key: cord-0861623-rgulzk47
authors: Daks, Jennifer S.; Peltz, Jack S.; Rogge, Ronald D.
title: Psychological Flexibility and Inflexibility as Sources of Resiliency and Risk during a Pandemic: Modeling the Cascade of COVID-19 Stress on Family Systems with a Contextual Behavioral Science Lens
date: 2020-08-15
journal: J Contextual Behav Sci
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.08.003
sha: dd67c7d159815a084f1bee7565c1fc3ed4db9fe4
doc_id: 861623
cord_uid: rgulzk47

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the historic economic shutdown and stay-at-home efforts to slow its spread have radically impacted the lives of families across the world, completely disrupting routines and challenging them to adjust to new health risks as well as to new work and family demands. The current study applied a contextual behavioral science lens to the spillover hypothesis of Family Systems Theory to develop a multi-stage mechanistic model for how COVID-19 stress could impact family and child functioning and how parents’ psychological flexibility could shape those processes. METHODS: A total of 742 coparents (71% female; 84% Caucasian, 85% married, M = 41 years old) of children (ages 5-18, M = 9.4 years old, 50% male) completed an online survey from March 27(th) to the end of April, 2014. RESULTS: Path analyses highlighted robust links from parent inflexibility to all components of the model, predicting: greater COVID-19 stress, greater coparenting discord and family discord, greater caustic parenting, and greater parent and child distress. Parent flexibility was associated with greater family cohesion, lower family discord and greater use of constructive parenting strategies (inductive, democratic/autonomy supportive, positive). Results further suggested that COVID-19 stressors predicted greater family and coparent discord, which in turn predicted greater use of caustic parenting (reactive, inconsistent, aggressive), which in turn predicted greater child and parent distress. Conclusions: The current results highlight parental flexibility and inflexibility as key points of intervention for helping families navigate the current global health crisis, highlighting the crucial role they play in the lives of families.

a broader perspective in the midst of them). In contrast, psychological inflexibility is a set of rigid and maladaptive responses to challenging experiences that serve to enhance distress (e.g., actively avoiding unwanted/difficult feelings, getting stuck or fusing with them, judging or shaming oneself for having them). Thus, ACT-based interventions aim to decrease these inflexible responses, while simultaneously promoting flexible and adaptive responses to life's challenging moments. Supported by the broader literature on the widespread benefits of ACTbased interventions (see A-Tjak et al., 2015; Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006 for reviews), analyses of the mediators of ACT treatment effects have highlighted that drops in psychological inflexibility and gains in psychological flexibility across treatment help to explain improvement in depressive and anxiety symptoms and psychological distress (e.g., Forman, Herbert, Moitra, Yeomans, & Geller, 2007; Fledderus, Bohlmeijer, Fox, Schreurs, & Spinhoven, 2013; Waters, Frude, Flaxman, & Boyd, 2018) , suggesting that these processes represent key treatment mechanisms. At a broader level (beyond the context of ACT-based interventions), research has highlighted that psychological flexibility likely represents a fundamental set of skills critical to developing and maintaining well-being across many life domains (see Kashdan J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f & Rottenberg, 2010 for a review). For example, bolstering psychological flexibility has been shown to reduce work-related stress (Wersebe et al., 2018) . Consistent with this, a growing number of studies have linked psychological flexibility in parents to more kind and compassionate family interactions (e.g., MacDonald, Hastings, & Fitzsimons, 2010; Wong, Mak & Liao, 2016) , more adaptive parenting practices (e.g., Burke & Moore, 2015; McCaffrey, Reitman, & Black, 2017; Moreira & Canavarro, 2017) , and greater individual well-being for both children (e.g., Henrichs, van den Heuvel, Witteveen, Wilschut, & Van den Bergh, 2019) and for the parents themselves (e.g., Neff & Faso, 2015) . To build on this work, the current study sought to apply this conceptual framework toward understanding the possible impact of COVID-19 on families during this worldwide crisis, positing that parental psychological flexibility might serve as a key source of resilience within families.

Distinguishing psychological flexibility from inflexibility. Recent measurement work in large online samples has suggested that psychological flexibility and inflexibility are likely distinct yet related constructs (e.g., Rolffs, Rogge, & Wilson, 2018; Rogge, Daks, Dubler, & Saint, 2019) . Analyses in those studies revealed only moderate correlations between dimensions of flexibility and inflexibility, suggesting that individuals could be both fairly flexible and fairly inflexible across contexts and specific situations in their day-to-day lives and that flexibility and inflexibility could change independently across time. For example, results of a case study of a female client who completed a brief ACT-based group showed that her greatest pre-post treatment gains were accounted for by drops across dimensions of inflexibility (e.g., global inflexibility, self-as-content and lack of contact with values), without clear corresponding improvements on dimensions of flexibility . Notably, the quantitative findings uncovering reliable change only for inflexibility aligned with clinical observations noted by the client's therapist. Taken together, these results provide clinically relevant justification for J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f measuring and modeling psychological flexibility and inflexibility as distinct processes within families facing the COVID-19 pandemic.

