Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology

© 2020 American Psychological Association 2022, Vol. 8, No. 2, 85–105

ISSN: 2332-2101 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000198

Adaptability to a Sudden Transition to Online Learning During the

COVID-19 Pandemic: Understanding the Challenges for Students

Avi Besser Gordon L. Flett

Hadassah Academic College York University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Virgil Zeigler-Hill
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Oakland University

This cross-sectional study investigated the associations among adaptability to the

pandemic, personality, and levels of learning experiences (affective, cognitive, and
behavioral) among higher education students required to adapt to an abrupt transition
to synchronous online learning due to the global COVID-19 pandemic. A sample of
1,217 college students from Israel completed an online questionnaire after transitioning
to synchronous online learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Comparisons of
reactions to the online condition versus more typical face-to-face learning conditions
confirmed that students had pervasive negative reactions to the online condition that
became necessary due to the pandemic. Moreover, adaptability to the pandemic was
associated broadly with more positive reactions across multiple indicators. Support was
also found for an indirect associations model such that personality traits were associ-
ated with specific reactions to online learning via their associations with adaptability.
Supplemental analyses highlighted the more positive reactions and learning adaptabil-
ity of students who reported greater feelings of belonging and mattering. The current
findings attest to the role of adaptability and the significant challenges experienced by
college students who experienced changes in their learning and life conditions due to
the need to rapidly adjust to the changes and uncertainty brought about by the
COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords: COVID-19, adaptability, synchronous learning, university students, Israel

The COVID-19 pandemic has many elements
that make it exceptionally stressful for students.
Safety concerns prevail due to the potential risk
to health and well-being for individual students
but also for their family members, friends, and
colleagues. Many students have also had to
cope with the sense of isolation and loneliness
that accompanies adherence to guidelines to
engage in physical isolation or social distanc-
ing. Stress and anxiety are also elicited by cir-
cumstances that have resulted in complete dis-
ruptions of daily routines. Accordingly,

This article was published Online First October 19, 2020.
Avi Besser, Interdisciplinary School for Sciences,
Health and Society, Department of Communication Disor-
ders, Hadassah Academic College; Gordon L. Flett, De-
partment of Psychology, York University; Virgil Zeigler-
Hill, Department of Psychology, Oakland University.
Authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. We
would like to acknowledge and are grateful to the public
academic colleges in Israel that approved and distributed
the survey to their students, as well as our colleagues and
friends for raising awareness of this study in their schools,
and we would like to extend our gratitude to the 1,217
students who volunteered and participated so willingly in
this study. Grateful thanks are also extended to the anon-
ymous reviewers for their thoughtful and constructive sug-
gestions on a draft of this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Avi Besser, Interdisciplinary School for Sci-
ences, Health and Society, Department of Communication
Disorders, Hadassah Academic College, 37 Hanevi’im St.
Jerusalem, 9101001, Israel, or to Gordon L. Flett, Depart-
ment of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele Street,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3. E-mail: avibe@hac
.ac.il or gflett@yorku.ca

