*3.5. Longitudinal Mediating Role of Coping Styles Using a Cross-Lagged Panel Model*

The indirect effect of perceived stress on life satisfaction via coping styles was examined longitudinally across the two waves (W1 and W2) of the COVID-19 pandemic, using standard cross-lagged models (Figure 5a). Models 5 and 6 included cross-lagged (paths a and b) and autoregressive effects (paths x, m, and y). No mediation effect of all three coping styles was found in the parallel cross-lagged Model 5 (Table 8). Although the emotion-oriented coping style during W2 was predictable based on perceived stress during W1, no coping style at W1 was found as a significant predictor of life satisfaction at W2. Weak stability over time (i.e., across two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic) was found for perceived stress, life satisfaction, task-oriented coping, and emotion-oriented coping style, while moderate stability was found for avoidance-oriented coping style in Model 5. The cross-lagged parallel mediation Model 5 demonstrates a perfect fit, as shown in Table 6.

When the reverse order was examined, with life satisfaction as a predictor of perceived stress (Model 6, Figure 5b), coping style during W1 was not significantly related to stress at W2, nor was life satisfaction at W1 related to coping style during W2 (see Table 8 for more details). Therefore, the mediating effect of coping style on the relationship between life satisfaction and perceived stress was not confirmed in the longitudinal approach. The goodness-of-fit measures were acceptable for Model 6 (Table 6).

The last analysis considered the reciprocal relationships between stress and life satisfaction, including the coping styles as mediators (Model 7, Figure 6). As shown in Table 8, significant regression coefficients were found only for the autoregressive path. Each variable during W2 in Model 7 could be predicted by the same variable during W1. Weak stability was presented by stress, life satisfaction, task-oriented, and emotion-oriented coping styles, whereas moderate stability was found for avoidance coping with stress. However, none of the variables during W2 could be predicted from any variable at W1. Model 7 demonstrates a perfect fit, as shown in Table 5.

**Figure 5.** Conceptual cross-lagged path model for a prospective study on the parallel mediation role of coping styles in the relationship between perceived stress and satisfaction with life during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic: (**a**) perceived stress as a predictor of life satisfaction (Model 5); (**b**) life satisfaction as a predictor of perceived stress (Model 6).



Notes. W1 = wave 1 of the COVID-19 pandemic; W2 = wave 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic. The values in the table are standardized regression coefficients (β). \*\* *p* < 0.01, \*\*\* *p* < 0.001.

**Figure 6.** Conceptual reciprocal cross-lagged path model for a prospective study on the parallel mediation role of coping styles in the relationship between perceived stress and satisfaction with life.

#### **4. Discussion**

In this study, we examined for the first time the mediating effect of coping style on the relationship between perceived stress and life satisfaction in both cross-sectional and longitudinal models, in an extraordinary stressful situation such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Consistent with the transactional model of stress [53,73], we found significant changes between the first (W1) and second (W2) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in perceived stress, life satisfaction, and some coping styles. The ANOVA showed that among the three coping styles, a larger change was reported for task-oriented coping. The frequency of using task-oriented and avoidance-oriented coping strategies significantly decreased, while the frequency of emotion-oriented coping slightly (but insignificantly) increased during W2 compared to W1. Furthermore, weak stability was noted in this study for stress, life satisfaction, and task- and emotion-oriented coping, whereas moderate stability was found for avoidance-oriented coping when the longitudinal cross-lagged model was examined. Both statistical methods (ANOVA and cross-lagged model) indicated that stress levels increased across pandemic waves, life satisfaction decreased, and the frequency of using selected coping strategies continuously changed over time.

The present results are consistent with previous research performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. A recent multi-cultural study showed that self-reported quality of life decreased over time, while perceived stress level and difficulty with emotion regulation increased significantly during the coronavirus pandemic [24]. Significant changes

in stress and life satisfaction were found during the pandemic in various longitudinal studies [32–36]. Ruggieri et al. [32] performed a cross-lagged panel study during three waves (from one month before the lockdown), and they found increased levels of stress and decreased life satisfaction among Italian adults. A longitudinal study [34] on pre- and during-pandemic stressors and risk factors for distress changes showed that perceived stress during the pandemic was associated with pre-pandemic social stressors, stressful life events, low generalized trust, poor self-rated health, and some concurrent pandemicrelated stressors and risk factors. Changes in lifestyle and economic disruptions, and loss of education or employment, were associated with greater increases in emotional distress. People who suffered high stress before the pandemic experienced increases in stress during the pandemic. During-pandemic stressors and hopelessness were found to be the strongest correlates of during-pandemic distress. Individuals distressed by the lockdown frequently used coping strategies such as seeking social support, engaging in distractions, and seeking professional help. Shanahan et al. [34] showed that several coping strategies significantly reduced distress during the pandemic, including keeping a daily routine, positive reappraisal/reframing, engaging in physical activity, acceptance, and keeping in contact with family and friends.

