This study aimed to determine the usefulness of integrating basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) and relational frames theory (RFT) in order to explain the effects of social physique anxiety (SPA) – in the context of exercise – on exercisers’ mental health. A total of 296 recreational cyclists and triathletes (100% males) aged 18 to 60 years old (Mage = 35.65, SD = 9.49) completed a multi-section questionnaire assessing the target variables. Two models of structural equations with multiple mediators were tested using 5000 bootstrap samples. While the BPNT-based model explained 20% of variance in satisfaction with life (SWL) and 25% of variance in mental health (MH), the model that also incorporated RFT explained 43% of variance in both of those variables. Results showed that SPA negatively impacted exercisers’ mental health via two different mechanisms: a) through a decrease in perceived satisfaction of basic psychological needs (β = –.05, p = .045 for SWL; β = –.07, p = .002 for MH); b) through an increase in psychological inflexibility, generated directly by SPA (β = –.24, p < .001 for SWL; β = –.20, p < .001 for MH) and also mediated by basic psychological need thwarting (β = –.09, p < .001 for SWL; β = –.08, p = .002 for MH). Results supported integrating the two theories, elucidating the processes by which a controlling social factor like SPA can affect the potential benefits of exercise.

This study analyzed the interrelationships between key constructs of cognitive therapy (CT; depressogenic schemas), metacognitive therapy (MCT; dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs), and acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT; psychological inflexibility) in the prediction of depressive symptoms. With a lapse of nine months, 106 nonclinical participants responded twice to an anonymous online survey containing the following questionnaires: the Depression subscale of the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS), the Dysfunctional Attitude Scale Revised (DAS-R), the Positive beliefs, Negative beliefs and Need to control subscales of the Metacognitions Questionnaire-30 (MCQ-30), and the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II (AAQ-II). Results showed that when controlling for baseline levels of depressive symptoms and demographic variables, psychological inflexibility longitudinally mediated the effect of depressogenic schemas (path ab = .023, SE = .010; 95% BC CI [.008, .048]) and dysfunctional metacognitive beliefs on depressive symptoms (positive metacognitive beliefs: path ab = .052, SE = .031; 95% BC CI [.005, .134]; negative metacognitive beliefs: path ab = .087, SE = .049; 95% BC CI [.016, .214]; need to control: path ab = .087, SE = .051; 95% BC CI [.013, .220]). Results are discussed emphasizing the role of psychological inflexibility in the CT and MCT models of depression.

Recent research has found low levels of general self-efficacy (GSE: beliefs about the ability to appropriately handle a wide range of stressors) and high levels of anxiety sensitivity (AS: fear of the negative consequences of experiencing anxiety) to be relevant predictors of pathological worry. This study examined the role of psychological inflexibility (PI: the dominance of private experiences over chosen values and contingencies in guiding action), the central component of the acceptance and commitment therapy model of psychopathology, in the effect of GSE and AS on worry. A total of 132 nonclinical participants completed questionnaires assessing the constructs of interest. Partial correlations and regression analyses showed that both GSE and AS were independent predictors of pathological worry after controlling for each other. However, mediation analyses revealed that psychological inflexibility completely mediated the independent effects of both GSE and AS on pathological worry. Theoretical and treatment implications of the results are discussed.