85
 86 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
researchers have already begun to document the
heightened anxiety and distress among people
going through the pandemic (e.g., Casagrande,
Favieri, Tambelli, & Forte, 2020; Flett & He-
witt, 2020; Horesh & Brown, 2020).
Another key element is the uncertainty and
ambiguity that accompanies this global health
crisis. Because it is novel, unresolved, and
seemingly uncontrollable, there is uncertainty
about the best ways to respond as well as when
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
and how the pandemic will be resolved and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
what life will be like following the pandemic.
Situations of prolonged uncertainty are bound
to result in elevated worry and anxiety and this
has been documented in previous research (e.g.,
Flett, Endler, & Fairlie, 1999; Lobel, Gilat, &
Endler, 1993).
Students also have a series of unique chal-
lenges that are specific to them. Students must
try to maintain their concentration on learning
despite it being difficult to do so. The learning
and achievements of students are typically un-
derscored by their goals and goal orientations,
yet it is not easy to maintain a focus on achieve-
ment goals when life issues have become pre-
dominant. Another significant challenge for stu-
dents is that because they must now engage in
online distance learning, the daily routines of
student life have now been entirely altered. The
anxious student who tries to soothe herself or
himself through affiliation with peers now has
limited opportunities to do so.
One of the most significant changes imposed
on students is the focus of this article. Specifi-
cally, many students who typically engage in
face-to-face learning formats have now had to
make a sudden transition to online learning.
While there have been extensive discussions
and analyses of the merits and challenges of
online learning (see Martin, Ahlgrim-Delzell, &
Budhrani, 2017; Olt, 2018), and research sug-
gests that students typically enjoy taking online
courses (see Seiver & Troja, 2014), such learn-
ing is best when it is planned in advance (or
involves a gradual transition) and combined
with other forms of learning. Ideally, students
would often experience a blended learning en-
vironment yet this is not possible in most in-
stances due to the pandemic. It must also be
acknowledged that students differ in their abil-
ity to thrive and flourish rather than struggle as
a result of online learning (see Malik, Fatiman,
Hussain, & Sarwar, 2017; Yang, Baldwin, &
Snelson, 2017). However, this is the case under
typical circumstances, yet the current situation
is exceedingly atypical. It must also be ac-
knowledged that the uncontrollable and uncer-
tain situation that is now being faced will be
entirely at odds with the need for autonomy and
self-determination that is typically at the core of
motivated goal striving (for a discussion, see
Deci & Ryan, 2012). This wholesale shift to
online learning will also be more difficult for
students who are sheltering in places that are
less optimal and more physically and psycho-
logically confining and are perhaps not very
conducive to learning and performance. While
our focus is on students, we recognize that the
challenges, of course, also apply to professors
and other instructors. Some of these challenges
have been documented in other recent work
(e.g., Besser, Lotem, & Zeigler-Hill, 2020).
Given these observations and the many chal-
lenges that exist at present, the current article is
based on research that had three primary goals.
First, we sought to document the extent to
which an abrupt transition to synchronous on-
line learning is impacting college students who
are trying to learn as the pandemic continues to
unfold. We had students rate their current learn-
ing experiences and also provide retrospective
accounts of their typical learning experiences
prior to the beginning of the pandemic and the
changes that have been brought about by it. The
measures included in this investigation were
quite comprehensive. We examined a host of
negative emotional reactions and mood states,
both positive and negative. In addition, we also
assessed perceived stress and feelings of lone-
liness. Our assessment extended to many differ-
ent aspects of the learning process, including
not only affective reactions, but also cognitive
and behavioral reactions in the typical and now
atypical circumstances.
Second, the current study examined individual
differences in self-reported adaptability in re-
sponse to the pandemic as our primary and central
focus. At present, the continuing COVID-19
pandemic is such that we are uniquely under-
going a prolonged stress sequence with no end
in sight. An emphasis on how the individual
person adapts is in keeping with interactional
transactional stress models that recognize the
characteristics of the individual as mediating
between the attributes of the environment and
the responses to stress (see Derogatis & Coons,
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING
1993). The ability to adapt is central to coping
and problem solving with adaptability being
related to— but distinguishable from—resil-
ience (see Martin, 2017). Programmatic re-
search by Martin and colleagues has focused on
adaptability to new and uncertain circum-
stances. A measure known as the Adaptability
Scale was created by Martin, Nejad, Colmar,
and Liem (2013) to assess levels of adaptability
in general. This nine-item self-report inventory
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
has been used in numerous investigations that
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
consistently show the benefits of having the
capacity to effectively adjust to new and uncer-
tain circumstances (Collie, Holliman, & Martin,
2017; Holliman, Martin, & Collie, 2018; Martin
et al., 2013; Putwain, Loderer, Gallard, & Beau-
mont, 2020). Accordingly, the current research
examined individual differences in adaptability
among students who were undergoing and re-
quired to cope with the COVID-19 global health
pandemic.
We utilized a version of the Adaptability
Scale that took the usual scale item content and
modified it so that our participants were clearly
required to report on their adaptability to the
COVID-19 global health crisis and all of the
changes it has brought about. This decision was
guided by our sense that it essential to begin to
document current levels of coping through
adaptability in response to the current chal-
lenges rather than relying on well-known mea-
sures of typical coping styles from a trait per-
spective. Although it would have been ideal to
have a baseline measure of general adaptability
prior to the transition, this was not possible due
to the unforeseeable need to transition to online
learning. One limitation of this work is that we
did not also include the original measure, which
would have enabled us to distinguish between
general adaptability and adaptability to the pan-
demic.
Third, and finally, the current study investi-
gated broad personality traits from the five-
factor trait model in terms of their associations
with perceived adaptability to the pandemic sit-
uation and affective, cognitive, and behavioral
reactions to the new learning format. The well-
known five-factor model of personality traits
focuses on openness, conscientiousness, extra-
version, agreeableness, and neuroticism (see
Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman, 1990; Dig-
man, & Takemoto-Chock, 1981; Goldberg,
1990, 1992; Norman, 1963). These personality
87
traits have been shown to predict a wide array of
outcomes, and they have been used extensively
in past coping research (see Carver & Connor-
Smith, 2010; Segerstrom & Smith, 2019). These
personality traits are well-suited to the current
work given that they collectively reflect goal
striving, interpersonal orientations, and emo-
tional well-being. However, they are also highly
relevant given the original links between the
five-factor model and trait adaptability docu-
mented by Martin et al. (2013). These research-
ers showed that adaptability in general was as-
sociated with higher levels of conscientiousness
and lower levels of neuroticism. The current
study utilized the same five-factor measure used
by Martin et al. (2013), which enabled us to
examine the replicability of their findings in a
unique context and with a modified Adaptabil-
ity Scale that captured adaptability to the spe-
cific context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The inclusion of measures tapping adaptabil-
ity and personality traits enabled us to assess the
relevance of these individual difference factors
in terms of their links with perceived adaptabil-
ity to the pandemic situation. Of course, it also
permitted an examination to how these individ-
ual difference factors relate with the affective,
cognitive, and behavioral reactions to the new
learning format as expressed by our student
participants.
Belongingness and Mattering as Elements
of Relating to Other People
Finally, and parenthetically, it is worth noting
that the measures we used to document how
students now feel and perceive their current
learning situation included brief measures of
relatedness. This study focused on two interper-
sonally based constructs (belongingness and
mattering) that have been identified in past re-
search as involving feelings that are central to
students’ positive emotions, learning, and per-
formance. Both belongingness and mattering
are elements of relatedness to others. Belong-
ingness is a sense of being included and fitting
in (e.g., being a part of a group), whereas mat-
tering is the sense of being important to other
people. Mattering is both a feeling and a need,
and it has been identified as a key but often
overlooked positive psychology construct (see
Flett, 2018a). It includes the belief of being
significant to others and these other people
 88 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
showing that they pay attention to the individ-
ual. It can also be a feeling that arises from
having others depend on oneself (see Rosenberg
& McCullough, 1981). There is an extensive
and growing literature that documents how stu-
dents do much better when they have developed
a sense that they belong and they matter in
general, but especially in their places of learn-
ing (see Allen, Kern, Vella-Brodrick, Hattie, &
Waters, 2018; Flett, 2018a; Kivlighan et al.,
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2018). Connection to others is key when it
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
comes to online learning (see Seiver & Troja,
2014). The benefits of mattering as a resource
during the pandemic have been described at
length (see Flett & Zangeneh, 2020).
The eminent self-esteem researcher Morris
Rosenberg argued that mattering is one of the
core elements of self and identity (Rosenberg,
1985; Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981). The
benefits of mattering have resulted in recent
calls to make mattering a central focus of men-
tal health promotion in schools and universities
(Flett, 2018b; Flett, Khan, & Su, 2019). Matter-
ing has been linked with measures of academic
resilience (Flett, Su, Ma, & Guo, 2016). These
components of feeling valued can be examined
in general, but it is also possible to examine
these components in specific contexts, including
the college environment (see France & Finney,
2010; Tovar, Simon, & Lee, 2009). Belonging
and mattering tap into core elements of the self
and it should be the case that students who see
themselves as more adaptable during the pan-
demic crisis should have a strong, positive sense
of self that is built, at least in part, on the
scaffold provided by knowing that they belong
and they matter to other people. However, it is
important to recognize that belonging and mat-
tering are double-edged; that is, it is great to
have this sense of fit and significance but ab-
jectly horrible to feel excluded, unimportant,
unheard, and invisible.
The Current Study
In summary, the current research on college
students undergoing the COVID-19 global
health crisis reflected three interrelated goals.
First, we sought to document how students re-
spond to changes in their learning situations that
were implemented in response to the pandemic
and the need to engage in social distancing. This
