R, Racine N, et al. (2020) 547–560.
Prevalence of posttraumatic and general psy- Krasikova DV, Lester PB and Harms PD (2015)
chological stress during COVID-19: A rapid Effects of psychological capital on mental health
review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research and substance abuse. Journal of Leadership &
292: 113347. Organizational Studies 22(3): 280–291.
Culbertson SS, Fullagar CJ and Mills MJ (2010) Feeling Lazarus R (1966) Psychological Stress and the
good and doing great: The relationship between Coping Process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
psychological capital and well-being. Journal of Li B, Ma H, Guo Y, et al. (2014) Positive psycholog-
Occupational Health Psychology 15(4): 421–433. ical capital: A new approach to social support
Daviu N, Bruchas MR, Moghaddam B, et al. (2019) and subjective well-being. Social Behavior and
Neurobiological links between stress and anxi- Personality: An International Journal 42(1):
ety. Neurobiology of Stress 11: 100191. 135–144.
Diener E (2000) Subjective well-being: The science Lindahl M and Archer T (2013) Depressive expres-
of happiness and a proposal for a national index. sion and anti-depressive protection in adoles-
American Psychologist 55(1): 34–43. cence: Stress, positive affect, motivation and
Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, et al. (1985) self-efficacy. Psychology 4(6): 495–505.
The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Liu L, Pang R, Sun W, et al. (2013) Functional social
Personality Assessment 49(1): 71–75. support, psychological capital, and depres-
Duan W (2016) The benefits of personal strengths sive and anxiety symptoms among people liv-
in mental health of stressed students: A longi- ing with HIV/AIDS employed full-time. BMC
tudinal investigation. Quality of Life Research Psychiatry 13(1): 324.
25(11): 2879–2888. Liu L, Wen F, Xu X, et al. (2015) Effective resources
Gustems-Carnicer J, Calderon C, Batalla-Flores A, for improving mental health among Chinese
et al. (2019) Role of coping responses in the underground coal miners: Perceived organi-
relationship between perceived stress and psy- zational support and psychological capital.
chological well-being in a sample of Spanish Journal of Occupational Health 57(1): 58–68.
educational teacher students. Psychological Lorenz T, Beer C, Pütz J, et al. (2016) Measuring psy-
Reports 122(2): 380–397. chological capital: Construction and validation
12 Journal of Health Psychology 00(0)

of the compound PsyCap scale (CPC-12). PLoS and Cultures: Perspectives from Positive
One 11(4): e0152892. Psychology. New York, NY: Springer Science,
Lovibond PF and Lovibond SH (1995) The structure pp.11–29.
of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Odriozola-González P, Planchuelo-Gómez Á, Irurtia
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with MJ, et al. (2020) Psychological symptoms
the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. of the outbreak of the COVID-19 confine-
Behaviour Research and Therapy 33(3): 335–343. ment in Spain. Journal of Health Psychology.
Lucas RE, Diener E and Suh E (1996) Discriminant Epub ahead of print 30 October 2020. DOI:
validity of well-being measures. Journal of 10.1177/1359105320967086.
Personality and Social Psychology 71(3): 616– Ozamiz-Etxebarria N, Dosil-Santamaria M, Picaza-
628. Gorrochategui M, et al. (2020) Stress, anxiety,
Luthans F, Avey JB and Patera JL (2008) and depression levels in the initial stage of the
Experimental analysis of a web-based training COVID-19 outbreak in a population sample in
intervention to develop positive psychological the northern Spain. Cadernos de Saúde Pública
capital. Academy of Management Learning & 36(4): e00054020.
Education 7(2): 209–221. Park N and Peterson C (2009) Character strengths:
Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, et al. (2005) Research and practice. Journal of College and
The psychological capital of Chinese workers: Character 10(4): 1–10.
Exploring the relationship with performance. Pieh C, Budimir S and Probst T (2020) The effect of
Management and Organization Review 1(2): age, gender, income, work, and physical activ-
249–271. ity on mental health during coronavirus disease
Luthans F, Norman SM, Avolio BJ, et al. (2008) (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. Journal of
The mediating role of psychological capital Psychosomatic Research 136: 110186.
in the supportive organizational climate— Rabenu E, Yaniv E and Elizur D (2016) The relation-
Employee performance relationship. Journal of ship between psychological capital, coping with
Organizational Behavior 29(2): 219–238. stress, well-being, and performance. Current
Luthans F and Youssef CM (2004) Human, social, Psychology 36(4): 875–887.
and now positive psychological capital manage- Rajkumar RP (2020) COVID-19 and mental health:
ment: Organizational Dynamics 33(2): 143–160. A review of the existing literature. Asian
Luthans F, Youssef CM, Sweetman DS, et al. (2013) Journal of Psychiatry 52: 102066.
Meeting the leadership challenge of employee Rahimnia F, Karimi Mazidi A and Mohammadzadeh
well-being through relationship PsyCap and Z (2013) Emotional mediators of psychologi-
health PsyCap. Journal of Leadership & cal capital on well-being: The role of stress,
Organizational Studies 20(1): 118–133. anxiety, and depression. Management Science
Lupe SE, Keefer L and Szigethy E (2020) Letters 3(3): 913–926.