Family Systems Theory. To ground the contextual behavioral science lens within the complexity of family dynamics, we drew upon Family Systems Theory (Broderick, 1993; Minuchin, 1985) . Family Systems Theory suggests that families are comprised of sub-systems (e.g., coparent unit, parent-child unit, and each individual comprising that unit), nested within the larger family unit, that interact with and influence the unit as a whole (Cox & Paley, 1997; Peltz, Rogge, Sturge-Apple, 2018) . Central to the notion of families as systems, this theory suggests that external perturbations to the system can serve to disrupt homeostasis within families (Minuchin, 1985) . In fact, a robust body of research has linked environmental stressors (e.g., increased work demand and concerns related to illness) with global family functioning (see Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton 2000; Pederson & Revenson, 2005 for reviews), family functioning with parenting behaviors (see Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000 for a review) and parenting behaviors with child functioning (e.g., Bayer, Sanson, & Hemphill, 2006; Brassell et al., 2016; Buehler, Benson, & Gerard, 2006) . One example of this pattern of influence is demonstrated by the spillover hypothesis, which suggests that negative affect or behavior transfers directly from one relationship to another within a family system (Erel & Burman, 1995; Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000) . Applying the principles of the spillover hypothesis, the Family Stress Model (Conger et al., 1994; Conger, Rueter, & Conger, 2000) posits that external stressors, such as financial uncertainty, negatively affect child well-being through disruptions in parental well-being (e.g., depressed mood), the coparent relationship (e.g., marital conflict) the parent-child relationship (e.g., parent-adolescent conflict), and harsher parenting behaviors (e.g., parent hostility). Empirical tests of this model show that external pressures erode family dynamics in a step-wise fashion in which disruptions to the family and coparenting relationships J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f disrupt parenting behaviors, which in turn disrupt child well-being (e.g., Conger et al., 1994; Conger et al., 2002) . Bringing this process into the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, one could imagine a parent who is generally more rigid and psychologically inflexible in their dayto-day life who, within a matter of days is now thrust into a two-parent telework situation and seemingly overnight now has to assist with their child(ren)'s new virtual school curriculum. The most immediate change evident within those families would likely be the extra disruption and chaos that would be present from both parents as well as the child(ren) living, working, and learning in the same confined space (see Figure 1B ). Struggling to adjust to the growing chaos and demands of a makeshift two-person home office and classroom, demands of balancing telework, homeschooling, helping child(ren) remain focused within their virtual classrooms while also minimizing disruptions for the workday, parents are likely to be on a much shorter fuse, and may react in a harsh manner, potentially snapping or yelling at their child when he/she misbehaves and/or interrupts a zoom meeting (rather than using a more compassionate parenting strategy). Even if such harsh responses are effective at curbing disruptive behavior in the shortterm, they would likely leave both the parent and the child feeling upset, leading to greater levels of distress over time. This cascade of stressors rippling down through various levels of the family unit is what informed our conceptualization of spillover effects within the family system as operating in a top-down manner. We viewed global family dynamics (i.e., the homeostatic balance) as setting the overall tone for family interactions and therefore presumed that stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic might be linked to more negative family dynamics (i.e., a disruption of that balance), which then might spill over to other family sub-systems, thereby engendering more hostile and less adaptive parenting strategies (e.g., Dumas et al., 2005) , and poorer levels of both child (see Pinquart, 2017 for a review) and parent well-being (e.g., Brown, Whittingham, & Sofronoff, 2015; Lloyd & Hastings, 2008) J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f

The current study sought to examine the links between parents' psychological flexibility/inflexibility and family functioning in the midst of the upheaval associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, we collected data from 742 coparents within the United States in March and April of 2020, starting the study on March 27 th as the national response was ramping up within the US (after roughly 10 days of press briefings by the White House Coronavirus Task Force and after over half of the states had enacted formal stay-at-home orders). As shown in Figures 1A and 1B, we then tested a path model integrating a contextual behavioral science lens with a Family Systems Theory-informed mechanistic model detailing a potential progression by which COVID-19 stress might impact family and child functioning. Consistent with recent measurement work Rolffs et al., 2018) , the current study conceptualized psychological flexibility and psychological inflexibility as distinct skills that would show unique patterns of association with family and individual functioning (rather than conceptualizing them as opposite extremes of a single construct).

Hypothesis 1: Parental flexibility and inflexibility as fundamental processes. We conceptualized parental flexibility as a critical process that would underly and have the power to shape interactions and dynamics throughout all of the family sub-systems. We therefore hypothesized that parent psychological flexibility (Hypothesis 1A) would show strong links to healthy functioning at all levels of the family system, linking to greater global family functioning, more adaptive parenting behaviors, and to lower levels of their own distress and lower levels of distress in their children. We hypothesized that parent inflexibility would correspondingly be linked to poorer functioning across all of those areas (Hypothesis 1B).

Hypothesis 2: Parent flexibility buffering stress. Consistent with previous work on other forms of stress (e.g., Pakenham & Fleming, 2011) , we conceptualized parent psychological J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f flexibility as a source of resilience, allowing parents to adopt a more accepting, compassionate, and non-judgmental approach to the upheaval in their lives. In this light, they might be more likely to experience those difficult and challenging changes without clinging to them or losing sight of their own deeper perspective and priorities in the process, and experience less subjective stress in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. We therefore hypothesized that parent psychological flexibility would be linked to lower levels of subjective stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic (Hypothesis 2A), whereas parent inflexibility would be linked to higher levels of subjective stress from COVID-19 (Hypothesis 2B) as the use of rigid and inflexible responses would likely exacerbate the stress experienced in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hypothesis 3: The cascade of COVID-19 stress on the family system. Consistent with the spillover hypothesis of Family Systems Theory, we conceptualized COVID-19 stress as having its most proximal links to family functioning, souring the global dynamic of the family (i.e., disrupting the homeostatic balance), which would then trickle down to other sub-systems within the family. We therefore hypothesized that poorer family functioning would, in turn, be directly linked to the use of more caustic and less constructive parenting behaviors, which would, in turn, be linked to poorer child functioning and parent functioning.

All procedures and materials for this study was approved by an Institutional Review Board and informed consent was obtained from all participants. Respondents needed to be at least 18 years of age, have a child between the ages of 5-18 living in their home to participate (to help capture the challenges of having a school-aged child suddenly at home during the COVID-19 shutdowns), and be raising that child with the help of another adult living in the home (to J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f allow us to model coparenting as a family process). The survey was hosted online via SurveyGizmo.com and took approximately 35-45 minutes to complete.

Participants were recruited through online platforms including ResearchMatch (50.8%), email (17%) Reddit forums (13.5%), Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk service (10.4%), social media posts (e.g., facebook, twitter, 7.3%), and local news articles (1%).