involved direct comparisons of retrospective as-
sessments of face-to-face learning with current
assessments of synchronous online learning.
Second, the current study evaluated the rele-
vance of individual differences in self-reported
adaptability in response to the pandemic. It was
hypothesized and anticipated that students with
higher levels of adaptability, relative to students
with lower levels of adaptability, would report
more favorable responses to synchronous online
learning.
Finally, the current study also evaluated the
relevance of broad individual difference factors
from the five-factor trait model; these traits
were examined in terms of their links with per-
ceived adaptability to the pandemic situation
and affective, cognitive, and behavioral reac-
tions to the new learning format. Given that
broad personality traits can be regarded as distal
influences while adaptability to the pandemic is
a very proximal influence, the current analysis
also evaluated as part of this third goal an indi-
rect associations model focused on the associa-
tions that broad personality variables had with
current feelings and reactions in synchronous
online learning via personality variables’ asso-
ciations with adaptability during the COVID-
19. This indirect effects model focus was based
on our expectation that there would indeed be
significant associations between the personality
traits and adaptability and between adaptability
and reactions and responses to the pandemic.
Our participants were students who have
been through multiple past experiences that
have required them to adapt, yet they now find
themselves in a totally unique and uncertain
situation that is different from their past expe-
riences. The current research was conducted
with students from Israel who are typically
older than the college and university students
who are described in research studies conducted
in the United States and Canada. These are
students who have spent 3 years in the military
beginning at about 19 years of age, followed by
a year of work, and then 6 months traveling for
“the big travel.” Moreover, there is an ongoing
exposure to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in-
cluding terror attacks that involve negative
mental health consequences. In short, these stu-
dents have experienced a host of novel situa-
tions that represent opportunities to be adapt-
able in general. When viewed from this
perspective, those students who are finding it
difficult to adapt to the pandemic are likely
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING
experiencing feelings and a form of stress un-
like their past experiences.
Method
Participants
The participants were undergraduate students
from five public higher education institutions in
Israel (i.e., academic colleges). A total of 1,857
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
students entered the secure online questionnaire
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
with 1,217 of those students actually complet-
ing the questionnaires (945 women [77.6%] and
272 men [22.4%]). Their mean age was 27.42
years (mode and median ⫽ 25 years [SD ⫽
7.703]). As such, our participants were older
than typical college student samples and most
were adults rather than emerging adults.
In the present sample, 45.5% of the partici-
pants were in their first academic year, 27.4%
were in their second year, and 21.9% were in
their third year. The academic majors of the
participants were as follows: 36.6% social sci-
ences, 21.8% sciences, 5.7% art, 3.7% law,
4.6% humanities, and 27.7% management stud-
ies. Participants reported that they participated
in a mean of 6.77 synchronous online course
sessions per week (1 to 15 course sessions with
mode and median ⫽ 6 courses per week, SD ⫽
2.88), which is approximately an average of
about 12 hr per week in front of a computer
screen. The sample consisted predominantly of
participants who were single (70.4%), Jewish
(83.3%), and currently unemployed or on
forced/unpaid vacation due to the COVID-19
pandemic (67.1%). The self-reported current
economic status of these participants was 4.8%
very good, 22.0% good, 44.1% moderate,
20.0% not good, 5.7% bad, and 3.3% very bad.
Materials
Adaptability. Adaptability was measured
using a modified version of the Adaptability
Scale (Martin et al., 2013). The modifications
involved slightly rewording each of the nine
items of the Adaptability Scale to focus on the
COVID-19 pandemic situation rather than the
decontextualized form of adaptability that was
the focus of the original instrument. For exam-
ple, the item “I am able to think through a
number of possible options to assist me in a new
situation” was altered to read “I am able to think
89
through a number of possible options to assist
me in this new situation.” Each item from the
Adaptability Scale was designed to reflect the
following criteria: (a) appropriate cognitive, be-
havioral, or affective adjustment in response to
(b) uncertainty and/or novelty that has (c) a
constructive purpose or outcome. Martin et al.
(2013) advised that adaptability can be opera-
tionalized as a higher-order factor (indicated by
a cognitive– behavioral factor [six items] and an
affective factor [three items]) or as a first-order
factor (indicated by nine items). In the interest
of parsimony, we adopted the latter operation-
alization and focused on the nine-item compos-
ite score for adaptability (␣ ⫽ .92), which is
consistent with the results of a principal com-
ponent analysis of the modified version indicat-
ing that the nine items were represented by one
factor (Eigenvalue ⫽ 5.56) with loadings rang-
ing from .71 to .85 and accounting for 61.74%
of the variance. Participants were asked to rate
their level of agreement with each item using
scales that ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to
7 (Strongly Agree). This instrument has been
shown to demonstrate adequate psychometric
properties (e.g., Martin et al., 2013).
Personality. Personality features were as-
sessed using the 40-item International English
Big-Five Mini-Markers instrument (Thompson,
2008), which was based on prior work by Gold-
berg (e.g., Goldberg, 1992; Hampson & Gold-
berg, 2006). Participants rated the extent to
which 40 trait adjectives were accurate descrip-
tors of themselves in order to capture the fol-
lowing personality features: extraversion (8
items; e.g., Talkative [␣ ⫽ .75]), openness to
experience (8 items; e.g., Creative [␣ ⫽ .76]),
neuroticism (8 items; e.g., Moody [␣ ⫽ .74]),
conscientiousness (8 items; e.g., Efficient [␣ ⫽
.85]), and agreeableness (8 items; e.g., Warm
[␣ ⫽ .74]). Participants were asked to rate how
accurately each item described themselves us-
ing scales that ranged from 1 (Very Inaccurate)
to 7 (Very Accurate). This instrument has been
shown to demonstrate adequate psychometric
properties (e.g., Thompson, 2008).
Learning experiences. We measured the
extent to which participants reported learning ex-
periences since shifting to synchronic teaching
(i.e., current experience) as well as their typical
level of same experience during traditional face-
to-face teaching (i.e., general experience). The
learning experiences measured were: Stressfulness
 90 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
and Isolation (stress and loneliness), Negative Mood
(anxiety, frustration, helplessness, and
boredom[␣face-to-face ⫽ .80 and ␣ synchronous online ⫽
.86]), Positive Mood (optimism, satisfaction and en-
joyment [␣face-to-face ⫽ .80 and ␣ synchronous online ⫽
.85]), Learning: Cognitive (attentive and focused),
Depth of Learning (know and understand, and able
to apply), Motivation (responsibility and commit-
ment to learning), and Performance (meeting my
standard and expectations). The Cronbach Alpha’s
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for these six items were ␣face-to-face ⫽ .90 and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
␣synchronous online ⫽ .92. We also assessed relatedness
experiences with six items (i.e., “I feel accepted,”
“I feel like belong,” “I feel ignored,” “I feel un-
important,” “I feel like someone special,” and “I
feel like I matter”). Two items each were designed
to assess perceived belongingness, mattering, and
antimattering. Mattering and antimattering were as-
sessed as separate measures in light of evidence
suggesting that mattering and antimattering are not
simply polar opposites representing the same dimen-
sion (see Flett, 2018a, for a discussion). Four items
(␣face-to-face ⫽ .80 and ␣ synchronous online ⫽
.81) were from a scale of relatedness constructed
by Furrer and Skinner (2003) and two additional
highly face-valid items were written for the pur-
poses of the current study (i.e., “I feel like I
belong” and “I feel like I matter”). Previously,
Flett (2018a) noted that while the scale created by
Furrer and Skinner (2003) was designed to tap
relatedness and belongingness, three of the four
items are worded in a manner that actually reflects
feelings of mattering or not mattering (i.e., anti-
mattering). It was further noted that despite the
fact that belongingness and mattering are substan-
tially correlated, they represent distinct variables
to the extent that it is possible to have a sense of
belonging but not a sense of mattering (e.g., feel-
ing part of a group but not highly valued or sig-
nificant within the group). Mattering and belong-
ingness were assessed within the context of the
online learning versus face-to-face learning in the
current study. Participants responded to all items
using a response scale that ranged from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much).
Procedure
The decision on social remoteness and reso-
lution was made by the Israeli government a
week before the second semester opened while
students in Israel were in the exam period dur-
ing the end of the first semester. Academic
institutions in Israel were required to sign an
agreement with the Israeli Finance Ministry that
required them to move almost immediately to
online teaching. Institutions postponed the
opening of the second semester for a week to
allow for preparations of synchronous online
teaching resources and core curriculum plan-
ning. Faculty were required to learn the peda-
gogical and technological aspects associated
with the transition, which required becoming
family with platforms used for online teaching
such as Zoom and Google Meet. In addition, it
is important to note that most university courses
in Israel have traditionally been taught using
face-to-face on-campus with very few courses
offered in an asynchronous online format or
using a mixed teaching (hybrid) format such as
flipped classrooms. Thus, most of the students
and faculty in Israel had little, if any, experience
with online learning in general and synchronous
online learning in particular. Faculty members
were required to convert their courses to these
platforms with a degree of urgency. In essence,
this constituted an emergency pivot to online
learning by students and faculty who were not
expecting or anticipating this need.
Recruitment of the participants was as fol-
lows: An e-mail with a link to a secure online
questionnaire was sent by the internal systems
of the five public higher education institutions
to their undergraduate students, at the end of the
fifth week of online synchronous learning, re-
questing volunteers for a study concerning “ex-
periences with online synchronous learning.”
This corresponds to the first week of the second
semester (or trimester) of the academic year in
Israel so most students would have already had
at least one full semester of traditional face-to-
face learning before the transition to online syn-
chronous learning.
The secure online questionnaire included the
informed consent, demographic background, in-
formation about personality characteristics,
adaptability, current level of perceived learning
experiences during the transition to online syn-
chronous teaching, and general learning experi-
ences during previous periods of traditional
face-to-face learning. Participation in this
study was voluntary and participants were
aware that they could withdraw from the
study at any time. All participants provided
their signed, informed consent. No social se-
curity numbers or other identifying data were
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING 91

