Parallel Mediators between Resilience, Mindfulness and Social Connectedness: Entrapment and Intolerance of Uncertainty

Parallel Mediators between Resilience, Mindfulness and Social Connectedness: Entrapment and Intolerance of Uncertainty | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Parallel Mediators between Resilience, Mindfulness and Social Connectedness: Entrapment and Intolerance of Uncertainty Yusuf Akyıl, Süleyman Akçıl, Beste Erdinç This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4990082/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background In response to challenging life circumstances, individuals may exhibit a range of reactions, from feeling trapped and intolerant of uncertainty to experiencing negative psychological outcomes or demonstrating resilience. Those who lack mindfulness and social connectedness often struggle more significantly with these challenges. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment mediate the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. This is the first study to explore these specific relationships. Methods The study involved 351 participants, consisting of 54 males and 297 females, who voluntarily provided data. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilized to perform mediation analysis and examine the complex relationships between the variables. Results The findings revealed that both intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment serve as parallel mediators in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. Specifically, mindfulness and social connectedness were found to negatively predict intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment. In turn, higher levels of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment were associated with lower levels of psychological resilience. These results suggest that individuals who are more mindful and socially connected tend to exhibit greater resilience by being less susceptible to uncertainty and feelings of entrapment. Conclusions This study highlights the critical roles of mindfulness and social connectedness in fostering psychological resilience, particularly by reducing intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment. These findings have important implications for developing interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in individuals facing challenging life circumstances. By promoting mindfulness and strengthening social connections, it may be possible to mitigate the negative psychological effects of uncertainty and entrapment, thereby enhancing overall resilience. mindfulness social connectedness intolerance of uncertainty entrapment resilience Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Many individuals face psychological challenges when dealing with life's adversities. However, some people have been observed to overcome even the most difficult circumstances, adapt effectively, and continue their lives without losing their ability to function. According to Henderson and Milstein [ 1 ], Lee and Cranford [ 2 ], and Öz and Yılmaz [ 3 ], psychological resilience refers to an individual's ability to cope with significant change, distress, or risks, maintain interactions with the environment, adapt to these conditions, and even grow stronger to overcome distress and negative environmental conditions. Psychological resilience refers to the risk that is frequently associated with negative or undesirable outcomes, as well as protective factors that promote desired development [ 4 ]. Consequently, psychological resilience is a phenomenon that is linked to healthy adaptation and is the outcome of the substantial interaction between protective factors that facilitate the adaptation process and preexisting risk factors [ 5 ]. Some researchers believe that resilience should be viewed as a constantly evolving phenomenon that can change over time as a result of changes in social support [ 6 ]. Loneliness has been shown to be negatively associated with psychological resilience [ 7 ]. Given the relationship between loneliness, social relationships, social support, and resilience, it is critical to investigate the relationship between the concepts of social connectedness and resilience. Social connectedness, like the other concepts mentioned above, refers to an individual's sense of belonging, connectedness, relationality, togetherness, or cohesion in social relationships [ 8 ]. Lee et al. [ 9 ] have found that individuals with high levels of connectedness are more inclined to identify with others, feel a sense of intimacy with them, perceive others as approachable and friendly, and engage in social activities and groups. People who have good social relationships and are not lonely are more likely to be resilient, as they are socially connected. Individuals are thought to struggle to be resilient when confronted with uncertainty [ 10 ]. This leads to individuals experiencing difficulty recovering from the negative experiences that are necessary for resilience when they are confronted with uncertainty. A collection of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to uncertainty in everyday life events is referred to as intolerance of uncertainty [ 11 ]. Similarly, intolerance of uncertainty is defined as a person's discomfort with the possibility of something bad happening to him or her [ 12 ]. Studies have found significant negative relationships between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological resilience [ 10 , 13 , 14 ]. In other words, it is claimed that people who are highly intolerant of uncertainty are psychologically less resilient. Individuals with a high intolerance of uncertainty were found to be more socially isolated and anxious [ 15 ]. As can be seen, intolerance of uncertainty is linked to both psychological resilience and social connectedness, which is another aspect of resilience. Research has demonstrated that the concept of psychological resilience is diminished in individuals who exhibit elevated levels of negative mental health symptoms, including anxiety, depression, or negative affect, in addition to their capacity to recover from adversity [ 16 ]. Lower psychological resilience was linked to burnout, secondary traumatic stress, anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty [ 17 ]. In the same vein, individuals who have low social connectedness are likely to experience a variety of negative emotions, including anxiety, jealousy, anger, depression, low self-esteem, and loneliness [ 18 ]. Jensen et al. [ 19 ] discovered that, similar to resilience and social connectedness, intolerance of uncertainty is significantly correlated with anxiety and depression. A higher tolerance of uncertainty was associated with a lower level of anxiety. Additionally, anxiety and depression are linked to the concept of entrapment [ 20 – 22 ]. Entrapment is an unsuccessful struggle experience that demonstrates individuals' desire to act and escape, as well as a negative feeling caused by the belief that the state of defeat cannot be solved or escaped [ 20 ]. Research suggests that entrapment and perceived social support have a negative correlation [ 23 ] and that resilience and social connectedness are linked to depression and anxiety. Therefore, these concepts should be addressed together. Resilience is a valuable framework for positive psychology, emphasizing individuals' strengths rather than their flaws [ 24 ]. The science of psychology seeks to solve psychological problems that arise in individuals while also developing individuals' strengths. Seligman and Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi [ 25 ], who maintain that psychology concentrates on the positive attributes of individuals, emphasize that positive psychology necessitates additional information regarding the positive aspects of individuals' lives. They assert that the objective of positive psychology is to redirect the focus of psychology from the repair of negative aspects of life to the development of positive qualities. Studies conducted for this purpose have revealed that positive psychology interventions, such as mindfulness meditation, have a significant positive impact on people's well-being. Mindfulness is a state of awareness that occurs when an individual is purposefully present in the present moment and pays attention to the formation of the experience moment by moment, without judgment [ 26 ]. Creswell [ 27 ] divided the significance of mindfulness in human life into physical and mental health, cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal outcomes. Mindfulness practices are known to improve communication, interpersonal relationships, the work environment, and work-life quality [ 28 ]. Mindfulness-based programs have been shown to improve social connectedness and reduce loneliness in individuals [ 29 , 30 ]. Social connectedness is found to partially mediate the relationship between mindfulness and well-being, according to a study. It is also recognized that there is a robust negative correlation between intolerance of uncertainty and mindfulness [ 31 ]. Mindfulness is a concept that is linked to significant events in people's lives and has an impact on a variety of characteristics. For example, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was used to treat people with suicidal tendencies, and it was discovered that there was a significant decrease in suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms, hopelessness, anxiety, defeat, and entrapment in the intervention group, as well as a significant increase in mindfulness both after treatment and at follow-up [ 32 ]. As can be seen, mindfulness is linked to social connectedness as well as intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment. As a result, psychological resilience is an important characteristic for individuals to maintain their functionality, particularly in the face of adversity, and adapt to these situations. As a result, resilience must be better understood, and its relationships with other concepts should be investigated. Furthermore, in light of valuable information in the literature, it has been recognized that it is beneficial to examine all of these concepts together when investigating the relationships between the concepts of social connectedness, mindfulness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty, which are known to play an important role in the lives of individuals within the scope of mental health, both with resilience and with one another. In this direction, the current study sought to reveal the relationships between related concepts, and hypotheses to be tested were identified. H1. Intolerance of uncertainty has a mediating role between mindfulness and resilience. H2. Entrapment has a mediating role between mindfulness and resilience. H3. Intolerance of uncertainty has a mediating role between social connectedness and resilience. H4. Entrapment has a mediating role between social connectedness and resilience. H5. Intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment have parallel mediating roles between social connectedness and mindfulness and resilience. Method Participants and Procedure The study included 351 participants, 54 (15.4%) of whom were male and 297 (84.6%) were female. Data were collected from 56 different cities across Turkey. Data was collected online and via social media announcements. The study only included voluntary participants, and they were asked to carefully read the informed consent in the scale sets. Measures Mindful Attention Awareness Scale Brown and Ryan [ 33 ] created this instrument to assess mindfulness levels in an adult sample. Özyeşil et al. [ 34 ] conducted an adaptation study of this measurement tool in Turkish. It is a valid and reliable scale for assessing mindfulness levels that can be applied in Turkish culture. The Turkish version has a Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient of 0.80. The scale contains 15 items and displays a single dimension. The fit values were calculated as RMSEA = .06, SRMS = .06, GFI = .93, and AGFI = .91, indicating that the scale had a good fit. The response options are a 6-point Likert ("1 = almost always", "2 = most of the time", "3 = sometimes", "4 = rarely", "5 = very rarely", "6 = almost never"). The scale allows for minimum and maximum scores of 15 and 90, respectively. Entrapment Scale Short-Form (E-SF) De Beurs et al. [ 35 ] developed a scale to assess adult entrapment levels. Türk et al. [ 36 ] conducted the adaptation study in Turkish. As a result, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.88. The scale consists of four items and a single dimension. The scale is a 5-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from "0 = not at all suitable for me" to "completely suitable for me" on a scale of 0–4. The scale's lowest and highest scores are 0 and 16, respectively. As the scores rise, it is clear that the individual's sense of entrapment grows. Social Connectedness Scale The scale was developed by Lee and Robbins [ 37 ], translated into Turkish by Duru [ 38 ], and administered to adults to evaluate their social commitment. The scale's internal consistency coefficient was determined to be 0.90. With a 6-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 2 = mostly agree, 3 = agree, 4 = disagree, 5 = mostly disagree, 6 = strongly disagree), the scale consists of eight items and one dimension. The scale permits a minimum score of 8 and a maximum score of 48. Individuals who achieve higher scores on the scale report lower levels of social connectedness. Brief Psychological Resilience Scale The scale was created by Smith et al. [ 39 ] to evaluate the psychological resilience of adults. Doğan [ 40 ] conducted an adaptation study in Turkish for an adult sample. As a consequence, the scale's internal consistency coefficient was 0.83, it was reliable, and the fit indices were satisfactory (NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, IFI = 0.99, RFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.99, AGFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05, SRMR = 0.03%). One dimension is present in the six-item scale. The response options are on a five-point Likert scale, with one indicating that the response is not at all appropriate and five indicating that the response is completely appropriate. The individual's high scale scores suggest that they possess a high degree of psychological resilience, which is the capacity to recover from challenging experiences. Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale Carleton et al. [ 41 ] devised a scale to evaluate the intolerance of adult individuals to uncertainty. The scale was translated into Turkish by Sarıçam et al. [ 42 ]. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was determined to be 0.88. The scale's fit values (χ² = 147.20, df = 48, RMSEA = .073, CFI = .95, IFI = .95, GFI = .94, and SRMR = .04) were satisfactory. A high tolerance for uncertainty is indicated by high scores on the scale. The 12-item scale comprises two sub-dimensions: "inhibitory anxiety" and "prospective anxiety." The Likert scale is a five-point scale. The scale has a total score range of 12 to 60. A high level of intolerance to uncertainty is suggested by increasing scores. Data Analysis The investigation aimed to discover the correlation between the resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty levels of the participants. The SPSS program was employed to conduct normality analysis, descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, network analysis, and correlation analysis. Other programs, including JASP and AMOS, were also employed in the study. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was implemented subsequent to the correlation analysis's noteworthy outcomes. The AMOS program is described as a highly effective quantitative analysis method for SEM, as it enables the formulation of decisions based on a variety of parameters [ 43 ]. Based on Kline's [ 43 ] recommendation, the investigation implemented a two-stage SEM. The initial phase consisted of evaluating the validity of the measurement model, which concerns the relationship between indicator variables and latent variables as well as the relationships between these latent variables. After the measurement model had been validated, the hypothetical structural model was assessed. The SEM results were assessed using the goodness-of-fit indices of Hu and Bentler [ 44 ]. SRMR, RMSEA, GFI, RFI, CFI, NFI, IFI, TLI, and chi-square (χ2) values were computed in addition to degrees of freedom. Critical values consist of a χ2 to degrees of freedom ratio of less than 5, GFI, RFI, CFI, NFI, IFI, and TLI values above.90, and SRMR and RMSEA values below.08. [ 45 , 44 ]. In contrast, the chi-square difference test was complemented by the examination of AIC and ECVI values to determine the optimal model from a pool of multiple models in SEM. The model with the lowest AIC and ECVI values is considered the best [ 46 , 47 ]. The item parceling method was implemented by SEM due to the unidimensionality of the measurement tools for resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, and entrapment. The parceling method, which is implemented in concepts associated with personality traits, reduces the quantity of observed variables, improves reliability, and allows scales to exhibit a normal distribution, as per Nasser-Abu Alhija and Wisenbaker [ 48 ]. Parcellation produced two dimensions for resilience, social connectedness, and entrapment, as well as three for mindfulness. Results The results of correlation analysis and descriptive statistics are presented in this section. The results of the structural and measurement models are subsequently presented. Ultimately, the results of the bootstrapping procedure are presented. -Table 1- The descriptive statistics and correlation of the variables (arithmetic mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis values) are presented in Table 1. The variables' skewness (between -.706 and.261) and kurtosis (between -1.071 and -.203) values satisfy Finney and DiStefano's [49] normality criteria of ±2 for skewness and ±7 for kurtosis, as presented in Table 1. Table 1 illustrates substantial positive correlations between mindfulness and social connectedness (r:.57 p<.001), mindfulness and resilience (r:.40 p<.001), social connectedness and resilience (r:.44 p<.001), and entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty (r:.54 p<.001). There are substantial positive correlations between mindfulness and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.47 p<.001), mindfulness and entrapment (r: -.55 p<.001), social connectedness and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.42 p<.001), social connectedness and entrapment (r: -.68 p<.001), resilience and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.54 p<.05), and resilience and entrapment (r: -.60 p<.001). The network analysis demonstrated a robust positive correlation between social connectedness and mindfulness. Subsequently, resilience and entrapment exhibit a negative correlation. The results of the network analysis between concepts are illustrated in Figure 1. -Figure 1- After the relationships between the concepts were discovered to be significant, the measurement model was developed. The measurement model includes five latent variables: resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty, as well as 11 observed variables that are related to each latent variable. Table 2 shows the fit values based on the results. The fit values can be stated as good. It is also understood that the factor loadings range from.82 to 1.01. As a result, the observed values can be interpreted as representing the latent variables. The structural model tested the hypothesis that entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty serve as partial mediators between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. The partial mediation model shows a direct link between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. Furthermore, the prediction of resilience by mindfulness and social connectedness via entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty is explored. Table 2 shows the fit values for the model with entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty as full mediators. The best mediation model was also tested, which included full mediation of entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty. In the full mediation model, there is no direct link between mindfulness and social connectedness or resilience. Furthermore, mindfulness and social connectedness are used to predict resilience, as well as entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty. The fit values for the test results are shown in Table 2. All fit values for both models are acceptable. However, because the partial mediation model did not show a significant relationship between mindfulness (p:.834 p>.001), social connectedness (p:.556 p>.001), and resilience, the full mediation model was chosen. The path coefficients for this model are shown in Figure 2. -Table 2- -Figure 2- All of these findings suggest that entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty levels play a parallel and fully mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. Discussion Humans live in society and have a social aspect. In this respect, people value loneliness, social isolation, healthy social relationships, a sense of belonging, and social connectedness. Problems encountered in the course of daily life, such as work, family, and school, can make it difficult for an individual to focus on the present moment. Individuals may be unable to tolerate the uncertain situations they face in these difficult circumstances. Individuals may feel trapped when all of these factors are taken into account. Individuals' ability to be resilient in the face of adversity allows them to cope, adapt, and return to their former selves. The current study sought to investigate the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. The analysis revealed that intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment function as parallel mediators. In other words, mindfulness and social connectedness predicted psychological resilience indirectly via aversion to uncertainty and entrapment. The current study's hypotheses and findings are discussed in light of the relevant literature. First, the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty between mindfulness and resilience was investigated, and it was discovered that intolerance of uncertainty completely mediates the relationship between mindfulness and resilience, confirming the first hypothesis. The findings show that mindfulness predicts intolerance of uncertainty negatively, while intolerance of uncertainty predicts resilience negatively. There are studies in the literature that support this conclusion. It is well known that mindfulness has a significant negative relationship with the intolerance of uncertainty [ 31 ]. In addition, these two concepts are linked to anxiety. Worry has been identified as a partial mediator of mindfulness and anxiety [ 50 , 51 ]. Other research has linked intolerance of uncertainty to worry [ 52 , 53 ]. As a result, the current study supports the notion that mindfulness predicts the negative the negative intolerance of uncertainty. Another study, Karataş and Tagay [ 54 ], found that intolerance of uncertainty negatively predicts resilience, which supports the related hypothesis. Individuals can be expected to be tolerant in the face of uncertainty, to focus on the present moment, and thus to be more resilient to adversity. This allows them to take combative action while remaining resilient in the face of adversity. Another hypothesis tested in the study is the mediating role of entrapment in mindfulness and resilience. The analysis revealed that entrapment is a complete mediator. Mindfulness predicts entrapment, which negatively predicts resilience. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy has been shown to reduce feelings of entrapment and other negative psychological states while increasing mindfulness [ 32 ]. Entrapment, whose main theme is the desire to act and escape, refers to negative feelings caused by the belief that an unsuccessful struggle experience cannot be resolved or escaped [ 20 ]. Both entrapment and resilience have been linked to depression and anxiety [ 21 , 16 ]. The studies' results indicate that the relevant hypothesis of the current research is supported. Individuals who become mindfully aware are likely to feel less entrapped and will benefit from a more resilient psychology. When one of the hypotheses was tested for the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty between social connectedness and resilience, it was discovered that intolerance of uncertainty played a full mediating role between these two. The findings showed that social connectedness predicted intolerance of uncertainty, while intolerance of uncertainty predicted resilience negatively. Social connectedness, as a self-aspect, reflects subjective awareness of interpersonal closeness and is an important component of one's sense of belonging [ 55 ]. A study found that people with a high tolerance for uncertainty were more socially isolated and experienced higher levels of anxiety [ 15 ]. Furthermore, Kasapoğlu [ 56 ] discovered a negative correlation between intolerance of uncertainty and resilient behavior. Individuals' feelings of isolation, loneliness, belonging, connectedness, and social relations are all important from this perspective. Individuals who feel socially connected may be less intolerant and more resilient in uncertain situations. Another hypothesis investigated in this study is the role of entrapment in mediating the relationship between social connectedness and resilience. The analyses revealed that entrapment serves as a full mediator between these two. In other words, social connectedness predicts entrapment, which negatively predicts resilience. Research indicates a strong negative correlation between entrapment and perceived social support [ 23 ]. Resilience and entrapment were found to be related concepts in various studies. These concepts include suicidal thoughts, which are critical in a person's life. Suicidal ideation is negatively related to entrapment and resilience [ 57 , 58 ]. The current study's findings are consistent with previous research. Individuals with a healthy sociality may feel less entrapped, but they are psychologically resilient and can continue to live their lives without collapsing in the face of adversity. Finally, the parallel mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment between social connectedness, mindfulness, and resilience, which is the study's main hypothesis, was investigated, and its accuracy was determined. There are studies that support the hypothesis in the literature. Mindfulness and intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment were examined in pairs [ 54 , 31 ], while intolerance of uncertainty and resilience were investigated together [ 32 ]. Aside from these, it was discovered that the concepts investigated within the scope of the research were addressed with the same concepts as suicide, depression, and anxiety in various studies [ 52 , 59 , 57 ]. Furthermore, while the current research results show that social connectedness does not directly predict resilience, the relevant literature indicates that having healthy social relationships helps individuals be resilient. Furthermore, while the current study's results do not include the prediction of mindfulness on social connectedness, it is well known in the literature that mindfulness-based programs improve social connectedness [ 39 ]. Based on all of this, it is possible to conclude that healthy sociability and mindfulness are important because they indicate less intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment in people's lives, resulting in greater resilience. Conclusion The study's findings revealed that intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment played a partial mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. In other words, mindfulness and social connectedness predict psychological resilience by reducing uncertainty and entrapment. It was discovered that individuals with high levels of mindfulness and social connectedness may have higher levels of psychological resilience