Coronavirus stress, meaningful living, optimism, and depressive symptoms: a study of moderated mediation model

ABSTRACT

Objective: In the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to public mental health stress, anxiety, panic, and behavioural disorders. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether meaning in life and optimism-pessimism mediated the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms and whether the mediating effect of meaning in life on depressive symptoms was moderated by optimism.

Method: The sample of the study included 475 undergraduate students attending a public university in an urban city of Turkey. They were 69.2% female, ranged in age between 18 and 34 years (M = 20.63, SD = 1.99).

Results: Results from the study showed that meaning in life and optimism–pessimism mediated the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms. Optimism and pessimism additionally mediated the relationship between meaning in life and depressive symptoms. Furthermore, optimism moderated the mediating effect of meaning in life in the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms.

Conclusions: These results indicate that the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms can be better understood by meaning in life and optimism. Optimism might play a protective factor to mitigate the impact of stress on individuals’ psychological health and is an important aspect of implementing meaning – centred intervention services.

KEY POINTS

What is already known about this topic:

1. Meaningful living and optimism are important psychological constructs for psychological health, not only at an empirical level but also at a theoretical level.

2. A high level of optimism improves youth well-being and mental health

3. Stress has adverse impacts on individuals’ well-being and is a risk factor for developing psychological problems

What this topic adds:

1. The present study highlights the importance of school meaning-based preventions and interventions targeting to promote mental health during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

2. Optimism is an important mechanism that may help to explain the effect of coronavirus stress on psychological health of individuals.

3. The study outcomes suggest there is a need to design a more comprehensive prevention and intervention approach for improving people’s psychological health in the context of the pandemic.

KEYWORDS:

• Coronavirus stress
• meaning in life
• optimism
• mental health
• positive psychology

In the world, the COVID-19 pandemic has led to public mental health stress, anxiety, panic, and behavioural disorders (Marčinko et al., 2020). Recent evidence on the COVID-19 virus suggests that the prevalence rates of psychological distress such as stress and anxiety are considerably high (more than 25%) among the general public in China (Qiu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). High rates of mental health problems among healthcare professionals were also reported in Italy: insomnia (8.27%), post-traumatic stress disorders (49.38%), depression (24.73%), anxiety (19.80%), and perceived stress (21.90%) (Rossi et al., 2020). Severe stress and COVID-19 related risk factors can lead to various mental disorders, including anxiety, affective disorders (Marčinko et al., 2020), burnout (Yıldırım & Solmaz, 2020), and death distress (Yıldırım & Güler, 2020). However, some psychological factors can reduce the adverse impacts of stress on psychological health (Yıldırım & Arslan, 2020). Particularly, with the advent of positive psychology, positive traits and psychological strengths have been frequently applied to address psychological problems (Ryan & Deci, 2001; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). In this regard, psychological strengths such as meaning in life and optimism can play key roles in diminishing mental health disorders and promoting well-being in times of crisis (Ju et al., 2013). This study aimed to examine the mediating and moderating roles of optimism and meaning in life in the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms among undergraduate students during the pandemic.

Mediating role of meaning in life

Meaning in life is an important component of an individual’s psychological functioning to mental health and well-being. Although there is no universal consensus on the definition of meaning in life, it has been defined as a sense of coherence, a sense of purpose concerning one’s life and existence, the pursuit and achievement of rewarding goals, and a consequent sense of existential fulfilment (Baumeister, 1991; Reker & Wong, 1988; Ryff & Singer, 1998). According to Frankl (1963), as an innate drive, people inherently tend to search for meaning and significance in their lives, and that failure to attain meaning leads to psychological distress. In difficult times that can cause devastating consequences, people can easily lose a sense of meaning in life, feel disenchanted, and disengaged which could have adverse effects on their mental health (Frankl, 1985; Wong, 2016). In such times, maintaining a feeling of greater meaning in life can support and promote the mental health of individuals from psychological harm.