collected nor were any invasive examinations
conducted by the researchers. This project
was conducted with the Ethics Committee of
the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Ha-
dassah Academic College.
Analytic Strategy
Mean differences. Paired samples t tests
were used to examine mean differences for par-
ticipants’ reported learning experiences in face-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ables and with learning experiences in synchro-
nous online learning (see Table 3).
Multivariate analyses.
The unique contribution of adaptability.
Using a series of hierarchical multiple regres-
sions, we estimated the unique variance statis-
tically predicted by each measure above and
beyond the others (see Table 4). That is, we
ascertained whether personality variables added
significantly to the predictions of experiences of

synchronous online learning beyond the ratings

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

to-face versus synchronous online learning

methods (see Table 1).
Univariate analyses. Zero-order Pearson
correlations were used to examine (a) associa-
tions of personality variables with learning ex-
periences in synchronous online learning (see
Table 2) and (b) associations of adaptability to
the COVID-19 pandemic with personality vari-
of the same experience in face-to-face learning,
and whether adaptability added significantly
above and beyond personality variables.
The indirect associations model. The hy-
potheses for the present study were consistent
with an indirect effects model of personality: we
examined the indirect associations that person-

Table 1
Mean Differences for Learning Experiences in Face to Face vs. Synchronous Online Learning
Learning method face-to face Effect
synchronous online size
Learning experiences M SD M SD t(1,216) Cohen’s d
Stressfulness and isolation
Stress 3.52 1.95 4.32 2.23 ⫺9.72ⴱⴱⴱ 0.28
Loneliness 2.07 1.62 4.51 2.19 ⫺29.90ⴱⴱⴱ 0.86
Negative mood
Anxiety 2.56 1.74 3.71 2.32 ⫺16.11ⴱⴱⴱ 0.46
Frustration 2.97 1.74 4.74 2.14 ⫺22.23ⴱⴱⴱ 0.64
Helplessness 2.39 1.61 4.30 2.27 ⫺25.58ⴱⴱⴱ 0.73
Boredom 3.09 1.73 4.73 1.98 ⫺21.20ⴱⴱⴱ 0.61
Positive mood
Optimism 5.21 1.64 3.76 1.96 20.21ⴱⴱⴱ 0.58
Satisfaction 5.25 1.54 3.40 2.01 24.71ⴱⴱⴱ 0.71
Enjoyment 5.17 1.67 3.36 1.99 23.59ⴱⴱⴱ 0.67
Relatedness
Belongingness 10.44 3.15 7.44 3.68 25.15ⴱⴱⴱ 0.72
Mattering 7.96 3.50 5.75 3.24 20.50ⴱⴱⴱ 0.59
Antimattering 4.14 2.85 6.14 3.82 ⫺17.52ⴱⴱⴱ 0.50
Learning
Cognitive
Attentive and focused 5.35 1.54 3.39 1.97 25.20ⴱⴱⴱ 0.73
Depth of learning
Know and understand 5.49 1.35 3.75 1.93 25.43ⴱⴱⴱ 0.73
Able to apply 5.70 1.34 3.66 2.02 28.57ⴱⴱⴱ 0.82
Motivation
Responsibility 5.99 1.34 4.47 2.12 21.02ⴱⴱⴱ 0.60
Commitment 6.04 1.30 4.24 2.14 24.10ⴱⴱⴱ 0.72
Performance
Meeting my standards and expectations 5.49 1.45 3.70 1.99 24.78ⴱⴱⴱ 0.71
Note. N ⫽ 1,217.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .0001.
 92 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL

Table 2
Correlations of Personality Variables With Learning Experiences in Synchronous Online Learning
Personality variables
Learning experiences in synchronous
online learning Extraversion Openness Neuroticism Conscientiousness Agreeable
Stress ⫺.04 ⫺.03 .16ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.06ⴱ ⫺.05
Loneliness .01 ⫺.03 .18ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.01
Negative mood ⫺.04 ⫺.07ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.06ⴱ ⫺.08ⴱⴱ
Positive mood .07ⴱ .06ⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱⴱ .02 .06ⴱ
Belongingness .18ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ
Mattering .17ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱⴱ .04 .10ⴱⴱⴱ
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Antimattering ⫺.07ⴱ ⫺.05 .13ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱⴱ

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Attentive and focused .01 .05 ⫺.13ⴱⴱⴱ .08ⴱⴱ .06ⴱ

Depth of learning .05 .09ⴱⴱ ⫺.13ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .05
Motivation .03 .06ⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ .07ⴱ
Meeting my standards and expectations .06ⴱ .07ⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱⴱ .03
Note. N ⫽ 1,217.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .0001.

ality variables had with experiences in synchro-
nous online learning via adaptability during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Accordingly, we tested
the fit of the proposed indirect effects model to
the empirical data for eight models correspond-
ing to each of the experience measures, using
path analyses in AMOS (Arbuckle, 2014). In
addition to the overall nonsignificant chi-square
(␹2 test of exact fit), the following fit indices
were used to evaluate the proposed models: (a)
the ␹2/df ratio; (b) the root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA); (c) the CFI; the (d)
GFI and (d) AGFI. A model in which ␹2/df
was⬍ ⫽ 2, CFI, GFI and AGFI were greater
than 0.95, and the RMSEA index was between
0.00 and 0.08 (Hu & Bentler, 1999) was
deemed acceptable. These moderately stringent
acceptance criteria clearly reject inadequate or
poorly specified models, while accepting mod-
els for consideration that meet real-world crite-