The survey was advertised as "The Social Distancing and Family Dynamics Study." Recruitment materials highlighted that the study was voluntary and offered participants individualized feedback on a number of domains of individual functioning as well as the chance to win a $250 amazon.com gift card. Participants recruited through Mechanical Turk also received $0.75 of Amazon.com store credit.

A total of 742 coparents (97% from the United States) completed an online survey from March to April of 2020. The participants were predominately female (71%) and Caucasian (84%), with 5% African American, 4% Latino/Hispanic, 2% Asian/Pacific Islander, 2% Native American, and 3% other/biracial. Respondents were an average of 41 years old (SD = 8.13) with average incomes of $82,435 (SD = $27,604). Roughly 21% of respondents completed some college or trade school, 32% had bachelor's degrees, 43% graduate degrees, and 4% had only a high school level of education.

Unless indicated otherwise, the survey questions were: (1) written in the past tense, (2) focused on the last week, (3) answered on common 6-point Likert scales (e.g., "never true" to "always true," "not at all" to "extremely"), and (4) scores were created by averaging responses so that higher scores reflected greater amounts of the construct being assessed. on a 6-point scale ("never TRUE" to "always TRUE"). Responses on the 30 flexibility items (e.g., "When I had an upsetting thought or emotion, I tried to give it space rather than ignoring it," "I was in tune with my thoughts and feelings from moment to moment," "I tried to keep perspective even when life knocked me down") were averaged to create a flexibility score (α = .965). Similarly, scores on the 30 inflexibility items (e.g., "Negative experiences derailed me from what's really important," "It was very easy to get trapped into unwanted thoughts and feelings," "When times got tough, it was easy to forget about what I truly value") were averaged to create an inflexibility score (α = .961).

Respondents completed 3 items, written for this study, on a 6-point response scale (1 = "not at all", to 6 = "extremely") to assess perceptions of oneself and/or their social/familial network's risk of contracting COVID-19 (e.g., "How much did you feel that YOU were at risk for contracting COVID-19," "How much did you feel that YOUR CHILD (REN) were at risk for contracting COVID-19," "How much did you feel that YOUR FRIENDS & FAMILY were at risk for contracting COVID-19;" α = .817).

Stress from new demands. Respondents completed 3 items, written for study, on a 6point response scale (1 = "not at all", to 6 = "extremely") to assess stress resulting from new work and parenting demands (e.g., "How much were you worried or stressed about adjusting to new working conditions (telecommuting, working from home)," "How much were you worried or stressed about ongoing work demands," "How much were you worried or stressed about new parenting demands (home schooling, lack of childcare);" α = .719).

Family discord. Respondents completed 5 items of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order Scale (CHAOS; Matheney, Wachs, Ludwig & Phillips, 1995) on a 6-point response scale (1 = J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f "strongly disagree", to 6 = "strongly agree") to assess family chaos/disorder (e.g., "You couldn't hear yourself think in our home;" (α = .771). Respondents also completed 9 items of the Parenting Hassles Scale (PHS; Stoneman & Gavidia-Payne, 1994) on a 6-point response scale (1 = "never", to 6 = "constantly") to assess parenting burden due to childcare needs (e.g., "continually cleaning up messes of toys or food," "the kids resisted or struggled over bedtime with you;" (α = .898). Given their similarity of focus and fairly strong correlations/collinearity in the current sample, scores on these two scales were averaged to represent overall family discord (α = .902)

Scale (Ahrons, 1981 ) on a 6-point response scale (1 = "never", to 6 = "always") to assess coparent conflict (e.g., "When you and your coparent discussed parenting issues how often did an argument result;" α = .849). Respondents completed 12 items primarily from the conflict and triangulation subscales of the Coparenting Questionnaire (CQ; Margolin, 1992; Margolin, Gordis & John, 2001 ) on a 6-point response scale (1 = "never", to 6 = "always") to assess coparent triangulation (e.g., "My coparent tried to get our child(ren) to take sides when we argue," "My coparent undermined my parenting," "My coparent used our child(ren) to irritate or upset me;" α = .954 ). Lastly, respondents completed 4 items primarily from the conflict subscale of the Coparenting Questionnaire (CQ; Margolin, 1992; Margolin, Gordis & John, 2001 ) on a 6-point response scale (1 = "never", to 6 = "always") to assess coparent disagreement (e.g., "My coparent and I disagreed on how to parent our child(ren),"My coparent and I had different standards for our child(ren)'s behavior;" α = .861). Given their similarity of focus and fairly strong correlations/collinearity in the current sample, scores on these three scales were averaged to represent overall coparent discord (α = .963).

Family cohesion. Respondents completed 6 items of the Family Assessment Device scale (FAD; Epstein, Baldwin & Bishop, 1983 ) on a 6-point response scale (1 = "strongly disagree" to 6 = "strongly agree") to assess family cohesion (e.g., "In my family in times of crisis we could turn to each other for support;"α = .822).

Questionnaire (PPQ; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen & Hart, 1995) and the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ; Shelton, Frick & Wootton, 1996) on a 6-point response scale (1 = "never", to 6 = "always") to assess forms of parenting. A set of 6 internally-consistent items of the PPQ assessed hostile and reactive parenting (e.g., "I scolded or criticized when our child(ren)s behavior didn't meet our expectations," "I demanded that our child(ren) do things;" α = .869).

Similarly, a 6-item APQ subscale assessed inconsistent discipline (e.g., "You threatened to punish your children and then did not punish him/her," "The punishment you gave your child(ren) depended on your mood;" α = .847). Lastly, 5 items of the PPQ assessed aggressive parenting and physical discipline (e.g., "I spanked our child(ren) when s/he/they were disobedient," "I grabbed our child(ren) when s/he/they were being disobedient;" α = .922).

Given their similarity of focus and fairly strong correlations/collinearity in the current sample, scores on these three scales were averaged to represent overall caustic parenting (α = .933).