There is empirical evidence supporting the role of meaningful living in contributing to mental health and well-being (Ho et al., 2010; Minkkinen et al., 2020; Ryff, 1989). In an integrative literature review, Glaw et al. (2017) highlighted that feeling a lack of meaning in life or existential crisis can cause a wide range of psychopathologies including depression, anxiety, hopelessness, addiction, aggression, apathy, poor well-being, physical illness, and suicidal crisis. Experimental studies showed that meaning in life significantly reduced the development of anxiety and emotional stress (Riichiro & Masahiko, 2006). Longitudinal studies also support the predictive role of meaning in life in decreasing depression symptoms (Disabato et al., 2017; Mascaro & Rosen, 2008). In a mediation study, Van Tongeren et al. (2017) reported that stress was negatively related to meaning in life and health. Meaning in life mitigated the detrimental effect of stress on health. In another study, meaning in life was found to mediate the relationship between depression and quality of life (Kim et al., 2019). Therefore, one’s level of meaning in life may impact willingness to engage in pursuing and achieving of rewarding goals that foster a reduction in depressive symptoms and stress in times of crisis. That is, promoting the meaningful living of individuals who experience meaninglessness crisis is important to improve psychosocial health, well-being, coping, and meaningful living as well as reducing symptomatology and meaninglessness in difficult times (Glaw et al., 2017).

Mediating and moderating role of optimism

In times of crisis, fear and uncertainty can lead people to be pessimistic about their future and feel anxiety, depression, and stress over the direction of their life. Therefore, there is a need to shift focus from the risk factors of psychological distress to protective factors of psychiatric disorders during adversity. Optimism vs pessimism is operationalized as a dispositional tendency to expect positive vs negative outcomes in one’s life (Carver et al., 2010; Scheier & Carver, 1985). They have also been defined as a general positive and negative outlook on the present and future life (Dember, 2001).

Both cross–sectional and longitudinal studies have well-established the link between optimism and mental health and well-being. For example, optimism was positively related to greater subjective well-being, self-esteem, hope, self-efficacy, social support, mental health, and flourishing (Dupuis & Foster, 2020; Duy & Yildiz, 2017; Gallagher & Lopez, 2009; Jose et al., 2018; Karademas, 2006; Peterson & Chang, 2003; Reyes et al., 2020). Pessimism was positively related with depression and anxiety (Giardini et al., 2017; Kwok & Gu, 2017; Scott-Hamilton & Schutte, 2016), stress (Jones et al., 2017), and psychological health during pandemic (Arslan, Yıldırım, et al., 2020). Optimism was also associated with subjective well-being (Herero & Extremera, 2010), psychological well-being (Scheier et al., 2001), coping (Anzaldi & Shifren, 2019), posttraumatic growth (Britton et al., 2019), negative emotions (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003), and functioning (Brenes et al., 2002). The optimism-pessimism have also manifested their effects on mental health in longitudinal studies. For example, in a 5‐year follow‐up study, a low-level of optimism (pessimism) was found to result in a greater experience of anxiety and depression in breast cancer survivors (Faye‐Schjøll & Schou-Bredal, 2019). Other studies showed that dispositional optimism moderated the relation between psychological stress and depression (Banerjee, 2012), perceived stress and psychological well-being (Chang, 1998), job stress, and depressive symptoms (Romswinkel et al., 2018). These findings highlight the key role of optimism in one’s life when traumatic events and outcomes are highly present. These results suggest that greater levels of optimism and lower levels of pessimism enhance one’s psychological health and functioning. A lack of optimism may influence a person’s orientation towards life which may lead to increased levels of depressive symptoms.

Present study

The psychological impact of the novel coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) disease has become a major public concern internationally. As the pandemic progresses, there are emerging gaps in individuals’ mental health needs which have been relatively neglected (Xiang et al., 2020). Subsequently, continuous neglect influences worsening mental illnesses. One avenue of research is to prioritize the resources in addressing the subsequent psychological effects moving away from treating the general physical symptoms of health. There is a need to focus on the improvement of the functioning of individuals in the face of a health crisis (Liem et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020). Meaning in life and optimism can play critical roles in protecting the mental health of people during the pandemic.