We found a 34% prevalence of high stress and 48% prevalence of low life satisfaction university students during W2 of the pandemic. In contrast, a systematic review found a 27% prevalence of high stress symptoms in the population during the COVID-19 pandemic [65]. However, a meta-analysis [66] indicated that very high stress was experienced by 45% of Chinese people during the crisis. Among Australian adults [67], 47% reported some degree of psychological distress during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, which was inversely related to coping strategies such as positive reframing, acceptance, and humor, and positively related to self-blame, venting, behavioral disengagement, and self-distraction. Research performed in Saudi Arabia found a 55.5% prevalence of high levels of stress during the quarantine, which was reduced by cognitive reappraisal and life satisfaction [68]. Numerous studies showed that the primary source of stress during the coronavirus pandemic was the significant lifestyle changes, related in particular to numerous restrictions and social isolation [17,38–43].

The partial mediating role of coping style in the relationship between stress and life satisfaction was confirmed in both cross-sectional studies during W1 (Model 1) and W2 (Model 2). A total of 70% of life satisfaction at W2 can be explained by predictor variables such as stress during W1 and W2, life satisfaction during W1, and by task-oriented and emotion-oriented coping styles during W2. However, among the three coping styles, emotion-oriented showed the strongest association with both stress and life satisfaction. In particular, a higher stress level was a predictor of the more frequent use of emotion-oriented coping strategies (positive association), which decreased life satisfaction (negative relation). This is consistent with previous studies [30,70,71], which indicated that university students reporting low life satisfaction, high stress, and most frequent use of emotion-oriented coping strategies during the pandemic. Marotta et al. [28] found an increase in negative and positive emotions, and a decrease in the quality of life among adult Italians during the first COVID-19 lockdown compared to reference data before the pandemic.

Higher stress levels were associated with a lower frequency of using task-oriented coping and a higher frequency of using avoidance-focused coping in the present study. This result is consistent with a previous study showing that people who experienced higher stress tended to use more passive rather than active coping strategies during pandemic [56,57]. When the environment is unpredictable and uncontrollable, task-oriented coping is perceived as less adaptive, whereas avoidance-focused coping strategies are more effective in reducing stress levels. This pattern was an adequate stress response in stressful life events or disasters [72].

The result of our mediation analysis is consistent to some extent with a previous study. Stapleton et al. [35] found that life satisfaction can be predicted by adaptive (positive association) and maladaptive (negative relation) coping, explaining 20% of the life satisfaction variance (*R*<sup>2</sup> = 0.20) among teachers. Lardier et al. [74] showed that life satisfaction is negatively related to perceived stress and both suppressive (avoidance-oriented) and reactive (task-oriented) coping and is positively correlated with reflective (task-oriented) coping among Hispanic undergraduate students. Mediation analysis [74] indicated that perceived stress is indirectly related to life satisfaction through a reflective coping style. Higher levels of stress were associated with lower levels of reflective coping, which were related to lower life satisfaction. Both suppressive and reactive coping were not mediators in the relationship between perceived stress and life satisfaction. In contrast, we found a mediating role among all three coping styles: task-, emotion-, and avoidance-oriented. The differences between the results of the previous and current studies may be due to the various measurement tools used to assess coping with stress and cross-cultural variance.

Our findings also directly link stress to life satisfaction (Models 1 and 2) and conversely from life satisfaction to stress (Models 3 and 4). A stronger negative association was noted in the second wave of the pandemic than during the first wave. The relationship between stress and life satisfaction or other indices of well-being was previously reported in numerous studies [4,6–14]. Subjective well-being depends on many environmental and person-centered factors, including school and work, family and social life, and individual differences in affective states and personality traits and dispositions [1–5,91]. All these well-being-related factors may increase stress if changes in environment and lifestyle are perceived as a threat. Many studies indicated that stress and risk of mental disorders increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, whereas life satisfaction and quality of life decreased [15–35]. Studies indicated an inverse relationship between stress and various measures of well-being, e.g., [4,14,20,32,35], where higher levels of well-being corelated with lower levels of stress.

The reciprocal relationship of how life satisfaction affects stress through coping style was also tested cross-sectionally during W1 and W2. The results confirmed the partial mediation effect of task- and emotion-oriented coping styles. A high level of life satisfaction was related to an increased likelihood of using task-oriented coping, leading to decreased stress. Conversely, higher life satisfaction was a predictor of less frequent emotion-oriented coping, which could predict higher levels of perceived stress. Avoidance-oriented coping was not found to be a significant predictor of stress. Therefore, this coping style cannot play a mediating role in the relationship between life satisfaction and stress. This pattern was demonstrated at both measurement times, W1 and W2, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The positive relationship of well-being with task-oriented coping style and negative relationship with emotion-oriented and avoidance-oriented was reported previously [35,58–64]. Boysan [58] demonstrated that life satisfaction is positively related to task-oriented (0.18, *p* < 0.01) and avoidance-oriented coping (0.08, *p* < 0.05), whereas negatively related to emotion-oriented coping (−0.20, *p* < 0.01). Xu et al. [64] found a relationship of high life satisfaction with high levels of positive coping (i.e., problem-solving, seeking social support, and positively rationalized explanation) and low levels of negative coping (enduring, escape, emotion venting, and wishful thinking/denial). Well-being was significantly and positively associated with approach coping and inversely related to avoidant coping behavior among UK adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic [60]. Engagement-related coping such as problem-solving was positively related to well-being, whereas disengagement coping such as blaming was negatively related. However, distraction and denial as coping strategies were not significantly associated with well-being among a large sample of the German population [61].