due to a low tolerance for uncertainty and entrapment. According to the literature, mindfulness is a quantitative model that describes the relationship between the concepts of social connectedness, intolerance of uncertainty, entrapment, and psychological resilience. Individuals can be psychologically resilient by being socially connected and mindful, which can help them control their intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment. Individuals may face difficult situations throughout their lives. If an individual is aware of their current situation and feels connected to their social environment, they will be more tolerant of uncertainty, less entrapped, and resilient in the face of challenges. Contributing to individuals' mental health and social connectedness through group counseling and psychoeducation programs will have a positive impact on intolerance of uncertainty, entrapment, and resilience. Limitations and Future Research Despite the fact that the study's results are valuable to the field, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. The data for this study were initially collected using self-report-based measurement tools. This illustrates that the data collected can only account for variables that fall within the measurement tools' scope. Future studies may implement an assortment of methodologies, including peer assessment, interviewing, observation, and self-report. An additional constraint pertains to the research methodology. The cause-effect link should be approached with caution and care due to the cross-sectionality of the sample and the nature of the quantitative method, despite the fact that structural equation modeling, which can yield robust results from quantitative methods, was employed in the study and the number of samples was increased to 10,000 through bootstrapping. Although the structural equation model suggests that resilience is induced by intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment, and psychological mindfulness and social connectedness are predicted to lead to this outcome, longitudinal and experimental studies are necessary to fully elucidate these causal orders. An additional constraint is that this investigation exclusively evaluates the variables specified. The interaction of a variety of concepts between resilience, social connectedness, and mindfulness can be investigated. Conversely, individuals may necessitate a diverse array of abilities to navigate challenging circumstances. It is now feasible to conduct individual research on entrapment. Conversely, it is feasible to establish initiatives that enhance psychological resilience. Mindfulness-based programs for emotion regulation can be advantageous for individuals who have an intolerance of uncertainty. Declarations Acknowledgements We would like to thank the participants who made a meaningful impact on our research. Funding The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Availability of Data and Material The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, YA, upon reasonable request. Ethical Approval The study protocol has been approved by the Yıldız Technical University Scientific Research and Ethical Review Board (16.07.2024). The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its following updates. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all the individual participants that were included in the study. Author contributions YA, SA, and BE designed the study. SA and BE drafted the manuscript; YA carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; YA, SA, and BE collected the data; and all authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing Interest No conflict of interest exists for this manuscript for any of the authors. Author Details YA, Avcılar Anatolian High School, Ministry of National Education, Türkiye SA, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Türkiye BE, Yildiz Technical University, Türkiye References Henderson N, Milstein MM. Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. California: Corwin press; 2003. Lee HH, Cranford JA. Does resilience mosderate the associations between parental problem drinking and adolescents’ internalizing and externalizing behaviors?: A study of Korean adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;96(3):213-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.007 Öz F, Yılmaz EB. Ruh sağlığının korunmasında önemli bir kavram: Psikolojik sağlamlık. Hacettepe ÜniversitesiHemşirelik Fakültesi Dergisi. 2009;16(3):82-89. Yates TM, Tyrell FA, Masten AS. Resilience theory and the practice of positive psychology from individuals to societies. Positive Psychology in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life. 2015:773-788. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch44 Windle M. Critical conceptual and measurement issues in the study of resilience. Resilience and Development: Positive Life Adaptations. 2002:161-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47167-1_8 Zheng Y, Cai D, Zhao JL, Yang C, Xia T, Xu Z. Bidirectional relationship between emotional intelligence and perceptions of resilience in young adolescents: A twenty-month longitudinal study. Child & Youth Care Forum. 2021;50:363-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09578-x Jakobsen IS, Madsen LMR, Mau M, Hjemdal O, Friborg O. The relationship between resilience and loneliness elucidated by a Danish version of the resilience scale for adults. BMC Psychology. 2020;8:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00493-3 Santini ZI, Koyanagi A, Tyrovolas S, Mason C, Haro JM. The association between social relationships and depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2015;175:53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.049 Lee RM, Draper M, Lee S. Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2001;48(3):310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310 Joshi K, Kate S, Shitole S, Kashikar S, Date P. A correlational and comparative study of perceived stress, intolerance of uncertainty and resilience among students and working individuals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology. 2020;6(3):965-971. Freeston MH, Rhéaume J, Letarte H, Dugas MJ, Ladouceur R. Why do people worry?. Personality and Individual Differences. 1994;17(6):791-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5 Dugas MJ, Gosselin P, Ladouceur R. Intolerance of uncertainty and worry: Investigating specificity in a nonclinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2001;25:551-558. Lee JS. Effect of resilience on intolerance of uncertainty in nursing university students. Nursing forum. 2019;54(1):53-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12297 Xu X, Yan X, Zhang Q, Xu C, Li M. The chain mediating role of psychological resilience and neuroticism between intolerance of uncertainty and perceived stress among medical university students in Southwest China. BMC psychiatry. 2023;23(1):861. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05345-z Smith BM, Twohy AJ, Smith GS. Psychological inflexibility and intolerance of uncertainty moderate the relationship between social isolation and mental health outcomes during COVID-19. Journal of contextual behavioral science. 2020;18:162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.005 Hu T, Zhang D, Wang J. A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;76:18-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039 Cooke GP, Doust JA, Steele MC. A survey of resilience, burnout, and tolerance of uncertainty in Australian general practice registrars. BMC Medical Education. 2013;13:1-6. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;117(3):497-529. Jensen D, Cohen JN, Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG. Clarifying the unique associations among intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2016;45(6):431-444. Gilbert P, Allan S. The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: an exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine. 1998;28(3):585-598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291798006710 Griffiths AW, Wood AM, Maltby J, Taylor PJ, Tai S. The prospective role of defeat and entrapment in depression and anxiety: A 12-month longitudinal study. Psychiatry Research. 2014;216(1):52-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.037 Taylor PJ, Gooding P, Wood AM, Tarrier N. The role of defeat and entrapment in depression, anxiety, and suicide. Psychological bulletin. 2011;137(3):391. Kerkez M, Çapuk H. Percevied social support and feelings of entrapment among liables with on probation. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet. 2024;35(1):21-39. https://doi.org/10.33417tsh.1347502 Aydın A. The moderator role of career decision making Self-Efficacy on the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and resilience of university Students. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University; 2022. Seligman ME, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: An introduction, American Psychological Association. 2000;55(1):5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 Kabat-Zinn J. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:Science And Practice. 2003;10(2):144-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg016 Creswell, JD. Mindfulness interventions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2017;68 : 491-516. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139 Good DJ, Lyddy CJ, Glomb TM, Bono JE, Brown KW, Duffy MK, et al. Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of Management. 2016;42(1):114-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003 Cohen JS, Miller LJ. Interpersonal mindfulness training for well-being: A pilot study with psychology graduate students. Teachers College Record. 2009;111(12):2760-2774. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911101202 Teoh SL, Letchumanan V, Lee LH. Can mindfulness help to alleviate loneliness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:633319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633319 Turan M. Predicting subjective wellbeing of graduate students by mindfulness, intolerance to uncertainty, rumination and anxiety sensitivity. MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University; 2019. De Jaegere E, Dumon E, Van Heeringen K, Van Landschoot R, Stas P, Portzky G. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for individuals who are suicidal: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Suicide Research. 2023:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2023.2282663 Brown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84:822-848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 Özyeşil Z, Arslan C, Kesici Ş, Deniz ME. Bilinçli farkındalık ölçeği’ni Türkçeye uyarlama çalışması. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2011;36(160). De Beurs D, Cleare S, Wetherall K, Eschle-Byrne S, Ferguson E, O'Connor DB, O'Connor RC. Entrapment and suicide risk: the development of the 4-item Entrapment Scale Short-Form (E-SF). Psychiatry Research. 2020;284:112765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112765 Türk N, Yasdiman MB, Kaya A. Defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation in a Turkish community sample of young adults: An examination of the Integrated Motivational-Volitional (IMV) model of suicidal behaviour. International Review of Psychiatry. 2024:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2024.2319288 Lee RM, Robbins BS. Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1995;42(2):232-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232 Duru E. Sosyal bağlılık ölçeğinin Türk kültürüne uyarlanması. Eğitim Araştırmaları. 2007;26:85-94. Smith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine. 2008;15:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972 Doğan T. Kısa psikolojik sağlamlık ölçeği’nin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. The Journal of Happiness & Well-Being. 2015;3(1):93-102. Carleton RN, Norton MA, Asmundson GJG. Fearing the unknown: A short version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2007;21(1) : 105-117. https://doi.org/S0887-6185(06)00051-X [pii]10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014 Sarıçam H, Erguvan FM, Akın A, Akça MŞ. Belirsizliğe tahammülsüzlük ölçeği (BTÖ-12) Türkçe formu: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Route Educational and Social Science Journal. 2014;1(3):148-157. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2011. Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6(1):1–55.https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th. ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2001. Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika . 1987;52(3):317-332. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions. 1993;154:136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005 Nasser-Abu Alhija F, Wisenbaker JA Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling. 2006;13(2):204-228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3 Finney SJ, DiStefano C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. 2006:269-314. Maddock A, Hevey D, D’Alton P, Kirby B. Testing a moderated mediation model of MBCT’s effects for psoriasis patients. Mindfulness. 2019;10:2673-2681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01249-w Parmentier FB, García-Toro M, García-Campayo J, Yañez AM, Andrés P, Gili M. Mindfulness and symptoms of depression and anxiety in the general population: The mediating roles of worry, rumination, reappraisal and suppression. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:438030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00506 Berenbaum, H., Bredemeier, K., & Thompson, R. J. Intolerance of uncertainty: Exploring its dimensionality and associations with need for cognitive closure, psychopathology, and personality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2008;22(1):117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.01.004 Ladouceur R, Gosselin P, Dugas MJ. Experimental manipulation of intolerance of uncertainty: A study of a theoretical model of worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2000;38(9):933-941. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00133-3 Karataş Z, Tagay Ö. The relationships between resilience of the adults affected by the covid pandemic in Turkey and Covid-19 fear, meaning in life, life satisfaction, intolerance of uncertainty and hope. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021;172:110592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110592 Lee RM, Robbins SB. Understanding social connectedness in college women and men. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2000;78(4):484-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01932.x Kasapoğlu F. COVID-19 salgını sürecinde kaygı ile maneviyat, psikolojik sağlamlık ve belirsizliğe tahammülsüzlük arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies. 2020;15(4). https://doi.org/10.7827/turkishstudies.44284 Stark L, Seff I, Yu G, Salama M, Wessells M, Allaf C, Bennouna C. Correlates of suicide ideation and resilience among native-and foreign-born adolescents in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2022;70(1):91-98.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.012 Höller I, Rath D, Teismann T, Glaesmer H, Lucht L, Paashaus L, Schönfelder A, Juckel G, Forkmann T. Defeat, entrapment, and suicidal ideation: Twelve‐month trajectories. Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior. 2022;52(1):69-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12777 Dailey SF, Parker MM, Campbell A. Social connectedness, mindfulness, and coping as protective factors during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Counseling & Development. 2023;101(1):114-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12450 Table Table 1 N Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis McDonald's ω Cronbach's α Guttman's λ6 1 2 3 4 1-Mindfulness 351 61.6 12.6 -.343 -.203 .878 .876 .886 - 2-Social connectedness 351 36.2 10.0 -.706 -.269 .933 .930 .931 .57** - 3-Intolerance of uncertainty 351 38.2 10.6 .025 -.510 .923 .922 .928 -.47** -.42** - 4-Entrapment 351 6.9 4.8 .261 -1.071 .900 .896 .881 -.55** -.68** .54** - 5-Resilience 351 18.2 5.2 -.246 -.299 .860 .856 .851 .40** .44** -.54** -.60** **p<.001 Table 2 N CMIN DF CMIN/DF GFI NFI RFI IFI TLI CFI RMSEA SRMR AIC ECVI Measure 351 67.295 34 1.979 .968 .976 .962 .988 .981 .988 .05 .02 - - Partial Mediator Model 351 96.815 35 2.766 .953 .966 .947 .978 .965 .978 .07 .04 158.815 .454 Full Mediator Model 351 97.173 37 2.626 .953 .966 .950 .979 .968 .979 .06 .04 155.173 .443 **p<.001 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4990082","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":359142843,"identity":"64a2dcab-f34e-4de0-975d-7491a010269b","order_by":0,"name":"Yusuf Akyıl","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Avcılar Anatolian High School","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yusuf","middleName":"","lastName":"Akyıl","suffix":""},{"id":359142844,"identity":"519337dd-baf6-496d-8269-379dbbd310f6","order_by":1,"name":"Süleyman Akçıl","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Süleyman","middleName":"","lastName":"Akçıl","suffix":""},{"id":359142845,"identity":"a975ca9b-ce02-446e-be90-fb3bb9a83f4f","order_by":2,"name":"Beste Erdinç","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Yıldız Technical University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Beste","middleName":"","lastName":"Erdinç","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-28 09:50:55","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4990082/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4990082/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":66859411,"identity":"80f7b0e8-9525-4f59-ae1c-1963fdd942b8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-17 08:09:42","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":179213,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eNetwork analysis for entrapment (Blue lines represent positive correlations and red lines represent negative correlations. Note. Uncertainty: Intolerance of uncertainty; Connectedness: Social connectedness\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4990082/v1/4354615877b7ef6a52d5471b.png"},{"id":66859454,"identity":"c2f595df-0a2f-4b34-beb0-42352fc3b690","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-17 08:09:44","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":40619,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStandardised factor loadings for the fully mediated structural model. \u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 351; \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; \u003cem\u003eRpar\u003c/em\u003e parcels of resilience; \u003cem\u003eScPar\u003c/em\u003e parcels of Social Connectedness; \u003cem\u003eMfPar\u003c/em\u003e parcels of mindfulness; \u003cem\u003eEPar\u003c/em\u003e parcels of entrapment; \u003cem\u003ePa\u003c/em\u003e: prospective anxiety; \u003cem\u003eIa\u003c/em\u003e: inhibitory anxiety\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4990082/v1/b52f1517aed7613cfd70069d.png"},{"id":76276841,"identity":"dbe392f4-3343-4ce4-8cd5-fea6074066c2","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-02-14 10:02:15","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":868741,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4990082/v1/32052192-3ac1-4ffc-bdb8-1ddde1a1e7e2.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Parallel Mediators between Resilience, Mindfulness and Social Connectedness: Entrapment and Intolerance of Uncertainty","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMany individuals face psychological challenges when dealing with life's adversities. However, some people have been observed to overcome even the most difficult circumstances, adapt effectively, and continue their lives without losing their ability to function. According to Henderson and Milstein [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e], Lee and Cranford [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e], and \u0026Ouml;z and Yılmaz [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e], psychological resilience refers to an individual's ability to cope with significant change, distress, or risks, maintain interactions with the environment, adapt to these conditions, and even grow stronger to overcome distress and negative environmental conditions. Psychological resilience refers to the risk that is frequently associated with negative or undesirable outcomes, as well as protective factors that promote desired development [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. Consequently, psychological resilience is a phenomenon that is linked to healthy adaptation and is the outcome of the substantial interaction between protective factors that facilitate the adaptation process and preexisting risk factors [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Some researchers believe that resilience should be viewed as a constantly evolving phenomenon that can change over time as a result of changes in social support [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e]. Loneliness has been shown to be negatively associated with psychological resilience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e]. Given the relationship between loneliness, social relationships, social support, and resilience, it is critical to investigate the relationship between the concepts of social connectedness and resilience. Social connectedness, like the other concepts mentioned above, refers to an individual's sense of belonging, connectedness, relationality, togetherness, or cohesion in social relationships [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e]. Lee et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e] have found that individuals with high levels of connectedness are more inclined to identify with others, feel a sense of intimacy with them, perceive others as approachable and friendly, and engage in social activities and groups. People who have good social relationships and are not lonely are more likely to be resilient, as they are socially connected.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividuals are thought to struggle to be resilient when confronted with uncertainty [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. This leads to individuals experiencing difficulty recovering from the negative experiences that are necessary for resilience when they are confronted with uncertainty. A collection of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral responses to uncertainty in everyday life events is referred to as intolerance of uncertainty [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Similarly, intolerance of uncertainty is defined as a person's discomfort with the possibility of something bad happening to him or her [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e]. Studies have found significant negative relationships between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological resilience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e]. In other words, it is claimed that people who are highly intolerant of uncertainty are psychologically less resilient. Individuals with a high intolerance of uncertainty were found to be more socially isolated and anxious [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. As can be seen, intolerance of uncertainty is linked to both psychological resilience and social connectedness, which is another aspect of resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch has demonstrated that the concept of psychological resilience is diminished in individuals who exhibit elevated levels of negative mental health symptoms, including anxiety, depression, or negative affect, in addition to their capacity to recover from adversity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. Lower psychological resilience was linked to burnout, secondary traumatic stress, anxiety, and intolerance of uncertainty [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e]. In the same vein, individuals who have low social connectedness are likely to experience a variety of negative emotions, including anxiety, jealousy, anger, depression, low self-esteem, and loneliness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e]. Jensen et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] discovered that, similar to resilience and social connectedness, intolerance of uncertainty is significantly correlated with anxiety and depression. A higher tolerance of uncertainty was associated with a lower level of anxiety. Additionally, anxiety and depression are linked to the concept of entrapment [\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR21\" citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Entrapment is an unsuccessful struggle experience that demonstrates individuals' desire to act and escape, as well as a negative feeling caused by the belief that the state of defeat cannot be solved or escaped [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Research suggests that entrapment and perceived social support have a negative correlation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e] and that resilience and social connectedness are linked to depression and anxiety. Therefore, these concepts should be addressed together.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResilience is a valuable framework for positive psychology, emphasizing individuals' strengths rather than their flaws [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. The science of psychology seeks to solve psychological problems that arise in individuals while also developing individuals' strengths. Seligman and Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e], who maintain that psychology concentrates on the positive attributes of individuals, emphasize that positive psychology necessitates additional information regarding the positive aspects of individuals' lives. They assert that the objective of positive psychology is to redirect the focus of psychology from the repair of negative aspects of life to the development of positive qualities. Studies conducted for this purpose have revealed that positive psychology interventions, such as mindfulness meditation, have a significant positive impact on people's well-being. Mindfulness is a state of awareness that occurs when an individual is purposefully present in the present moment and pays attention to the formation of the experience moment by moment, without judgment [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e]. Creswell [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e] divided the significance of mindfulness in human life into physical and mental health, cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal outcomes. Mindfulness practices are known to improve communication, interpersonal relationships, the work environment, and work-life quality [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e]. Mindfulness-based programs have been shown to improve social connectedness and reduce loneliness in individuals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e]. Social connectedness is found to partially mediate the relationship between mindfulness and well-being, according to a study. It is also recognized that there is a robust negative correlation between intolerance of uncertainty and mindfulness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. Mindfulness is a concept that is linked to significant events in people's lives and has an impact on a variety of characteristics. For example, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was used to treat people with suicidal tendencies, and it was discovered that there was a significant decrease in suicidal ideation, depressive symptoms, hopelessness, anxiety, defeat, and entrapment in the intervention group, as well as a significant increase in mindfulness both after treatment and at follow-up [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. As can be seen, mindfulness is linked to social connectedness as well as intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a result, psychological resilience is an important characteristic for individuals to maintain their functionality, particularly in the face of adversity, and adapt to these situations. As a result, resilience must be better understood, and its relationships with other concepts should be investigated. Furthermore, in light of valuable information in the literature, it has been recognized that it is beneficial to examine all of these concepts together when investigating the relationships between the concepts of social connectedness, mindfulness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty, which are known to play an important role in the lives of individuals within the scope of mental health, both with resilience and with one another. In this direction, the current study sought to reveal the relationships between related concepts, and hypotheses to be tested were identified.