Table 3
Correlations of Adaptability to the COVID⫺19 Pandemic With Personality
Variables and Learning Experiences in Synchronous Online Learning
Adaptability to the
Personality variables COVID-19 pandemic
Extraversion .22ⴱⴱⴱ
Openness .21ⴱⴱⴱ
Neuroticism ⫺.36ⴱⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness .27ⴱⴱⴱ
Agreeable .25ⴱⴱⴱ
Learning experiences in synchronous online learning
Stress ⫺.28ⴱⴱⴱ
Loneliness ⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ
Negative mood ⫺.43ⴱⴱⴱ
Positive mood .37ⴱⴱⴱ
Belongingness .31ⴱⴱⴱ
Mattering .27ⴱⴱⴱ
Antimattering ⫺.27ⴱⴱⴱ
Attentive and focused .32ⴱⴱⴱ
Depth of learning .36ⴱⴱⴱ
Motivation .31ⴱⴱⴱ
Meeting my standards and expectations .36ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽ 1,217.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .0001.
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 4
Summary of the Series of Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses
Learning experiences in synchronous online learning
Meeting my
Negative Positive Attentive and Depth of standards and
Stress Loneliness mood mood Belongingness Mattering Antimattering focused learning Motivation expectations
Step 1:
Face-to-face levels of learning experience .04 ⫺.10ⴱⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.10ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.04
R2 .002 .01 0.0 .01 .07 .14 .10 .03 .01 .00 .00
F for ⌬R2 2.13 11.86ⴱⴱ .27 12.21ⴱⴱⴱ 91.82ⴱⴱⴱ 201.46ⴱⴱⴱ 130.75ⴱⴱⴱ 35.83ⴱⴱⴱ 12.46ⴱⴱⴱ .30 2.00
Step 2: Personality variables
Extraversion ⫺.02 .01 ⫺.01 .07 .08ⴱ .05 .01 ⫺.01 .04 .01 .04
Openness ⫺.02 ⫺.05 ⫺.07 .05 .09ⴱ .04 ⫺.01 .04 .10ⴱⴱ .04 .07ⴱ
Neuroticism .15ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱⴱ .08ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.09ⴱ ⫺.13ⴱⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness ⫺.03 ⫺.05 ⫺.03 .00 .03 ⫺.01 ⫺.03 .09ⴱⴱ .09ⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱⴱ
Agreeable ⫺.01 .02 ⫺.02 .04 .04 .03 ⫺.05 .03 ⫺.01 .01 ⫺.04
⌬R2 .03 .04 .07 .03 .11 .16 .11 .03 .04 .03 .04
F for ⌬R2 6.83ⴱⴱⴱ 10.68ⴱⴱⴱ 19.87ⴱⴱⴱ 8.54ⴱⴱⴱ 10.12ⴱⴱⴱ 5.31ⴱⴱⴱ 3.08ⴱ 7.87ⴱⴱⴱ 9.65ⴱⴱⴱ 8.26ⴱⴱⴱ 10.88ⴱⴱⴱ
Step 3:
Adaptability ⫺.30ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.42ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ
⌬R2 .10 .05 .20 .11 .16 .21 .16 .07 .10 .07 .10
F for ⌬R2 89.88ⴱⴱⴱ 68.30ⴱⴱⴱ 200.14ⴱⴱⴱ 159.14ⴱⴱⴱ 77.10ⴱⴱⴱ 82.47ⴱⴱⴱ 79.65ⴱⴱⴱ 100.29ⴱⴱⴱ 141.39ⴱⴱⴱ 96.29ⴱⴱⴱ 137.24ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽ 1,217.
ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING

ⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001. p ⬍ .0001.
93
 94 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL

ria for reasonable fit and representation of the Results

data (Kelloway, 1998). Results of path coeffi-
cients for these models are presented in Table 5
and fit indices presented in Table 6.
Next, Pearson correlations were also calcu-
lated as supplementary analyses to examine the
associations of experiences of relatedness vari-
ables (i.e., mattering and belonging) and the
learning experiences in synchronous online
learning (see Table 7). Finally, additional sup-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Mean Differences
As can be seen in Table 1, participants re-
ported significantly higher levels of stress and
isolation as well as negative mood in synchro-
nous online learning experience compared to
their experience in previous traditional face-to
face learning. Moreover, they reported signifi-

plementary analyses conducted for the purposes cantly lower levels of positive mood, related-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of providing additional information revealed
modest negative correlations between adapt-
ability and course sessions per week, r ⫽ ⫺.09,
p ⬍ .01 and current economic status, r ⫽ ⫺.16,
p ⬍ .001. However, controlling for course ses-
sions per week and current economic status did
not significantly alter the results reported below.
As a result, we decided not to include these two
variables in the final analyses. In addition, sim-
ilar associations were found for men and wom-
en. Further, controlling for gender did not sig-
nificantly alter the results reported below. As a
result, we decided not to include gender in the
final analyses because it did not appear to play
an important role in the results nor did we have
any hypotheses concerning the role of gender.
ness, concentration and focus, motivation, and
performance. Overall, participants experienced
synchronous online learning as substantially
less positive in all aspects of the two learning
experiences. The effect sizes for these paired
samples t tests were computed according to
Cohen (1988). As can be seen in Table 1, the
results indicate that the effect sizes ranged from
small (Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.28) to high (Cohen’s d ⫽
0.86), and overall, they were medium in mag-
nitude (mean Cohen’s d ⫽ 0.65, SD ⫽ .14; see
Chen, Cohen, & Chen, 2010).
To reduce the number of scales, since all
negative mood scales and positive mood scales
were significantly different for the learning
methods and had high internal reliability we

Table 5
Path Coefficients for the Series of the Models of the Indirect Associations
Estimate
Effect B SE ␤ t
Personality variables on adaptability to COVID-19
Extraversion ¡ Adaptability .28 .06 .13 5.21ⴱⴱⴱ
Openness ¡ Adaptability .32 .06 .14 5.41ⴱⴱⴱ
Neuroticism ¡ Adaptability ⫺.63 .05 ⫺.31 ⫺12.17ⴱⴱⴱ
Conscientiousness ¡ Adaptability .36 .06 .17 6.49ⴱⴱⴱ
Agreeable ¡ Adaptability .27 .08 .10 3.48ⴱⴱ
Adaptability to COVID-19 on learning experiences in synchronous online learning
Adaptability ¡ Stress ⫺.06 .00 ⫺.30 ⫺10.93ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Loneliness ⫺.16 .01 ⫺.24 ⫺8.26ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Negative mood ⫺.24 .02 ⫺.39 ⫺14.33ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Positive mood ⫺.16 .01 .38 14.18ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Belongingness .09 .01 .29 11.17ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Mattering .07 .01 .26 10.31ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Antimattering ⫺.08 .01 ⫺.25 ⫺9.53ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Attentive and focused .05 .01 .31 11.71ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Depth of learning .11 .01 .37 13.84ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Motivation .11 .01 .31 11.47ⴱⴱⴱ
Adaptability ¡ Meeting my standards and expectation .06 .04 .37 13.68ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽ 1,217.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .0001.
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING 95

Table 6
Summary of Fit Indices for the Series of the Models of the Indirect Associations
Models for learning experiences in
synchronous online learning ␹2 df p CFI GFI AGFI RMSEA
Stress 7.14 5 .21 1 1 .99 0.02 (0.000–0.05)
Loneliness 5.56 4ⴱ .24 1 1 .99 0.02 (0.000–0.05)
Negative mood 7.52 4ⴱ .11 1 1 .99 0.03 (0.000–0.06)
Positive mood 6.55 5 .26 1 1 .99 0.005 (0.000–0.01)
Belongingness 6.25 5 .28 1 1 .99 0.014 (0.000–0.04)
Mattering 4.81 5 .44 1 1 .99 0.000 (0.000–004)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Antimattering 5.37 5 .37 1 1 .99 0.01 (0.000–0.04)

Attentive and focused 5.92 5 .31 1 1 .99 0.008 (0.000–0.04)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Depth of learning 4.2 5 .52 1 1 .99 0.000 (0.000–0.04)

Motivation 9.06 5 .11 .99 1 .99 0.03 (0.000–0.05)
Meeting my standards and expectations 10.09 5 .07 1 1 .99 0.03 (0.000–0.06)
ⴱ
Modification indices indicate that the path from Neuroticism to Loneliness should be kept in the model for loneliness (B ⫽
.04, ␤ ⫽ .11, t ⫽ 3.70, p ⬍ .0001) as well as for the model of Negative mood (B ⫽ .12, ␤ ⫽ .15, t ⫽ 4.36, p ⬍ .0001).

used a composite score for each in further anal-
yses. In addition, we used a composite score of
the two scales for depth of learning and for the
two scales of motivation. These decisions had
the effect of reducing the number of outcome
variables (from 18 to 11) and subsequently the
number of models to be examined and related
errors associated with a larger number of anal-
yses.
Univariate Analyses
As can be seen in Table 2, according to the
zero-order correlations, among the personality
variables, Neuroticism was found to have sig-
nificant associations with all of the learning
experiences in synchronous online learning
such that high levels of neuroticism were asso-
ciated with more negative experiences. Overall,
the associations that personality features had
with learning experiences were relatively small
in magnitude.
The results in Table 3 indicate that adapt-
ability to the COVID-19 pandemic was sig-
nificantly associated with both the personality
variables and the learning experiences in syn-
chronous online learning. High levels of
adaptability to the COVID-19 pandemic were
linked with constructive learning experiences
outcomes. The associations that adaptability
to the COVID-19 pandemic has with both
personality and learning experiences in syn-
chronous online learning were stronger than