Constructive parenting. Another set of items drawn largely from the APQ and PPQ assessed more constructive forms of parenting. Thus, respondents completed 6 items of the reasoning/induction subscale of the PPQ (Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen & Hart, 1995) to assess inductive parenting behaviors (e.g., "I explained the consequences of our child(ren)'s behavior," "I gave our child(ren) reasons why rules should be obeyed"; α = .866). Respondents also completed 7 items (largely from the PPQ) assessing democratic parenting practices (e.g., "I took J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f into account our child(ren)'s preferences in making plans for the family," "I allowed our child(ren) to give input into family rules," "I gave our child(ren) options and choices whenever possible;" α = .841). Lastly, respondents completed 5 items of the positive parenting subscale of the APQ to assess positive and reinforcing parenting practices (e.g., "You hugged or kissed your child when s/he did something well," "You praised your child when s/he behaved well;" α = .867). Given their similarity of focus and fairly strong correlations/collinearity in the current sample, scores on these three scales were averaged to represent overall constructive parenting (α = .904).

Achenbach, 2001) on a 6-point response scale ("not true (so far as you know)," to "always true") to assess parents' reports of current child functioning. Thus, parents completed 10 items of the CBCL Anxious/Depressed subscale (e.g., "My child(ren) was too fearful or anxious," "My child(ren) felt worthless or inferior;" α = .916), 10 items of the Attention Problems subscale (e.g., "My child(ren) couldn't concentrate, couldn't pay attention for long," "My child (ren) failed to finish things he/she/they started;" α = .905), and 6 items of the Aggressive Behavior subscale (e.g., "My child(ren) destroyed things belonging to others," "My child(ren) screamed a lot ;" α = .901). Given their similarity of focus and fairly strong correlations/collinearity in the current sample, scores on these three scales were averaged to represent overall child distress (α = .952).

Questionnaire (PHQ-9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams 2001) on the original 4-point response scale (1 = not at all, to 6 = nearly every day) to assess parents' depressive symptoms over the last two weeks (e.g., "How often have you been bothered by the following problems: feeling J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f down, depressed, or hopeless;" α = .890). For the PHQ-9 we created both an average score (used in our path analyses to ensure that PHQ-9 scores were not ill scaled in comparison to the other variables in the model) and a total score using the standard scoring method (to take advantage of previously validated clinical thresholds; see Kroenke et al., 2001) .

In developing our conceptual model, constructs with a fairly similar focus that demonstrated strong correlations with one another (e.g., family chaos and parenting hassles) were averaged to represent an overall construct (e.g., family discord). This allowed the authors to present a more parsimonious model and reduce excessive collinearity within the model. To test our conceptual model ( Figures 1A and 1B) , path analyses were run in Mplus 7.2. To concentrate our analyses on the prediction between variables at different stages of the model, all constructs within the same stage of the model were allowed to correlate with each other. Given the large number of paths being estimated in the current model, only path coefficients significant at p < .0005 and with estimates whose absolute values were greater than or equal to .20 were examined for interpretation, thereby focusing the narrative on the robust paths that are more likely to replicate in future samples. To ensure our sample provided adequate power for the proposed model, we ran power analyses using the Piface applet (Lenth, 2006) . With 11 variables in the model, a variance inflation factor of 5.0 (reflecting moderate levels of collinearity), roughly 0.5 SD's of error variance for each measure, and a sample of 742 parents, these analyses suggested that we had a power of .9411, or a 94% chance of identifying a meaningful path coefficient with an absolute standardized value of .20 as significant at the .001 level. Indirect paths were specified and estimated using model constraints in Mplus and their confidence intervals were estimated in 10,000 bootstrapped samples. Missing data was rare (0.9%) and Little's MCAR test failed to identify significant deviations from randomness in the patterns of missing data (χ 2 (154) J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f = 128.5, p = .934), suggesting that the data could be considered to be missing completely at random within the current sample. Therefore, Full Information Maximum Likelihood (FIML) estimation was used to handle missing data. The model demonstrated adequate fit (χ 2 (8) = 32.6, p < .0001, CFI = .993, SRMR = .018, RMSEA = .065, 95% confidence interval LL = .043, UL = .089). Table 1 presents a detailed view of the demographics of the families in our sample. Our sample drew respondents from across the United States with 31% living in the Northeast, 30% living in the South, 20% living in the Midwest, and 19% living in the West. A majority of our respondents were female (71%), Caucasian (84%), in romantic relationships (97%), and married (85%). They tended to be in their 30's and 40's, had been with their partners an average of 15 years, and were raising an average of 2 children together (M=9.4 years old, SD = 5 years; 50% male). Although 92% of the children living in the home were the biological child of at least one of the coparents, only 47% of the children were the biological children of both parents. Thus, a majority of the families were blended. Approximately 28% of our sample utilized childcare services for an average of 25.3 hours per week (prior to COVID-19) and just 3.5 hours per week in the week prior to completing the survey (since stay-at-home orders were put in place), suggesting a fairly radical shift in childcare dynamics above and beyond school-aged children no longer attending school each day. Approximately 70% of our sample reported working from home (39% full time) in the last week. When asked separately about working away from home (allowing individuals to endorse both types of work), 32% of our sample reported physically leaving the house for work in the past week (18% full time). The parents in the sample reported on average spending 3.5 hours homeschooling their children (SD = 3.8) each day and another 5.5 J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f hours entertaining their children (SD = 4.2) each day, further suggesting a fairly significant impact of COVID-19 stay-at-home orders on the daily lives of these families.

Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among key study variables are presented in Table 2 . Although both parent psychological flexibility and inflexibility showed moderate associations in the expected directions with family discord (i.e., family chaos/discord and parenting burden) and family cohesion, parent flexibility and inflexibility showed varying patterns of association with the remaining variables in our model. For example, parent inflexibility showed small to moderate associations in the expected direction with COVID-19 stressors, co-parenting discord (i.e., coparent conflict, coparent triangulation, and coparent disagreement), caustic parenting (i.e., hostile and reactive parenting, inconsistent discipline, and aggressive parenting/use of physical discipline), and child distress (i.e., anxiety/depressive symptoms, attention problems, and aggressive behavior) while parent flexibility was not associated with these sets of variables. In contrast, parent flexibility showed moderate associations in the expected direction with constructive parenting (i.e., inductive parenting, democratic parenting, and positive/reinforcing parenting practices) while parent inflexibility was not associated with this parenting behavior. Lastly, though both parent flexibility and inflexibility were associated with parent depressive symptoms in the expected directions, parent inflexibility was more strongly linked with this construct. Given the differing patterns of these associations in both direction and magnitude, these results support the discriminant validity of psychological flexibility and inflexibility and thereby suggest that the constructs were reasonably conceptually distinct from one another. Taken together, these results support the theoretical associations between sets of variables in this model and suggested appropriately modest amounts of collinearity, supporting the testing of the proposed multivariate model.

Parental inflexibility predicts family functioning. As seen in Table 3 and Figure 1C , parent psychological inflexibility showed direct links to all levels of family functioning. This provided support for Hypotheses 1B, highlighting the central nature of parental inflexibility within the lives of families. Specifically, higher levels of parent inflexibility were predictive of higher levels of family discord (i.e., family chaos/discord and parenting burden), higher levels of coparenting discord (i.e., coparent conflict, coparent triangulation, and coparent disagreement) and lower levels of family cohesion, suggesting that parents engaging rigid and inflexible responses to difficult and challenging experiences might sow discord into the broader family environment, particularly in the midst of a pandemic. Parental inflexibility was further predictive of parents using more caustic (i.e., reactive, inconsistent, and aggressive) forms of parenting. Parental flexibility predicts family functioning. As seen in Figure 1D , after controlling for those paths, parental flexibility was uniquely predictive of lower family discord and greater family cohesion, highlighting its potential role as a source of resilience within the larger family unit. Parental flexibility was also linked to parents using more constructive (i.e., inductive, democratic/autonomy supportive, & positive) forms of parenting. Thus, parental flexibility potentially might have empowered parents to select kinder and more compassionate responses to challenging and difficult child behavior (e.g., providing children with options, explaining the logic underlying rules, and providing positive reinforcement) rather than simply engaging in J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f hostile and reactive forms of parenting. Although parental flexibility yielded fewer significant predictive paths than parental inflexibility in the final model, consistent with Hypothesis 1A, the paths that did emerge served to highlight the potential for parental flexibility to improve the tone of dynamics within families.

Parental inflexibility predicts COVID-19 stress. As seen in Table 3 and Figure 1C , and consistent with Hypothesis 2B, higher levels of psychological inflexibility were predictive of parents experiencing higher levels of COVID-19 related stressors (i.e., COVID-19 risk and stress from new demands). Thus, parents who tended to respond to difficult or challenging experiences in rigid and inflexible ways (e.g., experientially avoiding them, becoming stuck in them, judging and shaming themselves for those difficult experiences) also tended to perceive themselves as well as their family and friends at higher risk for contracting COVID-19 and tended to worry more about new demands from work, homeschooling and childcare. Although parent psychological flexibility was predictive of more adaptive family processes, after controlling for the other paths in the model, parental flexibility did not emerge as a significant predictor of COVID-19 related stress ( Figure 1D ), failing to offer support for Hypothesis 2A. Thus, although parental flexibility seemed to promote healthier family dynamics, it did not serve to reduce the acute levels of stress parents were experiencing as the COVID-19 pandemic first broke across the western world. Figure 1E and consistent with Hypothesis 3, greater levels of COVID-19 related stress seemed to potentially impact families in a top-down manner. Thus, stress associated with the new demands placed on parents from the stay-at-home orders associated with the COVID-19 pandemic predicted higher levels of family discord, which in turn, predicted parents using more caustic forms of discipline and correspondingly higher levels of child distress. Greater coparenting discord was also J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f predictive of greater caustic parenting ( Figure 1E ) whereas greater family cohesion was predictive of greater constructive parenting ( Figure 1F ). Thus, consistent with Family Systems Theory, the results of the model offered partial support for COVID-19 related stress potentially impacting child and parent functioning by sending ripples down through the various family systems.

Family distress and caustic parenting might serve as key mechanisms. As seen in Table 4 and Figures 1E and 1F , 10 indirect paths emerged as statistically significant based on their bootstrapped confidence intervals, providing additional support for the proposed model.

Thus, although parent inflexibility demonstrated direct links to child distress, both parent flexibility and inflexibility demonstrated fairly robust links to child distress via the indirect paths suggested by the model. Our results highlight that a majority of these indirect links (7 out of 10) were predicted by parental inflexibility, highlighting that a parent's rigid and inflexible responses to stressors in the midst of a pandemic may be the catalyst for the cascade of dysfunctional relationship processes that can occur within families under intense upheaval and stress. These results more specifically highlight family discord and caustic parenting as key mechanisms explaining those links. Thus, the results would suggest that parents engaging rigid and inflexible responses to difficult or challenging thoughts, feelings, and experiences might lower child functioning primarily by (1) exacerbating reactions to acute stressors (like those of a pandemic),

(2) souring family dynamics to feel more burdensome and conflictual, and (3) promoting the use of more reactive and harsh forms of parenting. In contrast, parents engaging in a more flexible and compassionate manner to difficult thoughts, feelings and experiences might reduce child distress and promote family well-being by (1) reducing global family chaos and parenting burden, and thereby (2) lessening the use of harsh, reactive and inconsistent parenting practices, J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f and instead (3) improving family members' sense of being able to rely on each other for support in times of crises, thereby (4) promoting more constructive parenting practices.