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH1.\u003c/em\u003e Intolerance of uncertainty has a mediating role between mindfulness and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH2.\u003c/em\u003e Entrapment has a mediating role between mindfulness and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH3.\u003c/em\u003e Intolerance of uncertainty has a mediating role between social connectedness and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH4.\u003c/em\u003e Entrapment has a mediating role between social connectedness and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eH5.\u003c/em\u003e Intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment have parallel mediating roles between social connectedness and mindfulness and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants and Procedure\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study included 351 participants, 54 (15.4%) of whom were male and 297 (84.6%) were female. Data were collected from 56 different cities across Turkey. Data was collected online and via social media announcements. The study only included voluntary participants, and they were asked to carefully read the informed consent in the scale sets.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMindful Attention Awareness Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eBrown and Ryan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e] created this instrument to assess mindfulness levels in an adult sample. \u0026Ouml;zyeşil et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e] conducted an adaptation study of this measurement tool in Turkish. It is a valid and reliable scale for assessing mindfulness levels that can be applied in Turkish culture. The Turkish version has a Cronbach's alpha internal consistency coefficient of 0.80. The scale contains 15 items and displays a single dimension. The fit values were calculated as RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, SRMS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.06, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.93, and AGFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.91, indicating that the scale had a good fit. The response options are a 6-point Likert (\"1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;almost always\", \"2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;most of the time\", \"3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;sometimes\", \"4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;rarely\", \"5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very rarely\", \"6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;almost never\"). The scale allows for minimum and maximum scores of 15 and 90, respectively.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eEntrapment Scale Short-Form (E-SF)\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDe Beurs et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e] developed a scale to assess adult entrapment levels. T\u0026uuml;rk et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e36\u003c/span\u003e] conducted the adaptation study in Turkish. As a result, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale is 0.88. The scale consists of four items and a single dimension. The scale is a 5-point Likert scale, with answers ranging from \"0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;not at all suitable for me\" to \"completely suitable for me\" on a scale of 0\u0026ndash;4. The scale's lowest and highest scores are 0 and 16, respectively. As the scores rise, it is clear that the individual's sense of entrapment grows.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Connectedness Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scale was developed by Lee and Robbins [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e37\u003c/span\u003e], translated into Turkish by Duru [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e], and administered to adults to evaluate their social commitment. The scale's internal consistency coefficient was determined to be 0.90. With a 6-point Likert scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree, 2\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;mostly agree, 3\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree, 4\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;disagree, 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;mostly disagree, 6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree), the scale consists of eight items and one dimension. The scale permits a minimum score of 8 and a maximum score of 48. Individuals who achieve higher scores on the scale report lower levels of social connectedness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eBrief Psychological Resilience Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe scale was created by Smith et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e] to evaluate the psychological resilience of adults. Doğan [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e40\u003c/span\u003e] conducted an adaptation study in Turkish for an adult sample. As a consequence, the scale's internal consistency coefficient was 0.83, it was reliable, and the fit indices were satisfactory (NFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99, NNFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99, IFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99, RFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.97, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.99, AGFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.03%). One dimension is present in the six-item scale. The response options are on a five-point Likert scale, with one indicating that the response is not at all appropriate and five indicating that the response is completely appropriate. The individual's high scale scores suggest that they possess a high degree of psychological resilience, which is the capacity to recover from challenging experiences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eIntolerance of Uncertainty Scale\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCarleton et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e41\u003c/span\u003e] devised a scale to evaluate the intolerance of adult individuals to uncertainty. The scale was translated into Turkish by Sarı\u0026ccedil;am et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e42\u003c/span\u003e]. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient was determined to be 0.88. The scale's fit values (χ\u0026sup2; = 147.20, df\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;48, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.073, CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95, IFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.94, and SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.04) were satisfactory. A high tolerance for uncertainty is indicated by high scores on the scale. The 12-item scale comprises two sub-dimensions: \"inhibitory anxiety\" and \"prospective anxiety.\" The Likert scale is a five-point scale. The scale has a total score range of 12 to 60. A high level of intolerance to uncertainty is suggested by increasing scores.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe investigation aimed to discover the correlation between the resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty levels of the participants. The SPSS program was employed to conduct normality analysis, descriptive statistics, reliability analysis, network analysis, and correlation analysis. Other programs, including JASP and AMOS, were also employed in the study. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was implemented subsequent to the correlation analysis's noteworthy outcomes. The AMOS program is described as a highly effective quantitative analysis method for SEM, as it enables the formulation of decisions based on a variety of parameters [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e]. Based on Kline's [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e43\u003c/span\u003e] recommendation, the investigation implemented a two-stage SEM. The initial phase consisted of evaluating the validity of the measurement model, which concerns the relationship between indicator variables and latent variables as well as the relationships between these latent variables. After the measurement model had been validated, the hypothetical structural model was assessed. The SEM results were assessed using the goodness-of-fit indices of Hu and Bentler [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. SRMR, RMSEA, GFI, RFI, CFI, NFI, IFI, TLI, and chi-square (χ2) values were computed in addition to degrees of freedom. Critical values consist of a χ2 to degrees of freedom ratio of less than 5, GFI, RFI, CFI, NFI, IFI, and TLI values above.90, and SRMR and RMSEA values below.08. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e45\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e44\u003c/span\u003e]. In contrast, the chi-square difference test was complemented by the examination of AIC and ECVI values to determine the optimal model from a pool of multiple models in SEM. The model with the lowest AIC and ECVI values is considered the best [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e46\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e47\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe item parceling method was implemented by SEM due to the unidimensionality of the measurement tools for resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, and entrapment. The parceling method, which is implemented in concepts associated with personality traits, reduces the quantity of observed variables, improves reliability, and allows scales to exhibit a normal distribution, as per Nasser-Abu Alhija and Wisenbaker [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e48\u003c/span\u003e]. Parcellation produced two dimensions for resilience, social connectedness, and entrapment, as well as three for mindfulness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of correlation analysis and descriptive statistics are presented in this section. The results of the structural and measurement models are subsequently presented. Ultimately, the results of the bootstrapping procedure are presented.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;-Table 1-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe descriptive statistics and correlation of the variables (arithmetic mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis values) are presented in Table 1. The variables\u0026apos; skewness (between -.706 and.261) and kurtosis (between -1.071 and -.203) values satisfy Finney and DiStefano\u0026apos;s [49] normality criteria of \u0026plusmn;2 for skewness and \u0026plusmn;7 for kurtosis, as presented in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 illustrates substantial positive correlations between mindfulness and social connectedness (r:.57 p\u0026lt;.001), mindfulness and resilience (r:.40 p\u0026lt;.001), social connectedness and resilience (r:.44 p\u0026lt;.001), and entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty (r:.54 p\u0026lt;.001). There are substantial positive correlations between mindfulness and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.47 p\u0026lt;.001), mindfulness and entrapment (r: -.55 p\u0026lt;.001), social connectedness and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.42 p\u0026lt;.001), social connectedness and entrapment (r: -.68 p\u0026lt;.001), resilience and intolerance of uncertainty (r: -.54 p\u0026lt;.05), and resilience and entrapment (r: -.60 p\u0026lt;.001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe network analysis demonstrated a robust positive correlation between social connectedness and mindfulness. Subsequently, resilience and entrapment exhibit a negative correlation. The results of the network analysis between concepts are illustrated in Figure 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Figure 1-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter the relationships between the concepts were discovered to be significant, the measurement model was developed. The measurement model includes five latent variables: resilience, mindfulness, social connectedness, entrapment, and intolerance of uncertainty, as well as 11 observed variables that are related to each latent variable. Table 2 shows the fit values based on the results. The fit values can be stated as good. It is also understood that the factor loadings range from.82 to 1.01. As a result, the observed values can be interpreted as representing the latent variables.