Table 7
Correlations of Experiences of Relatedness and the Other Learning Experiences
in Synchronous Online Learning
Relatedness in synchronous online learning
Learning experiences in synchronous
online learning Belongingness Mattering Antimattering
ⴱⴱⴱ ⴱⴱⴱ
Stress ⫺.31 ⫺.28 .32ⴱⴱⴱ
Loneliness ⫺.39ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ
Negative mood ⫺.45ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱⴱ
Positive mood .46ⴱⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱⴱ
Attentive and focused .41ⴱⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱⴱ
Depth of learning .48ⴱⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱⴱ
Motivation .41ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱⴱ
Meeting my standards and expectations .44ⴱⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. N ⫽ 1,217.
ⴱⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .0001.
 96 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
the ones that personality had with learning
outcomes.
These findings may support the assumed in-
direct associations that personality variables
may have with learning experiences via the
adaptability to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Multivariate Analyses
The unique contribution of adaptability.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Using a series of hierarchical multiple regres-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sion analyses, controlling for the associations
(covariation) among the personality variables
(entered together in Step 2) and the ratings of
the same experience in face-to-face learning
(entered in Step 1) and its association with
adaptability to the COVID-19 pandemic (en-
tered in Step 3) and with the synchronous online
learning experience predicted outcome, we ex-
amined the unique variance statistically pre-
dicted by each measure above and beyond the
others. Table 4 reports the R-squared changes
for each measure; here we indicate the unique
variance statistically predicted by each measure
above and beyond the others. As can be seen,
personality variables added significantly to the
predictions of experiences of synchronous on-
line learning beyond the ratings of the same
experience in face-to-face learning, and adapt-
ability added significantly above and beyond
personality variables. Adaptability was most
predictive of substantial unique variance in re-
ported levels of negative mood and positive
mood, but it is evident from Table 4 that adapt-
ability predicted significant unique variance
across all of the measures. The variance infla-
tion factor (VIF) values for this analysis were
less than 1.19, which suggests that multicol-
linearity was not an issue (Darlington & Hayes,
2017).
Results of the univariate zero-order associa-
tions and the above multivariate analyses indi-
cated that personality variables have low or no
direct associations with synchronous online
learning experience outcomes. In the following
section, we will explore the assumed indirect
associations of personality variables and syn-
chronous online learning experience outcomes
via their associations with adaptability to the
COVID-19 pandemic.1
The indirect associations model. Path
analyses were used to examine the role of adapt-
ability to the COVID-19 in the indirect associ-
ations between personality variables and syn-
chronous online learning experience outcomes.
Figure 1 depicts the indirect associations path
model that was evaluated.
We examined the models while controlling
for the associations (covariation) among the
personality variables and their associations with
the ratings of the same experience in face-to-
face learning and its association with adaptabil-
ity to the COVID-19 pandemic and with the
synchronous online learning experience out-
come. Path analyses indicated (see Table 5) that
high neuroticism, but low extraversion, openness,
conscientiousness, and agreeableness personality
variables scores were related to lower learning
experiences in synchronous online learning via
lower levels of adaptability to the COVID-19 pan-
demic. Adaptability to the COVID-19 pandemic
was significantly associated with synchronous
online learning experiences outcomes across an
extensive series of analyses. As can be seen in
Table 6, the indirect effect models fit the em-
pirical data very well. It was found for two of
the models (Loneliness and Negative Mood)
that modification indices indicated that Neurot-
icism had both significant direct and indirect
associations.
Overall, the results presented in Table 5 in-
dicate that personality variables were associated
significantly with adaptability to the COVID-19
pandemic, which was significantly associated
with experiences of synchronous online learn-
ing.
Summary of Main Findings
Overall, compared to their experience in pre-
vious traditional face-to face learning, partici-
pants experienced the synchronous online learn-
ing as substantially less positive in all aspects of
the two learning experiences (significantly
higher levels of stress and isolation as well as
negative mood and significantly lower levels of
positive mood, relatedness, concentration and
focus, motivation, and performance). Multivar-
iate analyses indicated that personality variables
were associated significantly with adaptability
to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was signif-
icantly associated with each of the experiences
1
According to Zhao, Lynch, Jr., & Chen (2010), there
need not be a significant zero-order effect of predictor on
outcome to establish indirect effect.
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Figure 1. The indirect associations of personality variables with experiences in synchronous
online learning through adaptability to the COVID-19 pandemic.
of synchronous online learning beyond levels of
the experience in previous traditional face-to
face learning.
Supplemental Analyses
Finally, as can be seen in Table 7, significant
associations were found for the experiences of
relatedness variables and the other learning ex-
periences in synchronous online learning. High
levels of belongingness and mattering were as-
sociated broadly with more positive experiences
in synchronous online learning while feelings of
not mattering (i.e., antimattering) were associ-
ated broadly with negative experiences. Feel-
ings of belonging and mattering were linked
with higher scores on positive indicators (e.g.,
positive mood) and lower scores on negative
indicators (e.g., negative mood).
Discussion
The current study had three interrelated
goals. First, we contrasted student retrospective
reports of their experiences in the typical face-
to-face learning format versus synchronous on-
line learning. This comparison examined indi-
cators of emotion and mood (both positive and
negative) as well as variables reflecting per-
ceived self-worth from a relatedness perspec-
97
tive (i.e., belonging and mattering). We in-
cluded a focus on these psychosocial variables
involving feelings of belonging and mattering
or not mattering given the isolation associated
with living conditions during the pandemic.
Second, our central focus was on individual
differences in adaptability to the pandemic as a
potentially important factor in how students
coped with the transition to synchronous online
learning. This research was based on a modified
version of the Adaptability Scale that specifi-
cally measured self-reported adaptability to the
pandemic period.
Finally, this study also considered the extent
to which the broad personality trait dimensions
that comprise the five-factor model relate to the
reported emotions and learning experiences in
synchronous online learning formats via adapt-
ability. The inclusion of these dimensions also
enabled us to test a model with adaptability
conceptualized as more proximal and personal-
ity traits as distal.
Our comparisons of the student responses and
reactions to the two learning formats provided an
overall picture that illuminated the various ways
in which many students were struggling with
the abrupt and unforeseeable shift in educa-
tional format necessitated by the global health
pandemic. It was found across all of our mea-
 98 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
sures that students as a group seemingly had a
pattern of responses indicating more positive
reactions to the face-to-face format versus the
synchronous online format. We describe these
differences in detail below with the caveat that
we were, of course, not able to assess ratings
while face-to-face class formats prevailed so
these ratings are retrospective accounts of how
things used to be from the students’ perspec-
tives; as such, there is always a concern about
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
response bias with retrospective ratings. An-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
other caveat is that there is no doubt that the
ratings given to learning through an online syn-
chronous format also must reflect to some de-
gree how students are adapting to the pandemic
situation and the natural reactivity that ensues
when autonomy and self-determination needs
are thwarted by controlling, constricting life
circumstances.
These considerations notwithstanding, the
differences that were detected were of such
magnitude that it is clear that the sudden onset
of synchronous online learning necessitated by
the pandemic was comparatively undesirable
for many students. Our analyses found that cur-
rent conditions evoked stronger negative moods
(i.e., anxiety, frustration, boredom) and lower
positive moods. Our positive mood indicators
included not only levels of enjoyment, but also
satisfaction and optimism. Given the role of
confidence, hope, and optimism in resilience
and positive educational outcomes (see Feld-
man & Kubota, 2015; Martin & Marsh, 2006;
Rand, 2009), the substantially lower levels of
optimism found with synchronous online learn-
ing, relative to face-to-face learning, should per-
haps to be underscored in terms of their poten-
tial implications.
It is also important to emphasize that in line
with concerns about the impact of physical and
social isolation, one of the largest differences
detected was for reports of loneliness in the
synchronous online condition. We highlight this
result not only because of widely expressed
concerns about levels of loneliness among peo-
ple coping with the pandemic, but also other
indications within our data of the destructive-
ness of loneliness. Additional analyses not re-
ported here due to space limitations confirm that
loneliness is linked with a host of negative
emotions (e.g., helplessness, frustration) and a
paucity of positive emotions. Loneliness was
also associated with negative reports of learn-
ing. Collectively, these associations accord with
the analyses of the complex nature of loneliness
and the pervasive negative impacts that tend to
accompany it (see Cacioppo & Patrick, 2008).
The ratings for belongingness and mattering
were in keeping with reported levels of loneli-
ness. Our participants reported substantially
lower feelings of belonging and mattering and
higher feelings of not mattering after the tran-
sition. These results were found within the con-
text of providing ratings of the learning formats
but it is likely that the responses provided reflect
a generalized sense of feelings of belonging and
mattering as a student at the college. This was
not particularly surprising given that these feel-
ings are best served through actual interactions
with other people who can make us feel valued
and connected with them. We will discuss the
results for belonging and mattering in more
detail below. Still, it is worth noting that the
differences found in the current situation sug-
gest that contextual factors can clearly impact
the degree to which students can feel a sense of
relatedness to their fellow students and course
instructors.
Robust differences were found following sta-
tistical analyses that focused on the learning
variables. The overall pattern of findings sug-
gests that students who experienced an abrupt
shift to a synchronous online format reported
negative experiences, relative to the face-to-
face format. As a group, these students reported
comparatively less learning and greater atten-
tional difficulties with the shift to the online
format. The results also provide clear indica-
tions of motivational deficits and some degree
of disengagement. Moreover, the analyses sug-
gest that students are experiencing a greater
discrepancy between how they were actually
doing versus how they would ideally like to be
doing in terms of their expectations and stan-
dards.
The Relevance of Adaptability
Given the significant challenges that these
data reflect, it is incumbent upon students to
find ways to adapt to the prevailing situation.
Our analyses showed that our modified version
of the Adaptability Scale was successful in
terms of this adapted measure having acceptable
psychometric properties and yielding meaning-
ful findings. Psychometric analyses confirmed
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING
that the nine items represented one broad adapt-
ability factor despite the measure having three
subsets of items reflecting affective, behavioral,
and cognitive adaptability.
Our first focus was on how individual differ-
ences in adaptability to the pandemic were re-
lated to the personality traits that comprise the
five-factor model. We found modest but signif-
icant associations with all five factors, and im-
portantly, all five factors accounted for signifi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
cant unique variance in levels of adaptability
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
when examined in a regression analysis. Stu-
dents who reported higher levels of adaptability
also had lower levels of neuroticism and higher
levels of conscientiousness, openness, agree-
ableness, and extraversion. This both replicates
and extends past work by Martin et al. (2013),
which found that these broad traits were asso-
ciated in a similar manner with adaptability in
general. The most robust associations in the
current research were with lower neuroticism
and greater conscientiousness and this outcome
replicates the findings reported by Martin et al.
(2013).
The obtained link with extraversion and
adapting to the pandemic is not particularly
robust but it is interesting given the natural
tendency to presume that socially isolated ex-
traverts are likely to suffer disproportionately
during the pandemic. This is still likely for a
subset of these individuals, but this should be
mitigated for those extraverted students who
have higher levels of adaptability.
The findings with openness deserve to be
briefly highlighted given that it might be ex-
pected that openness to new experiences could
extend to greater tolerance for uncertainty that
could conceivably be reflected in more positive
reactions to synchronous online learning. How-
ever, there were only small associations be-
tween openness and the learning variables (e.g.,
depth of understanding) and a small positive
association between openness and adaptability.
This pattern of results may reflect how openness
is measured and the complexities of the open-
ness construct that see it associated with ambi-
guity intolerance in certain defined contexts
(see Bardi, Guerra, & Ramdeny, 2009; McCrae,
1996).
The associations detected between adaptabil-
ity and learning-related ratings clearly attest to
the relevance of adaptability in terms of the
perceived capability of students to adapt to new
99
learning formats. Higher levels of adaptability
were associated with lower scores on the nega-
tive mood composite and higher scores on the
positive mood composite. Greater adaptability
was associated significantly with lower levels of
loneliness. The apparent advantages of adapt-
ability extended to higher reported levels of
attention and focus, greater depth of learning,
and indices reflecting greater motivation to
learn. These results accord with past evidence
of the role of adaptability in motivated engage-
ment, learning, and performance (e.g., Burns,
Martin, & Collie, 2018; Collie et al., 2017;
Martin, Yu, Ginns, & Papworth, 2017), but our
results are still quite unique due to our specific
focus on adaptability to the global health pan-
demic and all of the challenges and concerns
associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
As noted earlier, the current study has to rely
on the concurrent assessment of participants’
pandemic experiences and retrospective assess-
ment of experiences with a face-to-face learning
mode. We conducted analyses that examined
the link between adaptability and ratings on
synchronous online learning after controlling
for retrospective accounts of those same expe-
riences in face-to-face classroom situations. All
of the associations between adaptability and
pandemic-related learning experiences were
still evident after controlling for perceptions of
earlier experiences. It was once again the case
that higher levels of adaptability appeared to be
serving students well in terms of their more
recent learning experiences. Of course, we can-
not rule out that adaptability and these reports
are not linked causally and, indeed, it is possible
that reciprocal relations exist.
Our analyses showed that adaptability was
associated with all of the outcome measures
even when personality and retrospective ratings
of face-to-face learning were included in the
model. It is worth noting that adaptability was
clearly most predictive of variance in levels of
positive and negative mood. This pattern of
results could signify that while adaptability was
assessed in terms of cognitive, behavioral, and
emotional adaptability, the unique circum-
stances students found themselves in were more
strongly reflected in emotional reactions, and
being able to adapt emotionally may have been
especially important. This interpretation is in
keeping with the related work by Bonanno and
colleagues (see Bonanno, Papa, Lalande, West-
 100 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
phal, & Coifman, 2004; Westphal, Seivert, &
Bonanno, 2010; Zhu & Bonanno, 2017), which
highlights the importance of expressive flexibil-
ity. The premise of this work is that it is highly
adaptive to be flexible in the modulation of
emotional expressions in response to situational
demands, such as the unique situational and
educational demands that faced our participants.
Proponents of this work regard this capacity as
perhaps most needed, relative to other emotion-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
related capabilities, and the current results in-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
volving adaptability as it relates to experienced
moods fit these claims.
It would be useful for future research in sim-
ilar situations to examine the nature of individ-
ual differences in self-reported levels of adapt-
ability. A key goal is to get a better
understanding of how individual participants
interpret and understand adaptability. Several
possibilities may be involved here. For instance,
it is possible that perceptions of adaptability are
linked with implicit beliefs and narratives about
adaptability, given the role of implicit beliefs
about personal histories (see Ross, 1989). It
would also be potentially revealing to determine
whether self-reported adaptability is reflected in
daily cognitive, affective, and behavioral reac-
tions.
Our working model was one in which the link
between more distal personality factors and
more positive reactions to online learning was
via reported levels of adaptability. Substantial
support for this indirect associations model was
obtained (see Figure 1), though it is important to
reiterate that these results were based entirely
on cross-sectional data (see Maxwell & Cole,
2007, for an extended discussion of the limita-
tions inherent in the examination of indirect
associations using cross-sectional data). These
results have potentially important conceptual
implications in terms of the need to incorporate
adaptability mechanisms into models that link
broad personality traits and various learning
outcomes, including motivation and perfor-
mance indicators. These results also have some
noteworthy practical implications. Given our
model that highlights the role of adaptability, it
is evident that colleges and universities can
better prepare their students for success by en-
gaging in prevention efforts designed to pro-
mote increased levels of adaptability among
their students. Training exercises designed to
instill flexible thinking, coping, and problem-
solving as well as facilitate an atmosphere of
hopefulness could prove quite effective.
Unfortunately, at present, there is not much
evidence in the published literature that there
has been an extensive focus thus far on promot-
ing adaptability among students. Perhaps one of
the greatest lessons of the pandemic is that there
is much to be said for establishing practices and
programs that are designed to proactively en-
hance adaptability among students and, more
generally, among other people in the commu-
nity. It is important to reiterate that adaptability
is different from resilience because adaptability
is about coping and thriving in new circum-
stances rather than having the ability to bounce
back from setbacks. The logical question that
follows from our study is “What can colleges
and universities do at a broad level and what can
individual instructors do at a more specific level
in order to promote adaptability?” Our sense is
that there is merit in considering the promotion
of adaptability from a possible selves frame-
work informed by the research and theory of
scholars such as Markus and Oyserman (e.g.,
Markus & Nurius, 1986, 1987; Oyserman &
Fryberg, 2006; Oyserman, Gant, & Ager, 1995).
Students who are relatively low in adaptability
need to embrace a possible self that includes
being able to adjust well to new and uncertain
circumstances. A key component of adaptability
is the belief that one has or can develop the
capacity to be adaptable and can demonstrate
this capability. It is known from work on the
promotion of possible selves that the develop-
ment of a positive possible self is more likely
when certain factors are in place and these fac-
tors seem highly relevant to promoting a sense
of being adaptable. These factors include plau-
sible strategies and resources, a fit with their
sense of who students are in terms of their core
identities, and supportive relationships that en-
courage the development of the possible self.
Another key aspect is framing any struggles in
realizing the possible self as normative and ex-
perienced commonly by others as well (see
Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2006; Oyserman,
Terry, & Bybee, 2002). On a similar note, it is
important to retain a sense of hope and opti-
mism, and adaptability should be enhanced by
taking the type of approach advocated by Sny-
der (1991) in his work on hope. This work
involves an emphasis on both “the will and the
ways” because hope involves both a sense of
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING
agency and pathways (i.e., specific strategies)
that can be put into practice.
This focus on the promotion of adaptability
should emphasize adaptability as a general ori-
entation activated in response to unforeseeable
and unexpected challenges such as those
brought about by the pandemic, but adaptability
can also be a general capacity or resource de-
signed to assist students with other transitions
that may reflect their personal life circum-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
stances. Students who have developed a capac-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
ity to be adaptable should be better able to cope
with personal disasters but also situations that
many students should face in the future such as
needing to adjust to a new job that can amount
to a very different work experience than what
was anticipated.
Given the relevance of adaptability according
to our current results, it is important to conduct
broad research in future investigations to iden-
tify personal and contextual factors that predict
adaptability. Although the association was mod-
est in overall magnitude, here it is worth noting
that there was a tendency in the current study
for lower levels of adaptability to be reported by
our participants with lower levels of economic
status. This is noteworthy given concerns ex-
pressed by public health officials about the ad-
ditional challenges and risks of COVID-19 ex-
posure for people of lower socioeconomic
status. It may be the case that not only is con-
tracting the virus more likely for people with
lower economic standing, they may also feel
less capable of adapting to the challenges asso-
ciated with physical and social isolation, addi-
tional economic burden, and profound disrup-
tions to daily routines. Financial considerations
would almost certainly add to the challenges
facing many students.
Our secondary focus on belonging and mat-
tering was an emphasis in the current research
for the various reasons outlined earlier. Our
results illustrate why it may be beneficial to find
practical ways to boost the extent to which
students develop an enhanced sense of belong-
ing and mattering and decrease the degree to
which marginalizing experiences make students
feel like they do not matter. Analyses indicated
that belongingness and mattering had robust
links with emotional reactions to online syn-
chronous learning such that both were associ-
ated with lower levels of negative moods and
higher levels of positive moods. Both belonging
101
and mattering were associated with elevated
levels of adaptability in accordance with previ-
ous research linking belongingness and matter-
ing with adaptability, buoyancy, and resilience
(see Flett et al., 2016; Skinner, Zimmer-
Gembeck, & Connell, 1998; Wessel, Ryan, &
Oswald, 2008). Other associations detected in
the current study indicate that increases in levels
of belonging and mattering may be pathways to
improvements in students’ levels of attention,
motivation, learning, and meeting expectations,
and this accords with evidence for the role of
mattering and belongingness in positive learn-
ing orientations and outcomes (see Flett, 2018a;
Furrer & Skinner, 2003; King, 2015; Skinner,
Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008). More
generally, these results signify the potential use-
fulness and relevance of positive psychology
constructs in adaptability in general and in the
learning adaptability of students.
Collectively, these results are entirely in
keeping with arguments about the need for col-
leges and universities to find authentic ways to
promote these interpersonally based feelings
among their students (see Flett et al., 2019). The
results for mattering and belonging in the cur-
rent study were with respect to the two different
learning conditions, but there is much that can
be done by institutions and by individual in-
structors to promote relatedness and feelings of
mattering and belongingness among their stu-
dents. When it comes to online synchronous
online learning opportunities, this could be as
simple as providing regular opportunities for
students to express their needs so that they have
a clear sense of having a voice, and being sure
to provide safe opportunities for students who
are typically reserved to participate. In some
instances, these students with elements of social
anxiety may be better served by opportunities to
individually connect with their instructors.
There are also implications here in terms of how
feelings of not mattering relate to a sense of
being visible. Many students who feel like they
do not matter feel like they are invisible to
others. It is important to keep in mind that while
students may be visible online in an objective
sense, they may not feel psychologically visi-
ble, especially if their various psychological
needs are not being met. The usual needs to see
oneself as competent, autonomous, and con-
nected to others include a need to feel a sense of
belonging and mattering by being someone who
 102 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
is valued by others and to be both seen and
heard.
The current research investigation yielded
many novel findings as students attempt to cope
with the challenges of an extremely unique and
uncertain situation but, of course, the usual cau-
tions and concerns related to research investi-
gations still apply. As suggested earlier, causal
inferences are not warranted due to the cross-
sectional nature of this research. One byproduct
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
of this complex period is that it points to the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
need for a focus on complexities when inter-
preting research findings. Ideally, research of
this nature will include a longitudinal compo-
nent that includes a focus on long-term out-
comes experienced by students (for a discus-
sion, see Chen & Bonanno, 2020). Second, our
results are based solely on self-report data and
future research of this nature would be but-
tressed by the inclusion of observer ratings,
especially in terms of the broad personality fac-
tors. Third, it is important to note issues per-
taining to the generalizability of our findings. It
is typically the case that college students from
Israel are older than in many other countries.
Our participants had an average age of over 27
years old and had military training, so they are
older and have a broader set of experiences than
is typical for college students in many other
countries. Although we expect that the current
results are quite generalizable to students from
other countries, generalizability needs to be
evaluated rather than assumed. However, it is
our sense that our results would have been sim-
ilar if evaluated in other samples. Moreover,
themes such as adaptability, belonging, and
mattering should also be highly relevant among
elementary and high school students needing to
adapt to abrupt transitions in their learning en-
vironments. Reactions to distance learning
could vary considerably as a function of these
factors.
In summary, the results of the current study
illustrated the challenges for students and the
individual differences among them in their
adaptability to a sudden, abrupt transition away
from traditional learning approaches to an on-
line learning approach that was made necessary
by the growth of the coronavirus and associated
safety concerns. The current findings serve as a
reminder that there are salient individual differ-
ences in adaptability and students with higher
levels of this capability may be better able to
thrive in uncertain and ambiguous times that
may include an element of threat. Adaptability
is associated in a predictable manner with the
traits that comprise the five-factor model of
personality (i.e., lower neuroticism and higher
levels of conscientiousness, openness, agree-
ableness, and extraversion) and the students
who are higher in adaptability are both less
upset and more positive when asked to evaluate
this transition in learning conditions. It seems
more generally that the adaptability construct is
a broad orientation but also can be applied in
useful ways to specific contexts. As such, adapt-
ability merits much more attention in models of
coping and self-regulation. The potential of
adaptability as a core construct that is relevant
to daily life is particularly apparent as the un-
certainly and need to adapt to the pandemic as
an evolving context continues to be highly sa-
lient around the world.
References
Allen, K., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J.,
& Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to know
about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis.
Educational Psychology Review, 30, 1–34. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9389-8
Arbuckle, J. L. (2014). IBM SPSS Amos 19 user’s
guide. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development
Corporation.
Bardi, A., Guerra, V. M., & Ramdeny, G. S. D.
(2009). Openness and ambiguity intolerance: Their
differential relations to well-being in the context of
an academic life transition. Personality and Indi-
vidual Differences, 47, 219–223. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2009.03.003
Besser, A., Lotem, S., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2020).
Psychological stress and vocal symptoms among
university professors in Israel: Implications of the
shift to online synchronous teaching during the
COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Voice. Advance
online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.jvoice.2020.05.028
Bonanno, G. A., Papa, A., Lalande, K., Westphal, M.,
& Coifman, K. (2004). The importance of being
flexible: The ability to both enhance and suppress
emotional expression predicts long-term adjust-
ment. Psychological Science, 15, 482– 487. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00705.x
Burns, E. C., Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. J. (2018).
Adaptability, personal best (PB) goals setting, and
gains in students’ academic outcomes: A longitu-
dinal examination from a social cognitive perspec-
tive. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53,
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING
57–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018
.02.001
Cacioppo, J. T., & Patrick, W. (2008). Loneliness:
Human nature and the need for social connection.
New York, NY: Norton.
Carver, C. S., & Connor-Smith, J. (2010). Personality
and coping. Annual Review of Psychology, 61,
679–704. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych
.093008.100352
Casagrande, M., Favieri, F., Tambelli, R., & Forte, G.
(2020). The enemy who sealed the world: Effects
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
quarantine due to the COVID-19 on sleep quality,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
anxiety, and psychological distress in the Italian
population. Sleep Medicine, 75, 12–20. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2020.05.011
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S. (2010). How big is
a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of
odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communi-
cations in Statistics Simulation and Computation,
39, 860– 864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361
0911003650383
Chen, S., & Bonanno, G. A. (2020). Psychological
adjustment during the global outbreak of COVID-
19: A resilience perspective. Psychological Trau-
ma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,
12(S1), S51–S54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
tra0000685
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erl-
baum.
Collie, R. J., Holliman, A. J., & Martin, A. J. (2017).
Adaptability, engagement and academic achieve-
ment at university. Educational Psychology, 37,
632– 647. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410
.2016.1231296
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal per-
sonality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO
Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment,
4, 5–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.5
Darlington, R. B., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Regression
analysis and linear models: Concepts, application,
and implementation. New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determina-
tion theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Krug-
lanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of the-
ories of social psychology (pp. 416– 437).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. http://dx.doi.org/10
.4135/9781446249215.n21
Derogatis, L. R., & Coons, H. I. (1993). Self-report
measures of stress. In L. Goldberger & S. Breznitz
(Eds.), Handbook of stress: Theoretical and clini-
cal aspects (2nd ed., pp. 200–233). Toronto, ON:
The Free Press.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emer-
gence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of
Psychology, 41, 417– 440. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
103
Digman, J. M., & Takemoto-Chock, N. K. (1981).
Factors in the natural language of personality: Re-
analysis, comparison, and interpretation of six ma-
jor studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16,
149–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532790
6mbr1602_2
Feldman, D. B., & Kubota, M. (2015). Hope, self-
efficacy, optimism, and academic achievement:
Distinguishing constructs and levels of specificity
in predicting college grade-point average. Learn-
ing and Individual Differences, 37, 210–216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.022
Flett, G. L. (2018a). The psychology of mattering:
Understanding the human need to be significant.
Cambridge, MA: Academic Press/Elsevier. Re-
trieved from https://www.elsevier.com/books/the-
psychology-of-mattering/flett/978-0-12-809415-0
Flett, G. L. (2018b). Resilience to interpersonal
stress: Why mattering matters when building the
foundation of mentally healthy schools. In A. Le-
schied, D. H. Saklofske, & G. L. Flett (Eds.), The
handbook of school-based mental health promo-
tion: An evidence informed framework for imple-
mentation (pp. 383– 410). New York, NY: Spring-
er. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89842-
1_20
Flett, G. L., Endler, N. S., & Fairlie, P. (1999). The
interaction model of anxiety and the threat of Que-
bec’s separation from Canada. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 76, 143–150. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.1.143
Flett, G. L., & Hewitt, P. L. (2020). The perfection-
ism pandemic meets COVID-19: Understanding
the stress, distress, and problems in living for
perfectionists during the global health crisis. Jour-
nal of Concurrent Disorders, 2, 80–105.
Flett, G. L., Khan, A., & Su, C. (2019). Mattering and
psychological well-being in college and university
students: A review and recommendations for cam-
pus-based initiatives. International Journal of
Mental Health and Addiction, 17, 667– 680. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11469-019-00073-6
Flett, G. L., Su, C., Ma, L., & Guo, L. (2016).
Mattering as a unique resilience factor in Chinese
children: A comparative analysis of predictors of
depression. International Journal of Child and Ad-
olescent Resilience, 4, 91–102.
Flett, G. L., & Zangeneh, M. (2020). Mattering as a
vital support for people during the COVID-19 pan-
demic: The benefits of feeling and knowing that
someone cares during times of crisis. Journal of
Concurrent Disorders, 2, 106–123.
France, M. K., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Conceptual-
ization and utilization of university mattering: A
construct validity study. Measurement and Evalu-
ation in Counseling and Development, 43, 48– 65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0748175610362369
 104 BESSER, FLETT, AND ZEIGLER-HILL
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness
as a factor in children’s academic engagement and
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
95, 148–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663
.95.1.148
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description
of personality”: The big-five factor structure. Jour-
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
1216–1229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.59.6.1216
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for the big-five factor structure. Psychological As-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
sessment, 4, 26– 42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
1040-3590.4.1.26
Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first
large cohort study of personality trait stability over
the 40 years between elementary school and
midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 91, 763–779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.91.4.763
Holliman, A., Martin, A. J., & Collie, R. (2018).
Adaptability, engagement, and degree completion:
A longitudinal investigation of university students.
Educational Psychology, 38, 785–799. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2018.1426835
Horesh, D., & Brown, A. D. (2020). Traumatic stress
in the age of COVID-19: A call to close critical
gaps and adapt to new realities. Psychological
Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy,
12, 331–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tra0000592
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit
indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-
tional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural
Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/10705519909540118
Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural
equation modeling: A researcher’s guide. New-
bury Park, CA: SAGE.
King, R. B. (2015). Sense of relatedness boosts en-
gagement, achievement, and well-being: A latent
growth model study. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 42, 26–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.cedpsych.2015.04.002
Kivlighan, D. M., III, Abbas, M., Gloria, A. M.,
Aguinaga, A., Frank, C., & Frost, N. D. (2018).
Are belongingness and hope essential features of
academic enhancement groups? A psychosociocul-
tural perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 65, 204–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
cou0000266
Lobel, T. E., Gilat, I., & Endler, N. S. (1993). The
Gulf War: Distressful reactions to SCUD missile
attacks. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 6, 9–23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10615809308249529
Malik, M., Fatiman, G., Hussain, A., & Sarwar, A.
(2017). E-learning: Students’ perspectives about
asynchronous and synchronous resources at higher
education levels. Bulletin of Education and Re-
search, 39, 183–195.
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves.
American Psychologist, 41, 954–969. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.9.954
Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1987). Possible selves:
The interface between motivation and the self-
concept. In K. Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self
and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 157–
172). New York, NY: Wiley.
Martin, A. J. (2017). Adaptability—What it is and
what it is not: Comment on Chandra and Leong
(2016). American Psychologist, 72, 696– 698.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000163
Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. W. (2006). Academic
resilience and its psychological and educational
correlates: A construct validity approach. Psychol-
ogy in the Schools, 43, 267–281. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/pits.20149
Martin, A. J., Nejad, H. G., Colmar, S., & Liem,
G. A. D. (2013). Adaptability: How students’ re-
sponses to uncertainty and novelty predict their
academic and non-academic outcomes. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105, 728–746. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/a0032794
Martin, A. J., Yu, K., Ginns, P., & Papworth, B.
(2017). Young people’s academic buoyancy and
adaptability: A cross-cultural comparison of China
with North America and the United Kingdom.
Educational Psychology, 37, 930–946. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2016.1202904
Martin, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Budhrani, K.
(2017). Systematic review of two decades (1995 to
2014) of research on synchronous online learning.
American Journal of Distance Education, 31,
3–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2017
.1264807
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-
sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psy-
chological Methods, 12, 23– 44. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23
McCrae, R. R. (1996). Social consequences of expe-
riential openness. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
323–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909
.120.3.323
Norman, W. T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxon-
omy of personality attributes: Replicated factors
structure in peer nomination personality ratings.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66,
574–583. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0040291
Olt, P. A. (2018). Virtually there: Distant freshmen
blended in classes through synchronous online ed-
ucation. Innovative Higher Education, 43, 381–
395. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10755-018-9437-z
Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2006). Pos-
sible selves and academic outcomes: How and
when possible selves impel action. Journal of Per-
 ADAPTABILITYAND EXPERIENCE OF ONLINE LEARNING
sonality and Social Psychology, 91, 188–204.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.188
Oyserman, D., & Fryberg, S. (2006). The possible
selves of diverse adolescents: Content and function
across gender, race and national origin. In C. Dun-
kel & J. Kerpelman (Eds.), Possible selves: The-
ory, research and applications (pp. 17–39). Haup-
page, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Oyserman, D., Gant, L., & Ager, J. (1995). A socially
contextualized model of African American iden-
tity: Possible selves and school persistence. Jour-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
1216–1232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.69.6.1216
Oyserman, D., Terry, K., & Bybee, D. (2002). A
possible selves intervention to enhance school in-
volvement. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 313–326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jado.2002.0474
Putwain, D. W., Loderer, K., Gallard, D., & Beau-
mont, J. (2020). School-related subjective well-
being promotes subsequent adaptability, achieve-
ment, and positive behavioural conduct. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 92–108.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12266
Rand, K. L. (2009). Hope and optimism: Latent
structures and influences on grade expectancy and
academic performance. Journal of Personality, 77,
231–260. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494
.2008.00544.x
Rosenberg, M. (1985). Self-concept and psycholog-
ical well-being in adolescence. In R. L. Leahy
(Ed.), The development of the self (pp. 205–246).
Toronto, ON: Academic Press.
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, C. B. (1981). Mat-
tering: Inferred significance and mental health
among adolescents. Research in Community &
Mental Health, 2, 163–182.
Ross, M. (1989). Relation of implicit theories to the
construction of personal histories. Psychological
Review, 96, 341–357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0033-295X.96.2.341
Segerstrom, S. C., & Smith, G. T. (2019). Personality
and coping: Individual differences in responses to
emotions. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 651–
671. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-
010418-102917
Seiver, J. G., & Troja, A. (2014). Satisfaction and
success in online learning as a function of the
needs for affiliation, autonomy, and mastery. Dis-
tance Education, 35, 90–105. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/01587919.2014.891427
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kinder-
mann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in
the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dy-
105
namic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
765–781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012840
Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell,
J. P. (1998). Individual differences in the develop-
ment of perceived control. Monographs of the So-
ciety for Research in Child Development, 63(2/3),
i⫹iii⫹v-vi⫹1–231. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/
1166220
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran,
S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., . . . Harney, P.
(1991). The will and the ways: Development and
validation of an individual-differences measure of
hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 60, 570–585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
3514.60.4.570
Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and valida-
tion of an international English Big-Five mini-
markers. Personality and Individual Differences,
45, 542–548. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008
.06.013
Tovar, E., Simon, M. A., & Lee, H. B. (2009).
Development and validation of the College Mat-
tering Inventory with diverse urban college stu-
dents. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling
and Development, 42, 154–178. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0748175609344091
Wessel, J. L., Ryan, A. M., & Oswald, F. L. (2008).
The relationship between objective and perceived
fit with academic major, adaptability, and major-
related outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
72, 363–376. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2007
.11.003
Westphal, M., Seivert, N. H., & Bonanno, G. A.
(2010). Expressive flexibility. Emotion, 10, 92–
100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018420
Yang, D., Baldwin, S., & Snelson, C. (2017). Persis-
tence factors revealed: Students’ reflections on
completing a fully online program. Distance Edu-
cation, 38, 23–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
01587919.2017.1299561
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010).
Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths
about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer
Research, 37, 197–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/
651257
Zhu, Z., & Bonanno, G. A. (2017). Affective flexi-
bility: Relations to expressive flexibility, feedback,
and depression. Clinical Psychological Science, 5,
930–942. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/216770
2617717337
Received May 7, 2020
Revision received August 13, 2020
Accepted August 21, 2020 䡲