Studies have investigated the relationship between meaning in life, optimism, stress, and depression as indicators of mental health. However, little attention has been paid to the underlying mechanism that diminishes stress and depressive symptoms. Also, little is known about the factors that might change the strength and direction of the associations between stress and depressive symptoms. As documented above, it is possible that meaning in life acts as a significant mediator between stress and depressive symptoms. Given that optimism and pessimism have contrasting effects on the psychological health of individuals (Scheier et al., 2001), it is plausible that optimism and pessimism might explain the relationship between stress, meaning in life, and depressive symptoms. Most importantly, optimism might modify, to some degree, the relationship between meaning in life and depressive symptoms and act as a protective factor against depressive symptoms. Therefore, this study sought to examine whether meaning in life mediated the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms (see Figure 1) and whether the mediating effect of meaning in life on depressive symptoms was moderated by optimism (see Figure 2). To this end, we set up the following hypotheses; (H₁) meaning in life would mediate the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms, (H₂) optimism and pessimism would mediate the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms, (H₃) optimism and pessimism would mediate the relationship between meaning in life and depressive symptoms, and (H₄) optimism would moderate the mediating effect of meaning in life in the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms.

Figure 1. Proposed model indicating the standardized associations between variables

Figure 2. Proposed conditional process model

Note. X = Coronavirus stress; M_i = Meaning in life; Y = Depressive symptoms; W = Optimism

Method

Participants

The sample of the study included 475 undergraduate students attending a public university in an urban city of Turkey. Participants were 69.2% female, ranged in age between 18 and 34 years (M = 20.63, SD = 1.99), and self-identified themselves as having different socioeconomic status (SES; Low SES = 20.5%, Medium SES = 66%, Upper SES = 13.5%). Prior to data collection, all participants were informed about the study, and an electronic assent form was obtained. An online survey, which was produced using data collection questionnaires and demographic items, was administered to students who volunteered to participate in the study. This study was approved by the ethics committee of the first author’s institution.

Measures

Coronavirus stress measure (CSM)

The CSM is a 5-item self–report measure that assess COVID-19 related to stress (Arslan, Yldırım, Tanhan, et al., 2020). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert type scale ranging between 0 = never and 4 = very often. A sample item is “How often have you been upset because of the COVID19 pandemic?” A higher score indicates greater stress associated with COVID-19. Research provided evidence indicating that the scale had strong internal reliability estimate with the Turkish sample (α = .83; Arslan, Yldırım, et al., 2020).

Meaningful living measure (MLM)

The MLM is a 6–item self–report measure (e.g., “As a whole, I find my life meaningful”) developed to assess the sense of meaning in the life of individuals (Arslan, 2020). All items are scored using a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 7. The MLM was psychometrically sound and had strong internal reliability estimate with the Turkish sample (α = .80; Arslan, 2020).

Optimism and pessimism questionnaire (OPQ)

Cultural differences have a critical role on the development, identification, manifestation, and expression of people’s behaviours and emotions (Arslan, 2019). Comparing with Western culture, Turkish society has relatively a collectivist structure (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1997). Societal and family values are important in forming an individual’s emotions and behaviours (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005; Kağıtçıbaşı & Ataca, 2005). Developing culturally specific measures of optimism and pessimism is important for assessing optimism and pessimism experiences. Additionally, there are very few assessment tools to measure optimism and pesimism among Turkish adults. The OPQ was, therefore, developed for the purpose of present study. We first generated 12 items (6 pilot items for each structure; e.g., “I believe tomorrow will be better than today”, “Whatever I do, I don’t believe the things will go well”) based on a series of discussions within the researchers, a review of the literature, and existing self-report screeners to measure the optimism and pessimism of individuals (Alansari & Kazem, 2008; Çalışkan & Uzunkol, 2018; Furlong et al., 2017; Scheier & Carver, 1985). Subsequently, a group of three professors in the fields of counselling psychology, reviewed the OPQ item pool. After their feedback, several minor revisions were provided on 5 items to increase clarity. All pilot items of the OPQ were rated using a 5-point Likert type scale, ranging between 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

After the item generation process, the OPQ was administered to 138 undergraduate students (52.9% female, ranging in age between 19 and 39 years [M = 22.73, SD = 5.17]) who were not included in the sample of the present study. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to examine the factor structure of the scale using the principal-axis factoring extraction method with Promax (oblique) rotation with this sample. The EFA results revealed that all items loaded on two factors with eigenvalues > 1 that accounted for approximately 55% of the total variance: Optimism Scale (eigenvalue = 5.60; λ range = .58–.88) and Pessimism Scale (eigenvalue = 1.88; λ range = .49–.95). The internal reliability estimates of the scales were strong (α = .86 and .88, respectively). After exploring the factor structure of the measure, the Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with the sample of the present study to verify the emerging factor structure. The CFA provided further evidence supporting that the two-factor measurement model, which structured each of the 12 items as indicators of the two latent structures, provided satisfactory data-model fit statistics:χ² = 228.52, df = 53, p < .001, CFI = .95, TLI = .94, RMSEA [95% CI] = .079 [.069, .090]. The standardized factor loadings ranged from good to excellent (optimism λ range = .75–.79 and pessimism λ range = .56–.82). Additionally, a brief version of the OPQ was generated based on the EFA results, and three items with the highest factor loading were selected for per subscale, and the CFA was rerun to test the brief version of the OPQ measurement model. Findings from the analysis indicated close-data model fit statistics–χ² = 19.30, df = 8, p = .013, CFI = .99, TLI = .98, RMSEA [95% CI] = .052 [.022, .081], with excellent factor loadings, ranging between .77 and .84. Similar to the long version of the scale (OPQ–12), the OPQ–6 provides strong internal reliability estimates with the sample of the present study (Optimism α = .83 and Pessimism α = 84). Findings from these analyses suggest that both forms of the OPQ are a reliable and valid scale for measuring the optimism and pessimism among Turkish samples. The OPQ–12 was used to measure students’ optimism and pessimism in the present study.

Depression scale (DS)

We used the Brief Symptoms Inventory (BSI–18) to examine the participants’ symptoms levels of depression (Derogatis & Fitzpatrick, 2004). The DS comprises of six items scoring using 5–point Likert type scale, ranging from 0 = never to 4 = excessively (e.g., “Feeling no interest in thing”, “Feeling lonely”). Research indicated that the scale had strong internal reliability estimate for the Turkish sample (α = .83; Arslan et al., 2020).

Data analyses

Preliminary analyses were first conducted to investigate observed scale characteristics, the assumption of analyses, and correlation between the variables of the study. Skewness and kurtosis values and their cut points were used to examine the assumption of normality (D’Agostino et al., 1990; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Pearson correlation analysis was subsequently employed to explore the associations between the study variables. After performing the preliminary analyses, a mediation and moderated mediation model were conducted using the PROCESS macro (Model 81 and Model 14) for SPSS version 3.4 (Hayes, 2018). We first employed the mediating role of meaning in life and optimism–pessimism in the association of coronavirus stress with depressive symptoms and then the moderating effect of optimism on the mediating role of meaning in life in the link between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms (Hayes, 2018). Mediation and moderated mediation model were interpreted using standardized path estimates (β) and squared-multiple correlations (R²): 01–.059 = small, .06–.139 = moderate, and ≥ .14 = large (Cohen, 1988). The bootstrap method was also employed to test the significance of indirect effects with 10,000 resamples to estimate (95% confidence intervals [CI]; Hayes, 2018; Preacher & Hayes, 2008). All analyses were conducted using SPSS version 25 (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Moderating effect of optimism on the link between meaning in life and depressive symptoms

Results

Findings from the observed scale characteristics indicated that all scales had strong internal reliability estimates, ranging from .82 to .93, and skewness and kurtosis scores ranged between – .81 and .59, suggesting that all variables had relatively normal distribution (D’Agostino et al., 1990; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013), as shown in Table 1. Further, correlation results showed that coronavirus stress had negative correlations with meaning in life (r = – .23, p < .001) and optimism (r = – .30, p < .001) as well as positive associations with pessimism (r = .43, p < .001) and depressive symptoms (r = .53, p < .001). Meaning in life had a positive correlation with optimism (r = .58, p < .001), while having negative correlations with pessimism (r = – .33, p < .001) and depressive symptoms (r = – .37, p < .001). Depressive symptoms were also negatively associated with optimism (r = – .47, p < .001) and pessimism (r = .57, p < .001), as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Observed scale characteristics and correlation results