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The structural model tested the hypothesis that entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty serve as partial mediators between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. The partial mediation model shows a direct link between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. Furthermore, the prediction of resilience by mindfulness and social connectedness via entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty is explored. Table 2 shows the fit values for the model with entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty as full mediators. The best mediation model was also tested, which included full mediation of entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty. In the full mediation model, there is no direct link between mindfulness and social connectedness or resilience. Furthermore, mindfulness and social connectedness are used to predict resilience, as well as entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty. The fit values for the test results are shown in Table 2. All fit values for both models are acceptable. However, because the partial mediation model did not show a significant relationship between mindfulness (p:.834 p\u0026gt;.001), social connectedness (p:.556 p\u0026gt;.001), and resilience, the full mediation model was chosen. The path coefficients for this model are shown in Figure 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Table 2-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Figure 2-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll of these findings suggest that entrapment and intolerance of uncertainty levels play a parallel and fully mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eHumans live in society and have a social aspect. In this respect, people value loneliness, social isolation, healthy social relationships, a sense of belonging, and social connectedness. Problems encountered in the course of daily life, such as work, family, and school, can make it difficult for an individual to focus on the present moment. Individuals may be unable to tolerate the uncertain situations they face in these difficult circumstances. Individuals may feel trapped when all of these factors are taken into account. Individuals' ability to be resilient in the face of adversity allows them to cope, adapt, and return to their former selves. The current study sought to investigate the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment between mindfulness, social connectedness, and resilience. The analysis revealed that intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment function as parallel mediators. In other words, mindfulness and social connectedness predicted psychological resilience indirectly via aversion to uncertainty and entrapment. The current study's hypotheses and findings are discussed in light of the relevant literature.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFirst, the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty between mindfulness and resilience was investigated, and it was discovered that intolerance of uncertainty completely mediates the relationship between mindfulness and resilience, confirming the first hypothesis. The findings show that mindfulness predicts intolerance of uncertainty negatively, while intolerance of uncertainty predicts resilience negatively. There are studies in the literature that support this conclusion. It is well known that mindfulness has a significant negative relationship with the intolerance of uncertainty [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. In addition, these two concepts are linked to anxiety. Worry has been identified as a partial mediator of mindfulness and anxiety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e50\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR51\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e51\u003c/span\u003e]. Other research has linked intolerance of uncertainty to worry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e53\u003c/span\u003e]. As a result, the current study supports the notion that mindfulness predicts the negative the negative intolerance of uncertainty. Another study, Karataş and Tagay [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e], found that intolerance of uncertainty negatively predicts resilience, which supports the related hypothesis. Individuals can be expected to be tolerant in the face of uncertainty, to focus on the present moment, and thus to be more resilient to adversity. This allows them to take combative action while remaining resilient in the face of adversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother hypothesis tested in the study is the mediating role of entrapment in mindfulness and resilience. The analysis revealed that entrapment is a complete mediator. Mindfulness predicts entrapment, which negatively predicts resilience. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy has been shown to reduce feelings of entrapment and other negative psychological states while increasing mindfulness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Entrapment, whose main theme is the desire to act and escape, refers to negative feelings caused by the belief that an unsuccessful struggle experience cannot be resolved or escaped [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e]. Both entrapment and resilience have been linked to depression and anxiety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e]. The studies' results indicate that the relevant hypothesis of the current research is supported. Individuals who become mindfully aware are likely to feel less entrapped and will benefit from a more resilient psychology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhen one of the hypotheses was tested for the mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty between social connectedness and resilience, it was discovered that intolerance of uncertainty played a full mediating role between these two. The findings showed that social connectedness predicted intolerance of uncertainty, while intolerance of uncertainty predicted resilience negatively. Social connectedness, as a self-aspect, reflects subjective awareness of interpersonal closeness and is an important component of one's sense of belonging [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e55\u003c/span\u003e]. A study found that people with a high tolerance for uncertainty were more socially isolated and experienced higher levels of anxiety [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, Kasapoğlu [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e56\u003c/span\u003e] discovered a negative correlation between intolerance of uncertainty and resilient behavior. Individuals' feelings of isolation, loneliness, belonging, connectedness, and social relations are all important from this perspective. Individuals who feel socially connected may be less intolerant and more resilient in uncertain situations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnother hypothesis investigated in this study is the role of entrapment in mediating the relationship between social connectedness and resilience. The analyses revealed that entrapment serves as a full mediator between these two. In other words, social connectedness predicts entrapment, which negatively predicts resilience. Research indicates a strong negative correlation between entrapment and perceived social support [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e]. Resilience and entrapment were found to be related concepts in various studies. These concepts include suicidal thoughts, which are critical in a person's life. Suicidal ideation is negatively related to entrapment and resilience [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e58\u003c/span\u003e]. The current study's findings are consistent with previous research. Individuals with a healthy sociality may feel less entrapped, but they are psychologically resilient and can continue to live their lives without collapsing in the face of adversity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the parallel mediating role of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment between social connectedness, mindfulness, and resilience, which is the study's main hypothesis, was investigated, and its accuracy was determined. There are studies that support the hypothesis in the literature. Mindfulness and intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment were examined in pairs [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e54\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e], while intolerance of uncertainty and resilience were investigated together [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. Aside from these, it was discovered that the concepts investigated within the scope of the research were addressed with the same concepts as suicide, depression, and anxiety in various studies [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR52\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e52\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e59\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e57\u003c/span\u003e]. Furthermore, while the current research results show that social connectedness does not directly predict resilience, the relevant literature indicates that having healthy social relationships helps individuals be resilient. Furthermore, while the current study's results do not include the prediction of mindfulness on social connectedness, it is well known in the literature that mindfulness-based programs improve social connectedness [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. Based on all of this, it is possible to conclude that healthy sociability and mindfulness are important because they indicate less intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment in people's lives, resulting in greater resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study's findings revealed that intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment played a partial mediating role in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. In other words, mindfulness and social connectedness predict psychological resilience by reducing uncertainty and entrapment. It was discovered that individuals with high levels of mindfulness and social connectedness may have higher levels of psychological resilience due to a low tolerance for uncertainty and entrapment. According to the literature, mindfulness is a quantitative model that describes the relationship between the concepts of social connectedness, intolerance of uncertainty, entrapment, and psychological resilience. Individuals can be psychologically resilient by being socially connected and mindful, which can help them control their intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment. Individuals may face difficult situations throughout their lives. If an individual is aware of their current situation and feels connected to their social environment, they will be more tolerant of uncertainty, less entrapped, and resilient in the face of challenges. Contributing to individuals' mental health and social connectedness through group counseling and psychoeducation programs will have a positive impact on intolerance of uncertainty, entrapment, and resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eDespite the fact that the study's results are valuable to the field, it is important to acknowledge certain limitations. The data for this study were initially collected using self-report-based measurement tools. This illustrates that the data collected can only account for variables that fall within the measurement tools' scope. Future studies may implement an assortment of methodologies, including peer assessment, interviewing, observation, and self-report. An additional constraint pertains to the research methodology. The cause-effect link should be approached with caution and care due to the cross-sectionality of the sample and the nature of the quantitative method, despite the fact that structural equation modeling, which can yield robust results from quantitative methods, was employed in the study and the number of samples was increased to 10,000 through bootstrapping.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the structural equation model suggests that resilience is induced by intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment, and psychological mindfulness and social connectedness are predicted to lead to this outcome, longitudinal and experimental studies are necessary to fully elucidate these causal orders. An additional constraint is that this investigation exclusively evaluates the variables specified. The interaction of a variety of concepts between resilience, social connectedness, and mindfulness can be investigated. Conversely, individuals may necessitate a diverse array of abilities to navigate challenging circumstances. It is now feasible to conduct individual research on entrapment. Conversely, it is feasible to establish initiatives that enhance psychological resilience. Mindfulness-based programs for emotion regulation can be advantageous for individuals who have an intolerance of uncertainty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe would like to thank the participants who made a\u0026nbsp;meaningful impact on our research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of Data and Material\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, YA, upon reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study protocol has been approved by the Yıldız Technical University Scientific Research and Ethical Review Board (16.07.2024). \u0026nbsp; The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its following updates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all the individual participants that were included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYA, SA, and BE designed the study. SA and BE drafted the manuscript; YA carried out the analysis and interpreted the results; YA, SA, and BE collected the data; and all authors reviewed the final manuscript and gave their consent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNo conflict of interest exists for this manuscript for any of the authors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Details\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eYA, Avcılar Anatolian High School, Ministry of National Education, Türkiye\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSA, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Türkiye\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBE, Yildiz Technical University, Türkiye\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHenderson N, Milstein MM. Resiliency in schools: Making it happen for students and educators. California: Corwin press; 2003. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee HH, Cranford JA. Does resilience mosderate the associations between parental problem drinking and adolescents\u0026rsquo; internalizing and externalizing behaviors?: A study of Korean adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2008;96(3):213-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.03.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;z F, Yılmaz EB. Ruh sağlığının korunmasında \u0026ouml;nemli bir kavram: Psikolojik sağlamlık. Hacettepe \u0026Uuml;niversitesiHemşirelik Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi. 2009;16(3):82-89.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYates TM, Tyrell FA, Masten AS. Resilience theory and the practice of positive psychology from individuals to societies. Positive Psychology in Practice: Promoting Human Flourishing in Work, Health, Education, and Everyday Life. 2015:773-788. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch44\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWindle M. Critical conceptual and measurement issues in the study of resilience. Resilience and Development: Positive Life Adaptations. 2002:161-176. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-47167-1_8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZheng Y, Cai D, Zhao JL, Yang C, Xia T, Xu Z. Bidirectional relationship between emotional intelligence and perceptions of resilience in young adolescents: A twenty-month longitudinal study. Child \u0026amp; Youth Care Forum. 2021;50:363-377. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-020-09578-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJakobsen IS, Madsen LMR, Mau M, Hjemdal O, Friborg O. The relationship between resilience and loneliness elucidated by a Danish version of the resilience scale for adults. BMC Psychology. 2020;8:1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00493-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSantini ZI, Koyanagi A, Tyrovolas S, Mason C, Haro JM. The association between social relationships and depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2015;175:53-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.049\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee RM, Draper M, Lee S. Social connectedness, dysfunctional interpersonal behaviors, and psychological distress: Testing a mediator model. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2001;48(3):310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.3.310\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJoshi K, Kate S, Shitole S, Kashikar S, Date P. A correlational and comparative study of perceived stress, intolerance of uncertainty and resilience among students and working individuals during the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology. 2020;6(3):965-971. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeston MH, Rh\u0026eacute;aume J, Letarte H, Dugas MJ, Ladouceur R. Why do people worry?. Personality and Individual Differences. 1994;17(6):791-802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDugas MJ, Gosselin P, Ladouceur R. Intolerance of uncertainty and worry: Investigating specificity in a nonclinical sample. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2001;25:551-558.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee JS. Effect of resilience on intolerance of uncertainty in nursing university students. Nursing forum. 2019;54(1):53-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12297\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eXu X, Yan X, Zhang Q, Xu C, Li M. The chain mediating role of psychological resilience and neuroticism between intolerance of uncertainty and perceived stress among medical university students in Southwest China. BMC psychiatry. 2023;23(1):861. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-023-05345-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith BM, Twohy AJ, Smith GS. Psychological inflexibility and intolerance of uncertainty moderate the relationship between social isolation and mental health outcomes during COVID-19. Journal of contextual behavioral science. 2020;18:162-174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.09.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu T, Zhang D, Wang J. A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;76:18-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCooke GP, Doust JA, Steele MC. A survey of resilience, burnout, and tolerance of uncertainty in Australian general practice registrars. BMC Medical Education. 2013;13:1-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1995;117(3):497-529. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJensen D, Cohen JN, Mennin DS, Fresco DM, Heimberg RG. Clarifying the unique associations among intolerance of uncertainty, anxiety, and depression. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. 2016;45(6):431-444.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGilbert P, Allan S. The role of defeat and entrapment (arrested flight) in depression: an exploration of an evolutionary view. Psychological Medicine. 1998;28(3):585-598. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291798006710\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGriffiths AW, Wood AM, Maltby J, Taylor PJ, Tai S. The prospective role of defeat and entrapment in depression and anxiety: A 12-month longitudinal study. Psychiatry Research. 2014;216(1):52-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.037\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor PJ, Gooding P, Wood AM, Tarrier N. The role of defeat and entrapment in depression, anxiety, and suicide. Psychological bulletin. 2011;137(3):391.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKerkez M, \u0026Ccedil;apuk H. Percevied social support and feelings of entrapment among liables with on probation. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet. 2024;35(1):21-39. https://doi.org/10.33417tsh.1347502\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAydın A. The moderator role of career decision making Self-Efficacy on the relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and resilience of university Students. MA thesis, Middle East Technical University; 2022. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeligman ME, Csikszentmihalyi M. Positive psychology: An introduction, American Psychological Association. 2000;55(1):5-14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKabat-Zinn J. Mindfulness-based interventions in context: past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:Science And Practice. 2003;10(2):144-156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, JD. Mindfulness interventions. Annual Review of Psychology. 2017;68\u003cem\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e491-516. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-042716-051139\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGood DJ, Lyddy CJ, Glomb TM, Bono JE, Brown KW, Duffy MK, et al. Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of Management. 2016;42(1):114-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen JS, Miller LJ. Interpersonal mindfulness training for well-being: A pilot study with psychology graduate students. Teachers College Record. 2009;111(12):2760-2774. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911101202\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeoh SL, Letchumanan V, Lee LH. Can mindfulness help to alleviate loneliness? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12:633319. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633319\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTuran M. Predicting subjective wellbeing of graduate students by mindfulness, intolerance to uncertainty, rumination and anxiety sensitivity. MA Thesis, Middle East Technical University; 2019.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Jaegere E, Dumon E, Van Heeringen K, Van Landschoot R, Stas P, Portzky G. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for individuals who are suicidal: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Suicide Research. 2023:1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2023.2282663\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown KW, Ryan RM. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2003;84:822-848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;zyeşil Z, Arslan C, Kesici Ş, Deniz ME. Bilin\u0026ccedil;li farkındalık \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği\u0026rsquo;ni T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;eye uyarlama \u0026ccedil;alışması. Eğitim ve Bilim. 2011;36(160). \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Beurs D, Cleare S, Wetherall K, Eschle-Byrne S, Ferguson E, O\u0026apos;Connor DB, O\u0026apos;Connor RC. Entrapment and suicide risk: the development of the 4-item Entrapment Scale Short-Form (E-SF). Psychiatry Research. 2020;284:112765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112765\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eT\u0026uuml;rk N, Yasdiman MB, Kaya A. Defeat, entrapment and suicidal ideation in a Turkish community sample of young adults: An examination of the Integrated Motivational-Volitional (IMV) model of suicidal behaviour. International Review of Psychiatry. 2024:1-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2024.2319288\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee RM, Robbins BS. Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 1995;42(2):232-241. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.42.2.232\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuru E. Sosyal bağlılık \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eğinin T\u0026uuml;rk k\u0026uuml;lt\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml;ne uyarlanması. Eğitim Araştırmaları. 2007;26:85-94. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmith BW, Dalen J, Wiggins K, Tooley E, Christopher P, Bernard J. The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International journal of behavioral medicine. 2008;15:194-200. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705500802222972\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoğan T. Kısa psikolojik sağlamlık \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği\u0026rsquo;nin T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;e uyarlaması: Ge\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\u0026uuml;venirlik \u0026ccedil;alışması. The Journal of Happiness \u0026amp; Well-Being. 2015;3(1):93-102.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarleton RN, Norton MA, Asmundson GJG. Fearing the unknown: A short version of the intolerance of uncertainty scale. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2007;21(1)\u003cem\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e105-117. https://doi.org/S0887-6185(06)00051-X [pii]10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.03.014\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSarı\u0026ccedil;am H, Erguvan FM, Akın A, Ak\u0026ccedil;a MŞ. Belirsizliğe tahamm\u0026uuml;ls\u0026uuml;zl\u0026uuml;k \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği (BT\u0026Ouml;-12) T\u0026uuml;rk\u0026ccedil;e formu: Ge\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\u0026uuml;venirlik \u0026ccedil;alışması. Route Educational and Social Science Journal. 2014;1(3):148-157. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;6(1):1\u0026ndash;55.https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th. ed. Boston: Pearson Education; 2001.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAkaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003e1987;52(3):317-332. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrowne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage Focus Editions. 1993;154:136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNasser-Abu Alhija F, Wisenbaker JA Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling. 2006;13(2):204-228. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1302_3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFinney SJ, DiStefano C. Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. 2006:269-314. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaddock A, Hevey D, D\u0026rsquo;Alton P, Kirby B. Testing a moderated mediation model of MBCT\u0026rsquo;s effects for psoriasis patients. Mindfulness. 2019;10:2673-2681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01249-w\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParmentier FB, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Toro M, Garc\u0026iacute;a-Campayo J, Ya\u0026ntilde;ez AM, Andr\u0026eacute;s P, Gili M. Mindfulness and symptoms of depression and anxiety in the general population: The mediating roles of worry, rumination, reappraisal and suppression. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:438030. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00506\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerenbaum, H., Bredemeier, K., \u0026amp; Thompson, R. J. Intolerance of uncertainty: Exploring its dimensionality and associations with need for cognitive closure, psychopathology, and personality. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2008;22(1):117-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2007.01.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLadouceur R, Gosselin P, Dugas MJ. Experimental manipulation of intolerance of uncertainty: A study of a theoretical model of worry. Behaviour Research and Therapy. 2000;38(9):933-941. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00133-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarataş Z, Tagay \u0026Ouml;. The relationships between resilience of the adults affected by the covid pandemic in Turkey and Covid-19 fear, meaning in life, life satisfaction, intolerance of uncertainty and hope. Personality and Individual Differences. 2021;172:110592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110592\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee RM, Robbins SB. Understanding social connectedness in college women and men. Journal of Counseling \u0026amp; Development. 2000;78(4):484-491. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb01932.