A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Psychological Assessment
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Understanding Psychological Flexibility: A Multimethod Exploration of
Pursuing Valued Goals Despite the Presence of Distress
Todd B. Kashdan and David J. Disabato
George Mason University
Fallon R. Goodman
University of South Florida
James D. Doorley and Patrick E. McKnight
George Mason University
Psychological flexibility (PF), defined as the ability to pursue valued life aims despite the presence of
distress, is a fundamental contributor to health (Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Existing measures of PF
have failed to consider the valued goals that give context for why people are willing to manage distress.
Using 4 independent samples and 3 follow-up samples, we examined the role of PF in well-being,
emotional experience and regulation, resilience, goal pursuit, and daily functioning. We describe the
development and psychometric properties of the Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index (PPFI),
which captures tendencies to avoid, accept, and harness discomfort during valued goal pursuit. Corre-
lational, laboratory, and experience-sampling methods show that the PPFI measures a trait-like individual
difference dimension that is related to a variety of well-being and healthy personality constructs. Unlike
existing measures of PF, the PPFI was shown to be distinct from negative emotionality. Beyond trait
measures, the PPFI is associated with effective daily goals and life strivings pursuit and adaptive
emotional and regulatory responses to stressful life events. By adopting our measurement index, PF may
be better integrated into mainstream theory and research on adaptive human functioning.
Public Significance Statement
Psychological flexibility is defined as the pursuit of valued life aims despite the presence of distress,
but existing measures fail to account for the personalized nature of these aims. We created and
validated the Personalized Psychological Flexibility Index to measure 3 ways of managing distress
(avoiding, accepting, and harnessing) that arises during the pursuit of personally meaningful goals.
Our scale offers an improvement in the measurement of psychological flexibility in basic research
and clinical trials.
Keywords: psychological flexibility, resilience, well-being, emotion regulation, purpose in life
Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000834.supp
Rather than seeking to eradicate symptoms (even those deemed
“pathological”), modern clinical interventions are more interested
in targeting mechanisms that influence healthy life choices (e.g.,
Hofmann & Hayes, 2019). Strategies that increase the probability
of healthy life choices include making room for unpleasant emo-
tions, memories, or physical sensations (e.g., with mindfulness),
extending compassion to parts of the self that are undesirable or
difficult to love (e.g., with self-compassion), and creating distance
from intrusive thoughts that impair functioning (e.g., with cogni-
tive defusion). When applied haphazardly, such strategies are
insufficient for building a satisfying, meaningful life. Rather than
indiscriminately remaining in contact with the present moment, for
example, theory and research suggest that it is more useful to
employ regulatory strategies that are matched to the demands of a
situation and service specific goals (e.g., Aldao, Sheppes, & Gross,
2015;Bonanno & Burton, 2013). Ideally, these goals are consistent
with core values.
Psychological flexibility (PF) can be succinctly defined as the
pursuit of valued goals despite the presence of distress (Hayes,
Strosahl, & Wilson, 2011;Kashdan & Rottenberg, 2010). Instru-
mental approaches to emotion regulation such as harnessing pain-
ful emotions in the pursuit of valued goals are deployed less often
This article was published Online First July 2, 2020.
XTodd B. Kashdan and David J. Disabato, Department of Psychology,
George Mason University; Fallon R. Goodman, Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of South Florida; James D. Doorley and XPatrick E.
McKnight, Department of Psychology, George Mason University.
We are grateful to MarLa Lauber, Aslihan I
˙mamog
˘lu, Irene Regalario,
Ateeb Asim, Bradley Brown, and Sai Kanuri for assistance in participant
recruitment and interviews, and Kerry Kelso for feedback throughout much
of the research program.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Todd B.
Kashdan, Department of Psychology, George Mason University, Mail Stop
3F5, Fairfax, VA 22020. E-mail: tkashdan@gmu.edu
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.
Psychological Assessment
© 2020 American Psychological Association 2020, Vol. 32, No. 9, 829– 850
ISSN: 1040-3590 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000834
829