Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41203808›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The interplay between perceived stress, psychological flexibility, and interpretation biases in undergraduate mental health.

Alla Machulska, Tim Klucken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alla MachulskaDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Siegen, Obergraben 23, 57072, Siegen, Germany. alla.machulska@uni-siegen.de.
Tim KluckenDepartment of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Siegen, Obergraben 23, 57072, Siegen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Stress is a well-established risk factor for psychological burden, yet individual vulnerability varies, suggesting that stress intensity and cognitive-psychological factors might be implicated in this process. This study examined how perceived stress at two different phases (moderate vs. high stress) relates to psychological symptoms and positive mental health through lower levels of psychological flexibility and whether interpretation biases in response to social ambiguity moderate this effect. A total of 228 healthy undergraduate students were assessed once at the beginning of a semester (T0: moderate stress phase) and 12 weeks later during exams (T1: high stress phase). Psychological flexibility mediated the relationship between stress and both psychological symptoms and positive mental health at both time points. Notably, baseline negative interpretation biases moderated this mediation effect for depressive symptoms at T1 (high stress phase), such that lower psychological flexibility was linked to higher depression levels only among individuals with moderate to high levels of negative interpretation bias. In turn, the absence of negative biases buffered against these effects. No such moderation effects were observed under moderate stress (T0) or for positive interpretation biases at either time point. These findings highlight the importance of interventions that combine techniques to foster psychological flexibility and reduce negative interpretation biases, particularly for individuals under high stress or vulnerable to depression.

Indexed as

Mental HealthStress, PsychologicalStudentsAdolescentAdultDepressionFemaleHumansMaleUniversitiesYoung AdultDepressionInterpretation biasMental healthPsychological flexibilityStress

Identifiers

PMID41203808
PMCPMC12595107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.