This study sought to introduce a contextual behavioral science lens toward understanding the various impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and families. Drawing upon Family Systems Theory as an organizing framework, the study is one of the first to examine a wide range of family systems/processes within a comprehensive, stepwise, mechanistic path model, thereby integrating previous work and providing greater insights into how parental flexibility might impact family functioning in the midst of a pandemic. Thus, analyses in a large, online sample of parents uncovered robust links between parental psychological flexibility and inflexibility and all levels of family functioning examined, supporting Hypothesis 1. The results went on to offer support for the proposed top-down model in which parental inflexibility seemed to promote greater COVID-19 related stress (Hypothesis 2), which in turn seemed to have worsened family dynamics, reverberating throughout all levels of family functioning to reduce both child and parent well-being (Hypothesis 3). Thus, the current findings are some of the first to augment a comprehensive family systems perspective with a contextual behavioral science lens, thereby highlighting parental flexibility and inflexibility as prime points of intervention for improving family functioning and more specifically for helping families navigate the challenges of large-scale crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Parental inflexibility may represent a key risk factor. Consistent with the tenets of ACT, the results suggested that parental inflexibility was predictive of greater levels of COVID-19-related stress. This offers support for Hypothesis 2 and highlights how routinely using rigid and inflexible responses to difficult or challenging experiences (e.g., experiential avoidance, J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f fusion, self-as-content) likely exacerbates the stress experienced by parents from a global crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic. The stress from new demands generated by the COVID-19 pandemic was, in turn, uniquely predictive of greater family discord even after controlling for the direct link between parent inflexibility and family discord. That suggests that the acute stress generated by the COVID-19 pandemic seemed to adversely impact family functioning above and beyond what could be expected from parental inflexibility alone, highlighting the pandemic's unique impact on families. Although the current study was focused on the acute forms of stress resulting from COVID-19, it is likely that the current results will generalize to other forms of acute and chronic stress experienced by parents. This is consistent with previous research These results are consistent with previous studies demonstrating the benefits of ACT-based interventions for children, adolescents and parents (see Coyne, McHugh, & Martinez, 2001; Murrell & Scherbarth, 2006 , for reviews). More specifically, ACT-based interventions have been shown to reduce parental distress among parents of children with autism (Blackledge & Hayes, 2006) , to reduce both the use of lax parenting and child behavior problems in families with children with cerebral palsy (Whittingham, Sanders, McKinlay, & Boyd, 2014) , and to reduce distress and PTSD symptoms among parents of children with life-threatening illnesses (Burke et al., 2014) . Expanding beyond ACT, other therapeutic approaches like Mentalization-based Family Therapy (Asen & Fonagy, 2020) and Attachment-Based Family Therapy (e.g., Diamond, 2014; Diamond, Russon, & Levy, 2016) specifically target family discord as critical process in treatment. The current findings help to highlight why that might be a particularly effective strategy as improving those dynamics would be predicted to have positive ripple effects throughout the other areas of family functioning. Interestingly, some of ACT's core mechanisms (e.g., defusion, self-as-context) appear to parallel mechanisms proposed within Mentalizationbased Family Therapy (Asen & Fonagy, 2020) , which, among other therapeutic tasks, functioning (e.g., Corthorn, C., & Milicic, 2016) , parenting behavior (e.g., Gouveia et al., 2016) , and both child distress (e.g., Brassell et al., 2016) and parental distress (e.g., Neff & Faso, 2015) , this is one of the first studies to try to integrate those findings into a more comprehensive family systems model. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the current results supported a mechanistic model in which global family functioning (family cohesion, family discord, coparenting discord) represents a broader family system, setting the interpersonal tone in the family and thereby shaping the use of various parenting behaviors used by the parents, which in turn is directly linked to their child(ren)'s levels of distress as well as their own. Thus, the current results would suggest that a relatively rigid and inflexible parent may often respond in a harsh and reactive manner when disagreeing with their coparent, potentially having difficulty yielding to a compromise and possibly even trying to gain their children's alliance against their coparent (i.e., engaging in triangulation). These dysfunctional patterns of interactions would likely resonate down to the parent-child interactions, prompting this parent to respond to child misbehavior with harsh, critical, and even physical punishments, promoting distress in both the parent and the child. These links are consistent with studies that have shown how extremely difficult situations can strain family functioning (e.g., Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton 2000; Pederson & Revenson, 2005) , which in turn impacts parenting behaviors (e.g., Krishnakumar & Buehler, 2000) , which J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f is ultimately linked to individual distress (e.g., Bayer, Sanson, & Hemphill, 2006) . Taken as a set, this body of findings could start to provide family therapists with a hierarchy of intervention points. For example, the current results suggest that (in addition to promoting psychological flexibility) addressing family and coparenting discord within treatment and engaging in activities to foster deeper family cohesion (i.e., targeting global family functioning) would likely have secondary benefits as that would likely also serve to promote more adaptive and less caustic parenting, thereby easing both child and parent distress.

After controlling for the other effects in the model, parent psychological flexibility was not directly predictive of lower COVID-19 related stress. This would suggest that in the face of a pandemic infecting millions of individuals and killing hundreds of thousands of individuals worldwide, even psychologically flexible parents experienced stress as the United States went into stay-at-home shutdowns in an effort to slow the spread. However, even after controlling for all of the other paths in the model, parent flexibility was predictive of greater family cohesion, lower family discord, and greater use of constructive parenting. Thus, these results highlight that although parental psychological flexibility might not have served to reduce the overall stress parents faced in the early stages of the pandemic, it seemed to promote kinder and more compassionate and supportive interactions at all levels of family functioning. For example, a more psychologically flexible parent may have both contributed to and experienced their family as a strong support network of people who could turn to one another in the throes of a global crisis, and given this overall supportive environment, this may have allotted parents the needed cognitive and emotional resources to respond to their children with (1) warm displays of their affection by giving them a hug and a kiss when they did something well (rather than allow that moment to pass with little or no acknowledgment), (2) autonomy-supportive options (asking children to contribute to family activities/rules rather than J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f enforcing pre-determined family rules), and (3) reasons for why other rules needed to be followed (e.g., taking time to explain why they may not be able to have regularly-scheduled playdates with friends rather than just telling them "no"). Correspondingly, parental flexibility also promoted lower family discord, thereby promoting lower caustic parenting and lower child distress. Thus, parental psychological flexibility might have helped parents to be their better selves across more of their family interactions as they struggled to find a new normal and face the challenges of the new demands placed on them by social distancing and stay-at-home orders.