	Descriptive statistics								Correlation coefficients (r)
Scales	α	Min.	Max.	M	SD	g1	g2		1.	2.	3.	4.
1 Coronavirus stress	.82	0	20	11.97	3.86	–.26	.15		–	–.23**	–.30**	.42**	.53**
2. Meaning in life	.93	6	42	31.16	7.82	–.81	–.05			–	.58**	–.33**	–.37**
3. Optimism	.90	7	30	21.86	5.25	–.40	–.50				–	–.48**	–.47**
4. Pessimism	.88	6	30	13.36	5.46	.59	–.30					–	.57**
5. Depressive symptoms	.86	0	24	7.70	5.66	.57	–.52						–

Mediation and moderated mediation analysis

Findings from mediation analysis indicated that coronavirus stress significantly predicted meaning in life (β = – .22, p < .001), optimism (β = – .17, p < .001), pessimism (β = .36, p < .001), and depressive symptoms (β = .32, p < .001). Coronavirus stress explained 5% of the variance in meaning in life. Meaning in life had a significant predictive effect on optimism (β = .54, p < .001) and depressive symptoms (β = – .09, p < .05). Coronavirus stress and meaning in life together accounted for 36% of the variance in optimism. Meaning in life was also a significant predictor of pessimism (β = – .25, p < .001), and they together explained 24% of the variance in this construct. Further, meaning in life significantly predicted depressive symptoms through optimism (β = – .18, p < .001) and pessimism (β = .32, p < .001). Likewise, coronavirus stress predicted depressive symptoms through meaning in life, optimism, and pessimism. All variables together accounted for 45% of the variance in depressive symptoms, see in Table 2 and Figure 1. Specifically, pessimism predicted depressive symptoms more strongly than optimism. Standardized indirect effects of the model are also presented in Table 3. Overall, these results suggest that coronavirus stress influences students’ depressive symptoms through meaning in life, optimism, and pessimism. Moreover, optimism and pessimism mediated the association of meaning in life with depressive symptoms.

Table 2. Unstandardized coefficients for the mediation model

		Consequent
		M1 (Meaning in life)
Antecedent		Coeff.	SE	t	p
X (Coronavirus stress)	a1	–.46	.09	–4.93	<.001
Constant	iM1	36.76	1.17	31.15	<.001
		R^2 = .05 F = 24.38; p < .001
		M2 (Optimism)
X (Coronavirus stress)	a2	–.23	.05	–4.37	<.001
M1 (Meaning in life)	d21	.37	.03	14.07	<.001
Constant	iM2	13.38	1.16	11.37	<.001
		R^2 = .36 F = 128.85; p < .001
		M3 (Pessimism)
X (Coronavirus stress)	a3	.53	.06	8.71	<.001
M1 (Meaning in life)	d22	–.17	.03	–5.87	<.001
Constant	iM3	12.52	1.32	9.42	<.001
		R^2 = .24 F = 70.24; p < .001
		Y (Depression)
X (Coronavirus stress)	c’	.46	.06	7.89	<.001
M1 (Meaning in life)	b1	–.06	.03	–2.04	.041
M2 (Optimism)	b2	–.19	.05	–3.85	<.001
M3 (Pessimism)	b3	.33	.04	7.60	<.001
Constant	iy	4.07	1.51	2.69	.007
		R^2 = .45 F = 91.72; p < .001

SE = standard error. Coeff = unstandardized coefficient. X = independent variable; M = mediator variable; Y = outcome or dependent variable. a = the association between the independent variable and mediators; b = the association between the mediator and dependent variable(s); c’ = the direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. i = the intercept, or constant.

Table 3. Standardized indirect effects

Path	Effect	SE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total indirect effect	.20	.02	.16	.26
Stress–>Meaning–> Depressive symptoms	.02	.01	–.01	.05
Stress–>Optimism–> Depressive symptoms	.03	.01	.01	.06
Stress–>Pessimism–> Depressive symptoms	.12	.02	.07	.17
Stress–> Meaning–> Optimism–> Depressive symptoms	.02	.01	.01	.04
Stress–> Meaning–> Pessimism–> Depressive symptoms	.02	.01	.01	.03

Number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals: 10,000

In addition to testing the mediating effect of meaning in life, pessimism, and optimism on depressive symptoms in the context of coronavirus stress, we aimed to examine whether optimism moderated the mediating effect of meaning in life in the association between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms. Findings from the analysis revealed that coronavirus stress significantly predicted meaning in life and depressive symptoms. Meaning in life mediated the effect of coronavirus stress on depressive systems. The interaction effect of meaning in life x optimism was significant, as shown in Table 4. The simple slope effect also indicated that the indirect effect of coronavirus stress on depressive symptoms through meaning in life was observed when optimism was moderate and high, but not when optimism was low, as shown in Figure 2. The simple slope for high (+1 SD), moderate, and low (−1 SD) levels of optimism were (b = – 4.39, p < .001), (b = – 3.10, p < .001), and (b = – .28, p = .775), respectively.

Table 4. Unstandardized coefficients for the conditional process model

		Consequent
		M (Meaning in Life						Y (Depression)
Antecedent		Coeff.	SE		p			Coeff.	SE		p
X (Coronavirus stress)	a	–.46	.09		<.001		c’	.60	.06		<.001
M (Meaning in life)		–	–		–		b1	–.10	.03		.002
W (Optimism)		–	–		–		b2	–.33	.05		<.001
M × W		–	–		–		b3	–.02	.01		<.001
Constant	iM1	5.57	1.18		<.001		iy	1.04	.73		.154
		R^2 = .05 F = 24.39; p < .001						R^2 = .39; R^2 change = .02 F = 74.55; p < .001
Conditional indirect effects of coronavirus stress on depressive symptoms
		Coeff.		BootSE			BootLLCI			BootULCI
M − 1SD (–.99)		.01		.02			–.04			.05
M (.01)		.05		.02			.01			.09
M + 1SD (1.00)		.09		.03			.04			.16
Index of moderated mediation
Optimism		.01		.01			.01			.02

Level of confidence is 95%; the number of bootstrap samples for percentile bootstrap confidence intervals is 10,000; W (moderator variables) values in conditional tables are the mean and ± SD from the mean

Discussion

The current study sought to examine whether meaning in life mediated the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms and whether the effect of coronavirus stress on depressive symptoms and the mediating effect of meaning in life were moderated by optimism. Findings from the study confirmed the first hypothesis of the study indicating that meaning in life mitigated the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms. Coronavirus pandemic has led to serious impairments in the mental health and wellbeing of individuals (Marčinko et al., 2020; Tanhan et al., 2020). For example, high prevalence of psychological distress such as anxiety and depression have been recently reported among the general public during the pandemic (Qiu et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2020). The literature suggests that there is a need to focus on mitigative and protective factors of psychological health disorders during adversity. Therefore, understanding the factors that might help to elucidate the association between coronavirus stress and psychological health is a critical step to develop intervention strategies and provide mental health services during and after coronavirus pandemic. The present study first provided evidence suggesting that meaning in life was a key factor to the psychological health and wellbeing of young adults and mitigated the negative effect of coronavirus stress on depressive symptoms.

Meaning in life is an important factor in promoting psychological health and wellbeing during dangerous times (Arslan & Allen, 2020; Hicks & Routledge, 2013; Ho et al., 2010; Wong, 2010). Frankl (1963) has emphasized that individuals inherently tend to search for meaning, which helps to overcome adverse life experiences, and failure to attain or satisfy this need leads to challenges in their psychological functioning. Consistent with these outcomes, previous research revealed that meaning in life was an essential construct to promote mental health and associated with various psychological health problems including depressive symptoms (Baumeister, 1991; Glaw et al., 2017; Ho et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2019; Reker & Wong, 1988; Riichiro & Masahiko, 2006; Ryff, 1989; Wong, 2016). A sense of meaning in life mitigates the effect of stress from complex stressful life events and improves people’s adjustment (Minkkinen et al., 2020). In addition to this cross-sectional evidence, longitudinal studies have indicated the predictive effect of meaning in life on depressive symptoms (Disabato et al., 2017; Mascaro & Rosen, 2008). For example, Arslan and Allen (2020) reported the mediating effect of meaning in life on wellbeing among Turkish adults in the context of stress related to coronavirus pandemic. Van Tongeren et al. (2017) found that meaning in life served as a mediator in the detrimental effect of stress on health. During the coronavirus pandemic, individuals are more likely to lose a sense of meaning and purpose in life that could have adverse effects on their psychological health and wellbeing (Frankl, 1985; Wong, 2016). This study provided evidence suggesting that promoting the meaningful living of young adults is important to improve their psychosocial health as well as reducing depressive symptoms in the face of the coronavirus crisis.

Findings of the present study further indicated that optimism and pessimism mediated the relationship of coronavirus stress and meaning in life with depressive symptoms. These results suggest that greater optimism and less pessimism reduce the negative impact of coronavirus stress on the experience of depression. Individuals with high levels of stress report greater depressive symptoms are that they have high levels of pessimism and lower levels of optimism. Previous findings are consistent with the results of this study on the association between coronavirus stress, optimism-pessimism, and psychological health outcomes (Duy & Yildiz, 2017; Gallagher & Lopez, 2009; Karademas, 2006; Peterson & Chang, 2003). Pessimism was positively related to psychological health problems such as depression, anxiety (Giardini et al., 2017; Kwok & Gu, 2017; Scott-Hamilton & Schutte, 2016) and psychological distress during pandemic (Arslan et al., 2020). Optimism was also associated with posttraumatic growth (Britton et al., 2019) and negative emotions (Wrosch & Scheier, 2003). Reed (2016) for example, reported the mediating effect of optimism on the association between coping flexibility and psychological problems (e.g., stress) and well-being (e.g., life satisfaction). Longitudinally, a low–level of optimism was found to result in greater experience of anxiety and depression in breast cancer survivors (Faye‐Schjøll & Schou-Bredal, 2019). Moreover, the results of this study showed that optimism moderated the mediating effect of meaning in life on the relationship between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms. Similar to these results, many studies showed that optimism moderated the relation between psychological stress and depression (Banerjee, 2012), perceived stress and psychological well-being (Chang, 1998), job stress and depressive symptoms (Romswinkel et al., 2018). Coronavirus stress causes greater pessimism and less optimism which in turn leads to greater depressive symptoms (Arslan, Yldırım, Tanhan, et al., 2020). Therefore, high levels of optimism and low levels of pessimism may help individuals to cope with stress and foster greater psychological health during the coronavirus pandemic. Taken together, the results of this study suggest that greater levels of optimism and lower levels of pessimism promote a person’s psychological health in the context of coronavirus stress. A lack or low optimism might influence people’s orientation towards life which can lead to decreased levels of meaning in life and increased levels of depressive symptoms. Therefore, optimism might moderate the mediating effect of meaning in life on the association of coronavirus stress with depressive symptoms among young adults.

Findings of the present study provide significant implications for future research and practice. The results have shown that meaning in life mediates the association between coronavirus stress and depressive symptoms. Meaning in life has a predictive effect on depressive symptoms through optimism and pessimism. First, meaning-based intervention strategies could be developed to promote both the sense of meaningful life and optimism to foster individuals’ psychological health. Given the importance of meaning–based approach to promote mental health and wellbeing (Arslan, 2020), mental health providers could use meaning to reduce the risk of psychological health difficulties and to foster psychological health, particularly in times of health crisis. Moreover, optimism has been found as an important aspect of implementing meaning–cantered intervention services. In addition to the mediating effect of optimism and pessimism on depressive symptoms, the results have indicated that optimism moderated the mediating effect of meaning in life on depressive symptoms in the face of coronavirus stress. This evidence supports that optimism is key to promote psychological health and could help to decrease the impacts of coronavirus stress on the psychological health and well-being of young adults. Therefore, optimism could be integrated with meaning–based strategies to improve psychological health not only during but also after coronavirus pandemic.

Despite these important implications of the present study, the study has several methodological limitations. First, the proposed model was conducted using a cross-sectional analytic approach which cannot ascertain a causal association between the study variables. Further research is warranted to provide additional insights into the relationships between the variables of the study using longitudinal designs. In addition, the data were collected using self-reported measures and this is considered another limitation of this study. Multiple designs (e.g., qualitative and quantitative) could be used in future studies for the exploration of the association between the variables. The participants of the study included undergraduate students attending a public university in an urban city of Turkey. Future studies could be performed using different and large samples (e.g., adolescents, older adults) to investigate the relationships that were reported in the present study.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent informed

Consent was obtained from all participants included in the study

Disclosure statement

The authors declared no conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Additional information

Funding

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