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKasapoğlu F. COVID-19 salgını s\u0026uuml;recinde kaygı ile maneviyat, psikolojik sağlamlık ve belirsizliğe tahamm\u0026uuml;ls\u0026uuml;zl\u0026uuml;k arasındaki ilişkilerin incelenmesi. Electronic Turkish Studies. 2020;15(4). https://doi.org/10.7827/turkishstudies.44284\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStark L, Seff I, Yu G, Salama M, Wessells M, Allaf C, Bennouna C. Correlates of suicide ideation and resilience among native-and foreign-born adolescents in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2022;70(1):91-98.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026ouml;ller I, Rath D, Teismann T, Glaesmer H, Lucht L, Paashaus L, Sch\u0026ouml;nfelder A, Juckel G, Forkmann T. Defeat, entrapment, and suicidal ideation: Twelve‐month trajectories. Suicide and Life‐Threatening Behavior. 2022;52(1):69-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12777\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDailey SF, Parker MM, Campbell A. Social connectedness, mindfulness, and coping as protective factors during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Journal of Counseling \u0026amp; Development. 2023;101(1):114-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12450\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"983\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.20731707317073%\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.723577235772358%\" style=\"width: 7.7314%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.7073170731707314%\" style=\"width: 7.0194%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.483739837398375%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMcDonald\u0026apos;s \u0026omega;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.638211382113822%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026apos;s \u0026alpha;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGuttman\u0026apos;s \u0026lambda;6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.20731707317073%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-Mindfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e61.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.723577235772358%\" style=\"width: 7.7314%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.343\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.7073170731707314%\" style=\"width: 7.0194%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.203\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.483739837398375%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.878\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.638211382113822%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.876\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.886\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.20731707317073%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-Social connectedness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.723577235772358%\" style=\"width: 7.7314%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.706\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.7073170731707314%\" style=\"width: 7.0194%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.269\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.483739837398375%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.933\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.638211382113822%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.930\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.931\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.57**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.20731707317073%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-Intolerance of uncertainty\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.723577235772358%\" style=\"width: 7.7314%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.025\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.7073170731707314%\" style=\"width: 7.0194%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.510\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.483739837398375%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.923\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.638211382113822%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.922\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.928\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.47**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.42**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.20731707317073%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4-Entrapment\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.723577235772358%\" style=\"width: 7.7314%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.261\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.7073170731707314%\" style=\"width: 7.0194%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.071\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.483739837398375%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.900\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.638211382113822%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.896\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.881\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.55**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.68**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.54**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.20731707317073%\" colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5-Resilience\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.723577235772358%\" style=\"width: 7.7314%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.246\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.7073170731707314%\" style=\"width: 7.0194%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.299\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.483739837398375%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.860\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.638211382113822%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.856\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.851\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.40**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.44**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.54**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.60**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"19.20731707317073%\" colspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**p\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.861788617886179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.723577235772358%\" style=\"width: 7.7314%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.7073170731707314%\" style=\"width: 7.0194%;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"11.483739837398375%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.638211382113822%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.552845528455284%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.7926829268292686%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 2\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"994\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.209255533199194%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.8229376257545273%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCMIN\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.551307847082494%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCMIN/DF\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.639839034205232%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAIC\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eECVI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.209255533199194%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.8229376257545273%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67.295\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.551307847082494%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.979\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.968\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.976\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.962\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.988\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.981\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.988\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.639839034205232%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.209255533199194%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial Mediator Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.8229376257545273%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e96.815\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.551307847082494%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.766\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.953\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.966\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.947\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.978\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.965\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.978\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.639839034205232%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e158.815\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.454\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.209255533199194%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFull Mediator Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.8229376257545273%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e351\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e97.173\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.551307847082494%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.626\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.953\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.966\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.950\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.979\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.968\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.979\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.639839034205232%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e155.173\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.443\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"18.209255533199194%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e**p\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"3.8229376257545273%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"8.551307847082494%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"4.7283702213279675%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"6.639839034205232%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.645875251509055%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"5.73440643863179%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"mindfulness, social connectedness, intolerance of uncertainty, entrapment, resilience","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4990082/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4990082/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eBackground\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to challenging life circumstances, individuals may exhibit a range of reactions, from feeling trapped and intolerant of uncertainty to experiencing negative psychological outcomes or demonstrating resilience. Those who lack mindfulness and social connectedness often struggle more significantly with these challenges. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment mediate the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. This is the first study to explore these specific relationships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eMethods\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study involved 351 participants, consisting of 54 males and 297 females, who voluntarily provided data. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilized to perform mediation analysis and examine the complex relationships between the variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eResults\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings revealed that both intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment serve as parallel mediators in the relationship between mindfulness, social connectedness, and psychological resilience. Specifically, mindfulness and social connectedness were found to negatively predict intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment. In turn, higher levels of intolerance of uncertainty and entrapment were associated with lower levels of psychological resilience. These results suggest that individuals who are more mindful and socially connected tend to exhibit greater resilience by being less susceptible to uncertainty and feelings of entrapment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eConclusions\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study highlights the critical roles of mindfulness and social connectedness in fostering psychological resilience, particularly by reducing intolerance of uncertainty and feelings of entrapment. These findings have important implications for developing interventions aimed at enhancing resilience in individuals facing challenging life circumstances. By promoting mindfulness and strengthening social connections, it may be possible to mitigate the negative psychological effects of uncertainty and entrapment, thereby enhancing overall resilience.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Parallel Mediators between Resilience, Mindfulness and Social Connectedness: Entrapment and Intolerance of Uncertainty","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-10-17 08:08:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4990082/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"24c611fb-46c2-4d9f-9ca1-5af7e57f9e60","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 17th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-02-14T09:54:04+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-10-17 08:08:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4990082","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4990082","identity":"rs-4990082","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}