Parental flexibility in blended families. Over half of the families in the sample were blended in structure. The research on blended families has suggested that although they face unique challenges as they grow to become a family unit, it is localized family processes like effective communication (e.g., Braithwaite et al., 2001; Golish, 2003) , constructive parenting (e.g., Fisher et al, 2003; Jenkins et al., 2005) , family conflict/discord (e.g., Jenkins et al., 2005) , and the quality of interactions within specific relationships (e.g., Lansford et al., 2001 ) that determine the long-term well-being of those families and children. These results are highly consistent with the Family Systems Theory model as well as the current findings. Thus, parental flexibility and the family processes modeled in the current study might have been particularly salient for the blended families navigating the COVID-19 pandemic within the current sample.

Future work could extend the current findings by examining the roles of parental flexibility and inflexibility within the developmental process of joining two family units together.

The current study collected data from a robust sample of US coparents at a pivotal point in history, just as the COVID-19 pandemic was impacting all levels of society with the United States, thereby allowing us to model some of its immediate impacts on families. The current study was also one of the first studies to introduce a contextual behavioral science lens within a J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f comprehensive model of family functioning based on the spillover hypothesis of Family Systems Theory. The results were therefore able to highlight key points of intervention for families as they struggle to adapt to the new demands of a post-COVID-19 world. Despite these strengths, several limitations in the current study should be acknowledged. First, our model was tested in a cross-sectional dataset, rendering the direction of causality unclear. Although previous research supports the directionality of the links tested, it is possible that many of the links examined in the current study will be transactional (i.e., bi-directional) in nature, as these processes could reciprocally influence one another across time (e.g., Peltz, Rogge, & O'Connor, 2019) . Thus, future studies should examine these results longitudinally to further clarify the underlying directions of causality. Second, our study was geared towards coparenting families so we could examine the role of coparenting dynamics within the family system. Future studies should aim to examine this model across diverse family structures (e.g., single parents) to determine the generalizability of these findings. Third, data were gathered entirely via parent's report, limiting the obtained information to that of a single family member. Future studies could extend the current work by collecting data from both parents as well as from children to provide a more robust perspective on the dynamics within each family. Fourth, our study relied solely on selfreport data, potentially limiting the data collected by parents' varying levels of insight and varying levels of willingness to disclose the more difficult dynamics that might exist. For example, as there are strong social desirability pressures to present oneself as a "good" parent, using self-report data might have served to lower the amounts of hostile parenting and child distress reported within the sample, potentially attenuating the range of variance captured and thereby weakening the strength of the associations observed for those variables. Although the parents in the current sample reported sufficient amounts of negative family dynamics to support meaningful findings, future studies could extend this work by diversifying the types of data J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f collected (e.g., including behavioral coding of family interaction and parenting tasks) to address this concern. Fifth, the sample was predominantly female, Caucasian, and well educated, potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings. Future studies should explore this model in samples with greater demographic diversity to more thoroughly explore the limits of generalizability. Finally, although the study drew parents fairly evenly across the United States, regional differences in public health messaging and policies emerged within specific states as the COVID-19 pandemic spread, which could have led to some families being more or less severely impacted. Future work could build on the current study by examining the more precise impacts of shifting public health policies within specific states. Despite these limitations, the current results offer initial evidence for the key role that parent psychological flexibility plays in the lives of families enduring a global crisis.

J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f .00 .55 NOTE: Ind Fn = Individual functioning. Correlations with absolute values ≥ .076 were significant at p < .05. All correlations with absolute values ≥ .20 have been bolded for ease of interpretation. Subscales sharing a similar focus with strong correlations/collinearity were averaged to represent an overall construct. Thus, Coparenting discord is a composite of coparent conflict, coparent triangulation, and coparenting disagreement. Family Discord is a composite of family chaos/disorder and parenting burden due to childcare demands. Caustic parenting is a composite of hostile and reactive parenting, inconsistent discipline, and aggressive parenting/physical discipline. Constructive parenting is a composite of inductive parenting behaviors, democratic parenting practices, and positive and reinforcing parenting practices. Child distress is a composite of anxiety/depressive symptoms, attention problems, and aggressive behavior. The model demonstrated adequate fit: χ2(8) = 33.6, p < .0001, CFI = .993, TLI = .954, SRMR = .018, RMSEA = .061, 90%CI LL = .041, UL = .084. Given the size of the sample, most path coefficients emerged as statistically significant. To take a conservative approach, we only interpreted standardized path coefficients with absolute values ≥ .20 to focus our results narrative on the more robust effects that are likely to replicate in future samples. These path coefficients have been bolded for ease of interpretation. Subscales sharing a similar focus with strong correlations/collinearity were averaged to represent an overall construct. Thus, Coparenting discord is a composite of coparent conflict, coparent triangulation, and coparenting disagreement. Family Discord is a composite of family chaos/disorder and parenting burden due to childcare demands. Caustic parenting is a composite of hostile and reactive parenting, inconsistent discipline, and aggressive parenting/physical discipline. Constructive parenting is a composite of inductive parenting behaviors, democratic parenting practices, and positive and reinforcing parenting practices. Child distress is a composite of anxiety/depressive symptoms, attention problems, and aggressive behavior. .091 NOTE: These estimates are based on the results from 10,000 bootstrapped samples and represent the unstandardized indirect effects. Subscales sharing a similar focus with strong correlations/collinearity were averaged to represent an overall construct. Thus, Coparenting discord is a composite of coparent conflict, coparent triangulation, and coparenting disagreement. Family Discord is a composite of family chaos/disorder and parenting burden due to childcare demands. Caustic parenting is a composite of hostile and reactive parenting, inconsistent discipline, and aggressive parenting/physical discipline. Constructive parenting is a composite of inductive parenting behaviors, democratic parenting practices, and positive and reinforcing parenting practices. Child distress is a composite of anxiety/depressive symptoms, attention problems, and aggressive behavior. 