Stapleton et al. [35] found a moderate negative correlation of life satisfaction with perceived stress and a weak correlation with maladaptive coping, and a very weak but significant positive correlation between life satisfaction and adaptive coping among teachers. A regression analysis [35] showed that maladaptive (emotion-focused) coping is a strong positive predictor of psychological distress, whereas adaptive coping (task-oriented coping) is a weak negative predictor, explaining 45% of stress variance (*R*<sup>2</sup> = 0.45). Problemfocused coping was considered an adaptive coping style since it was associated with better academic achievement among middle school students [92].

Another study showed that psychological well-being correlated negatively with avoidance strategy and positively with problem-solving coping among Italian university students [63]. Similarly, negative coping (i.e., high-stress perceptions, dysfunctional attitudes, and catastrophizing) showed a negative association with subjective well-being, whereas positive coping (hope, proactive coping style, and sense of humor) affected well-being positively [62]. Yan et al. [56] also showed that positive coping strategies are related to fewer symptoms of stress and mental health problems, whereas negative coping strategies aggravated emotional distress among a large sample of Chinese people during the first COVID-19 outbreak. Higher perceived adaptability to the COVID-19 pandemic was related to lower stress in a cross-sectional study in a sample of college students [93].

The result of this study is consistent to some extent with previous research on the mediating role of coping with stress [75]. Gori et al. [75] found a mediating effect of coping strategies on the relationship between life satisfaction and perceived stress in a cross-sectional study among Italian adults during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, an indirect effect of life satisfaction on perceived stress was demonstrated via approach coping, positive attitude, and mature defenses, as indicated by a serial mediation model. Although Gori et al. [75] used a different tool to measure coping with stress (the Coping Orientations to Problems Experienced and the Forty-Item Defense Style Questionnaire), approach coping may be considered an alternative to task-oriented coping (in the CISS), positive attitude as an equivalent to inverse scores on the emotionoriented coping scale, while mature defenses are similar (but only to some extend) to avoidance-oriented coping. Differences between previous [75] and the current study results in mediation analysis may be due to the various measurement methods used to assess coping styles and cross-cultural differences between the Italian adult population (with a mean age of 34 years old) and Polish university students (mean age of 23 years old).

Consistent with the hypothesis, longitudinal parallel mediation analysis across W1 and W2 during the pandemic was not confirmed. Although perceived stress during W1 was a significant positive predictor of emotion-oriented coping style during W2, no significant association was found between emotion-oriented coping style during W1 and life satisfaction during W2. Furthermore, neither task-oriented coping nor avoidanceoriented strategies were shown to be significantly related to stress or life satisfaction. When the reciprocal relationship between life satisfaction and stress via coping styles was examined, mediation was not found, and no coping style was associated with stress or life satisfaction. Notably, all autoregression pathways were significant in Models 5, 6 and 7. This means that all the variables at W2, included in Models 5 and 6, were predicted by the same variables at W1 (e.g., the perceived stress at W1 was a predictor of perceived stress at W2). Model 5, with perceived stress as a predictor of life satisfaction, received better fit indices than Model 6 with reciprocal relations. However, Model 7, with both paths from Model 5 and Model 6, showed a perfect and the best fit.

The results of this study indicate that a reciprocal association occurs between life satisfaction and stress, but it can only be observed at a given moment. We evidenced in cross-sectional studies during W1 and W2 that stress is a predictor of life satisfaction, and life satisfaction is a predictor of stress (Models 1 and 2, and Models 3 and 4, respectively). In addition, coping styles play a mediating role in the relationship between stress and life satisfaction, as well as in a reciprocal direction. In contrast, when the longitudinal design was examined, neither was perceived stress-related to life satisfaction (and vice versa), nor was coping style associated significantly with perceived stress or life satisfaction. As such, the mediation effect was not confirmed longitudinally. According to the transactional model of stress [53,73], stressful transactions between a person and their environment determines continuous changes in stress, coping, and well-being. Lifestyle changes and environmental stressful situations between W1 and W2 of the COVID-19 pandemic appear to be responsible for changes in the levels of the variables studied when comparing W1

to W2. This may explain why longitudinal mediation was not confirmed, although crosssectional mediation was found twice during W1 and W2 of the pandemic. People adaptively change their coping strategies to the dynamic changes in stress levels and well-being as stressful events and lifestyle change during a pandemic. H5 was fully supported in this study.