Gaining resilience and reducing stress in Randall AK and Bodenmann G (2009) The role of
the age of COVID-19. Current Opinion in stress on close relationships and marital sat-
Gastroenterology 36(4): 295–303. isfaction. Clinical Psychology Review 29(2):
Matias T, Dominski FH and Marks DF (2020) 105–115.
Human needs in COVID-19 isolation. Journal Rehman U, Shahnawaz MG, Khan NH, et al. (2021)
of Health Psychology 25(7): 871–882. Depression, anxiety and stress among Indians
Matsushima R and Shiomi K (2003) Social self- in times of Covid-19 lockdown. Community
efficacy and interpersonal stress in adoles- Mental Health Journal 57: 42–48.
cence. Social Behavior and Personality: An Sabaitytė E and Diržytė A (2016) Psychological
International Journal 31(4): 323–332. capital, self-compassion, and life satisfaction
Newman A, Ucbasaran D, Zhu F, et al. (2014) of unemployed youth. International Journal of
Psychological capital: A review and synthesis. Psychology: A Biopsychosocial Approach 19:
Journal of Organizational Behavior 35(S1): 49–69.
S120–S138. Salanova M and Ortega-Maldonado A (2019)
Niemiec RM (2013) VIA character strengths: Psychological capital development in organi-
Research and practice (The first 10 years). In: zations: An integrative review of evidence-
Knoop HH and Fave AD (eds.) Well-Being based intervention programs. In: Van Zyl L
Turliuc and Candel 13

and Rothmann S (eds.) Positive Psychological Trzebiński J, Cabański M and Czarnecka JZ (2020)
Intervention Design and Protocols for Multi- Reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic: The
Cultural Contexts. New York, NY: Springer, influence of meaning in life, life satisfaction,
pp.81–102. and assumptions on World orderliness and posi-
Salari N, Hosseinian-Far A, Jalali R, et al. (2020) tivity. Journal of Loss and Trauma 25(6–7):
Prevalence of stress, anxiety, depression among 544–557.
the general population during the COVID-19 Tugade MM and Fredrickson BL (2004) Resilient
pandemic: A systematic review and meta-anal- individuals use positive emotions to bounce
ysis. Globalization and Health 16(1): 57. back from negative emotional experiences.
Sarwar F, Panatik SA and Jameel HT (2020) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Understanding public’s adoption of preventive 86(2): 320–333.
behavior during COVID-19 pandemic using Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL and Feldman Barrett
health belief model: Role of appraisals and L (2004) Psychological resilience and positive
psychological capital. Advance. Preprint. DOI: emotional granularity: Examining the benefits
10.31124/advance.12661178.v1 of positive emotions on coping and health.
Schreiber JB, Nora A, Stage FK, et al. (2006) Journal of Personality 72(6): 1161–1190.
Reporting structural equation modeling and World Health Organization (2020) Coronavirus dis-
confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. ease 2019 (COVID-19) – Situation report 91.
The Journal of Educational Research 99(6): Wright TA (2003) Positive organizational behavior:
323–338. An idea whose time has truly come. Journal of
Seligman ME and Csikszentmihalyi M (2014) Organizational Behavior 24(4): 437–442.
Positive psychology: An introduction. In: Youssef-Morgan CM and Luthans F (2015)
Csikszentmihalyi M (ed.) Flow and the Psychological capital and well-being. Stress
Foundations of Positive Psychology. Dordrecht: and Health 31(3): 180–188.
Springer, pp.279–298. Zhang R, Ewalds-Kvist BM, Li D, et al. (2018)
Selvaraj PR and Bhat CS (2018) Predicting the men- Chinese students’ satisfaction with life rela-
tal health of college students with psychological tive to psychological capital and mediated by
capital. Journal of Mental Health 27(3): 279–287. purpose in life. Current Psychology 38(1):
Snyder CR, Sympson SC, Ybasco FC, et al. (1996) 260–271.
Development and validation of the State Hope Zhang SX, Wang Y, Rauch A, et al. (2020)
Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Unprecedented disruption of lives and work:
Psychology 70(2): 321–335. Health, distress and life satisfaction of working
Song R, Sun N and Song X (2019) The efficacy adults in China one month into the COVID-19
of psychological capital intervention (PCI) outbreak. Psychiatry Research 288: 112958.
for depression from the perspective of posi- Zhou J, Yang Y, Qiu X, et al. (2018) Serial multiple
tive psychology: A pilot study. Frontiers in mediation of organizational commitment and
Psychology 10. job burnout in the relationship between psycho-
Stanton JM, Balzer WK, Smith PC, et al. (2001) A logical capital and anxiety in Chinese female
general measure of work stress: The stress in nurses: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey.
general scale. Educational and Psychological International Journal of Nursing Studies 83:
Measurement 61(5): 866–888. 75–82.