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for clinically relevant mental and physical health problems

Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles

The continuing coparental relationship between divorced spouses

Consequences associated with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research

Mentalization based therapeutic interventions for families

Parent influences on early childhood internalizing difficulties

Using acceptance and commitment training in the support of parents of children diagnosed with autism

Becoming a family

Parent's psychological flexibility: Associations with parenting and child psychosocial well-being

Understanding family process: Basics of family systems theory

Parental experiential avoidance as a potential mechanism of change in a parenting intervention for parents of children with pediatric acquired brain injury

Interparental hostility and early adolescent problem behavior: The mediating role of specific aspects of parenting

Development of the Parental Psychological Flexibility Questionnaire

Adapting Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for parents of children with lifethreatening illness: Pilot study. Families, Systems, & Health

Parenting mediates the impact J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f of caregivers' distress on children's well-being in families affected by HIV/AIDS

Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research

A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys

Economic stress, coercive family process, and developmental problems of adolescents

The role of economic pressure in the lives of parents and their adolescents: The family stress model

Negotiating adolescence in times of social change

Economic pressure in African American families: a replication and extension of the family stress model

Mindfulness and parenting: A correlational study of nonmeditating mothers of preschool children

Families as systems

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT): Advances and applications with children, adolescents, and families. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics

Attachment-based family therapy interventions

Attachment based family therapy: A review of the empirical support

Home chaos: Sociodemographic, parenting, interactional, and child correlates

The McMaster Family Assessment Device

Interrelatedness of marital relations and parent-child relations: A meta-analytic review

Parental monitoring of children's behavior: Variation across stepmother, stepfather, and two parent biological families

The role and Therapy

A randomized controlled effectiveness trial of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Cognitive Therapy for anxiety and depression

Stepfamily communication strengths: Understanding the ties that bind

Self-compassion and dispositional mindfulness are associated with parenting styles and parenting stress: The mediating role of mindful parenting

Chronic and acute stress and the prediction of major depression in women

FACE COVID' How to respond effectively to the Corona crisis

Relational Frame Theory: A post-Skinnerian account of human language and cognition

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, processes and outcomes

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy:The process and practice of mindful change

Does mindful parenting mediate the association between maternal anxiety during pregnancy and child behavioral/emotional problems

Mutual influence of marital conflict and children's behavior problems: Shared and nonshared family risks

Psychological flexibility as a fundamental aspect of health

Interparental conflict and parenting behaviors: A meta analytic review

The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure

Early dynamics of transmission and control of COVID-19: A mathematical J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f modelling study. The Lancet Infectious Diseases

Does family structure matter? A comparison of adoptive, two parent biological, single mother, stepfather, and stepmother households

SARS-related perceptions in Hong Kong

Java Applets for Power and Sample Size [Computer software

The value of psychological flexibility: Examining psychological mechanisms underpinning a cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for burnout

Psychological variables as correlates of adjustment in mothers of children with intellectual disabilities: Cross sectional and longitudinal relationships

Common stressful life events and difficulties are associated with mental health symptoms and substance use in young adolescents

Psychological acceptance mediates

Coparenting Questionnaire. Unpublished instrument

Coparenting: A link between marital conflict and parenting in two-parent families

Bringing order out of chaos: Psychometric characteristics of the Confusion, Hubbub, and Order scale

Mindfulness in parenting questionnaire (MIPQ): development and validation of a measure of mindful parenting

Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy

Parenting changes in adults with cancer

Psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale in a sample of Portuguese mothers

State of the research & literature address: ACT with children, adolescents and parents

Family stress and parental responses to children's negative emotions: Tests of the spillover, crossover, and compensatory hypotheses

Self-compassion and well-being in parents of children with autism

Relations between acceptance of multiple sclerosis and positive and negative adjustments

Parental illness, family functioning, and adolescent well-being: a family ecology framework to guide research

Adolescent sleep quality mediates family chaos and adolescent mental health: A daily diary-based study

Transactions within the family: Coparenting mediates associations between parents' relationship satisfaction and the parent-child relationship

Associations of parenting dimensions and styles with externalizing problems of children and adolescents: An updated meta-analysis

Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices: Development of a new measure

It's all about the process: Examining the convergent validity, conceptual coverage, unique predictive validity, and clinical utility of ACT process measures

Disentangling components of flexibility via the hexaflex model: Development and validation of the Multidimensional Psychological Flexibility Inventory (MPFI)

Assessment of parenting practices in families of elementary school-age children

The parenting hassles scale

Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications

Parent psychological flexibility in the context of pediatric pain: Brief assessment and child functioning

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for clinically distressed health care workers: Waitlist controlled evaluation of an ACT workshop in a routine practice setting

The link between stress, well-being, and psychological flexibility during an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy self-help intervention

Interventions to reduce behavioral problems in children with cerebral palsy: An RCT

How did general practitioners protect themselves, their family, and staff during the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong?

Self-compassion: A potential buffer against affiliate stigma experienced by parents of children with autism spectrum disorders

Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: A retrospective cohort study. The Lancet

We wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and there has been no significant financial support for this work that could have influenced its outcome.We confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and that there are no other persons who satisfied the criteria for authorship but are not listed.We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.We confirm that we have given due consideration to the protection of intellectual property associated with this work and that there are no impediments to publication, including the timing of publication, with respect to intellectual property. In so doing we confirm that we have followed the regulations of our institutions concerning intellectual property.We further confirm that any aspect of the work covered in this manuscript that has involved human subjects has been conducted with the ethical approval of all relevant bodies and that such approvals are acknowledged within the manuscript.We understand that the Corresponding Author is the sole contact for the Editorial process (including Editorial Manager and direct communications with the office). He/she is responsible for communicating with the other authors about progress, submissions of revisions and final approval of proofs.We confirm that we have provided a current, correct email address which is accessible by the Corresponding Author and which has been configured to accept email from JCBS (Jennifer.daks@rochester.edu).Signed by all authors as follows: