- Email: [email protected]
A mindfulness model of affect regulation and depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms
Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
A mindfulness model of affect regulation and depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms Sherlyn S. Jimenez a,b,*, Barbara L. Niles b, Crystal L. Park a a b
Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Road, Unit 1020, Storrs, CT 06269-1020, USA National Center for PTSD at VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Ave. (116B-4), Boston, MA 02130, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 October 2009 Received in revised form 20 April 2010 Accepted 27 May 2010 Available online 30 June 2010 Keywords: Mindfulness Depressive symptoms Self-acceptance Affect regulation Positive emotions
a b s t r a c t Mindfulness is increasingly conceptualized in terms of its regulatory function with research suggesting that mindfulness may have a salutary effect on psychological well-being. The present cross-sectional study of 514 college students (84% Caucasian and 62% females), using self-report questionnaires, tested a proposed model for understanding the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms through three types of affect regulation: emotion regulation, mood regulation and self-regulation, as measured by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies (i.e., perceived mood repair ability), and self-acceptance, respectively. Structural equation modeling revealed that the model fit the data well, with the relationship between mindfulness, as measured by the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory, and depressive symptoms, as measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, fully mediated by the proposed regulatory processes. Higher levels of dispositional mindfulness were associated with higher levels of positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, which in turn, were all inversely related to depressive symptoms. Self-acceptance emerged as the strongest mediator of mindfulness and depressive symptoms. Our findings suggest that mindfulness might serve a regulatory function by targeting low positive emotionality, poor mood regulation, and negative self-concept, risk factors implicated in the onset, development, and maintenance of depressive symptoms. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction Depression is associated with a marked personal, social and economic burden (Kessler et al., 2003), necessitating continuing research on promising interventions. Over the last decade, evidence on the beneficial effects of mindfulness-based interventions on psychological health has been accruing, with research suggesting an association between increased levels of mindfulness and improvement in psychological functioning (Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; Nyklícˇek & Kuijpers, 2008). As Brown, Ryan, and Creswell (2007b) observed in their review of mindfulness theory and evidence, mindfulness may be considered an inherent trait which can be enhanced through training. In their review, they cited that both dispositional mindfulness and increased mindfulness following training were related to positive psychological outcomes. Notably, they proposed that mindfulness may enhance regulatory processes which may help buffer against mood
* Corresponding author at: National Center for PTSD (116B-4), VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02130, USA. Tel.: +1 857 364 4589; fax: +1 857 364 4501. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S. Jimenez). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.041
disorders (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007a; Brown et al., 2007b). In the current study, we tested a proposed model of affect regulation involving dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms. Implicit in our model is the assumption that dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms are present in varying degrees within individuals and that examining their relationship across a continuum helps to broaden our conceptualization of their relationship. Specifically, we proposed that the association between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms is explained in part by emotion regulation, mood regulation, and selfregulation processes as measured by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies (i.e., perceived mood repair ability), and selfacceptance respectively. 1.1. Mindfulness Mindfulness is increasingly being conceptualized in terms of its regulatory capacity (Baer, 2003; Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006), with a recent finding that emotion regulation, along with nonattachment and rumination, mediated the effects of mindfulness on psychological distress (Coffey & Hartman, 2008). In this study,
646
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
we consider not only emotion regulation but also mood regulation and self-regulation under the broader term affect regulation. Although these terms have sometimes been used interchangeably, for the present study, we define them as follows: emotion regulation refers to efforts to alter short-lived emotions as they arise while mood regulation refers to efforts to alter emotional experience of longer duration and more diffused quality (Gross, 1998). Self-regulation refers to efforts to reduce discrepancies between one’s current state or self-schema and a desired state by relying on feedback to alter thoughts, feelings and behavior (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 1996). 2. Mindfulness Model of Affect Regulation and Depressive Symptoms We propose that dispositional mindfulness is associated with adaptive affect regulation buttressed by nonreactivity and acceptance – foundational aspects of mindfulness training (see Fig. 1). First, mindfulness promotes emotion regulation by fostering awareness of emotions as they arise, leading to accurate labeling of emotions, flexible responding to emotions through emotional acceptance and generation and/or maintenance of positive emotions (Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007; Davidson et al., 2003; Nielsen & Kaszniak, 2006). Second, mindfulness promotes mood regulation by fostering experiential acceptance of internal and external states (e.g., thoughts, moods) and consequently, a sense of efficacy in mood repair (Feldman et al., 2007). Finally, mindfulness promotes self-regulation by fostering selfacceptance (Cohen-Katz et al., 2005). 2.1. Emotion regulation and mindfulness Depression is distinguished by reduced positive affect, marked by diminished response to pleasant stimuli and difficulty activating or sustaining positive emotions (Clark & Watson, 1991). Further, depression may arise from a lack of emotional awareness and understanding (Mayer & Salovey, 1995) and a lack of emotional acceptance (Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, & Hofmann, 2006). Mindfulness can aid emotion regulation by promoting generation of positive emotions and positive affect (Davidson et al.,
2003). In turn, positive emotions may lead to faster recovery from negative emotional states, attenuation of negative responses, and improved ability to repair and undo lingering adverse physiological effects (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Increased levels of mindfulness have also been linked with enhanced emotional awareness and affect labeling (Creswell et al., 2007; Nielsen & Kaszniak, 2006). 2.2. Mood regulation and mindfulness Depression may also be influenced by belief or expectation of efficacy in mood repair (Catanzaro & Mearns, 1990; Catanzaro, Wasch, Kirsch, & Mearns, 2000). Also associated with increased depressive symptoms is a lack of experiential acceptance, leading to a habitual response of experiential avoidance and rumination (Hayes & Feldman, 2004). Experiential acceptance may help regulate mood by acting as a form of exposure, allowing for a nonevaluative appraisal toward experiences without attempts to alter, suppress, avoid, or prolong them (Mennin, 2005). Along with an associated decrease in emotional and physiological reactivity and heightened abilities to modulate the intensity of arousal, mindfulness may bring about a paradoxical sense of mastery and increased belief in one’s ability to repair mood, resulting in increased engagement in active repair efforts (Aftanas & Golosheykin, 2005; Brown et al., 2007b). 2.3. Self-regulation and mindfulness According to Beck (1974), negative beliefs about the self are central to depressive disorders. Markus and Wurf (1987) asserted that self-concept – or the dynamic representations of what individuals think, feel, or believe about themselves – is one of the most significant and powerful regulators of behavior and affect. Since most affective states necessarily implicate the self, a threatened self-concept could disturb the affective state. Mindful self-acceptance, which involves a nonjudgmental regard for past, present and future aspects of the self, whether good or bad (Ryff & Singer, 1996), may counteract this threat to the self. Increased levels of self-acceptance have been found following mindfulness interventions (Cohen-Katz et al., 2005), possibly by facilitating a shift from critical self-focus toward a nonelaborative experience (Watkins &
Fig. 1. Mindfulness Model of Affect Regulation and Depressive Symptoms with the variables tested in the present study (positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance) marked by asterisks.
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
Teasdale, 2004). This nonevaluative stance toward the self is thought to activate the focus on the present moment-to-moment experiential self while deactivating the focus on the future-conditional or past-imperfect narrative self linked with vulnerability to depression and depression relapse (Watkins & Teasdale, 2004; Williams, Russell, & Russell, 2008). 2.4. Current study We tested a proposed model of the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms through the construct of affect regulation. In our model, positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance served as corresponding markers of emotion regulation, mood regulation and self-regulation. Through structural equation modeling (SEM), we examined a model of dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms among a non-clinical sample of college students with a full range of depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that the mindfulness– depressive symptoms relationship would be mediated by the proposed markers of regulation, with higher levels of dispositional mindfulness associated with greater levels of positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, which in turn, would be inversely associated with levels of depressive symptoms. 3. Methods 3.1. Participants Participants were 514 undergraduate students (318 women and 196 men) enrolled in Introductory Psychology courses at a large university in the Northeastern United States who received course credits for taking part in the study. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (83.57%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (6.6%), Black (4.1%), Hispanic/Latino (2.3%) and other (2.4%). Mean age was 18.8 (range 17–32). 3.2. Measures The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), a 20-item Likert-type scale, assessed depressive symptoms. The CES-D has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.85–0.90) and test–retest reliability (r = 0.57), correlating well with clinical ratings of severity of depression. Sample items are ‘‘I felt sad” and ‘‘I could not get going”, which are rated from 0 = ‘‘rarely or none of the time” to 3 = ‘‘most or all of the time” regarding symptoms frequency over the past week. Higher scores indicate greater levels of depressive symptoms. The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001; Kohls, Sauer, & Walach, 2009; Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006) assesses nonjudgmental present awareness and acceptance. The original 30-item FMI has adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.87–0.93) as does the short-form 14-item FMI (Cronbach’s a = 0.79–0.86). Sample items include, ‘‘When I notice an absence of mind, I gently return to the experience of the here and now,” and ‘‘I am friendly to myself when things go wrong”, which are rated on a Likert-type scale from 1 = ‘‘rarely” to 4 = ‘‘almost always”. Higher scores indicate greater level of dispositional mindfulness. Seven items (FMI-7; Cronbach’s a = 0.83) from the 14-item FMI were used in this study (items #4, #8, #17, #21, #22, #24, and #26 from the original 30-item FMI). The seven items were chosen based on confirmatory analysis from a sample of 205 college students (unpublished results) in which items with low factor loadings (<0.50) were dropped. This analysis was undertaken prior to the 8-item FMI proposed by Kohls and col-
647
leagues (2009). CFA suggested good model fit for FMI-7, v2 (13) = 12.71, p = 0.47; v2/df = 0.977; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.000 (0.000–0.68; 90% CI), PCLOSE = 0.832, with a theoretically based two-factor model consisting of present-moment attention (items #4, #8 and #21; factor loadings range, 0.67–0.72) and nonjudgmental acceptance (items #17, #22, #24, and #26; factor loadings range, 0.58–0.71). In addition, the original 4-point rating scale was changed to a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘never” to 7 = ‘‘always”. This change was made based on scale development studies suggesting that a 7-point response format allowed for increased scale sensitivity (Dawes, 2008). Our test of comparability (Cummins, 2003) yielded comparable results with the original 4-point scales used. FMI-7 has high correlations with the FMI-14 (r = 0.95) and FMI-30 (r = 0.92). Perceived ability to induce a positive state or alleviate or tolerate a negative state was assessed by the 15-item revised attitudes toward feelings scale, also known as Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies scale (NMR-15; Catanzaro & Mearns, 1990). This scale assesses self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., perceived mood repair ability) with regard to negative mood states, providing a useful construct in understanding the processes of mood regulation (Catanzaro et al., 2000; Kassel, Bornovalova, & Mehta, 2007). The revised 15-item NMR has shown adequate validity and internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.86–0.92) and good test–retest reliability (r = 0.76). Sample items are ‘‘When I’m upset, I can feel better by doing something creative”, and ‘‘When I’m upset, I can find some humor in the situation and feel better”. Items are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree” to 5 = ‘‘strongly agree”. Higher scores indicate greater mood regulation self-efficacy. The Modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). The 9-item positive emotions subscale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.88). Items used are ‘‘amusement, compassion, contentment, gratitude, hope, joy, interest, love” and ‘‘pride”, which are rated from 1 = ‘‘very slightly or not at all”, to 5 = ‘‘extremely”. Higher scores indicate greater levels of positive emotions. Self-acceptance was measured by using the self-acceptance subscale from the Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff & Singer, 1996). Self-acceptance measures positive regard toward the self and acceptance of both good and bad aspects of the self. The 9-item scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.91). Sample items are ‘‘In general, I feel confident and positive about myself” and ‘‘I like most aspects of my personality”, which are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree” to 6 = ‘‘strongly agree”. Higher scores indicate greater level of selfacceptance. 3.3. Procedure Participants (N = 690) signed up for the study through the Department of Psychology Participant Pool. Cross-sectional data were collected through questionnaires administered online. Informed consent was obtained and all relevant ethical safeguards were met in relation to subject rights and protection based on the standards outlined and approved by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB). Following guidelines suggested by Johnson (2005), participants who used the same response category repeatedly and/or declined to respond to any item were excluded from analyses. In addition, participants whose data completion time was less than 20 min or who left any item unanswered in the variables of interest were excluded. Following these strict criteria, 514 participants remained for analyses. T-tests on the means of the variables of interest between the final 514 participants and the 176 who were excluded from the study were statistically nonsignificant.
648
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
3.4. Analytic plan 3.4.1. Preliminary analyses Data were first examined for normality of variance, missing data and random or systematic errors with SPSS 16.0 (SPSS Inc., 2007). As recommended by Dixon and Tukey (1968), outliers were Winsorized to improve statistical power, meaning that the most extreme observations were replaced with less extreme values in the distribution of scores. 3.4.2. Structural equation modeling SEM was employed to examine relationships among mindfulness, depressive symptoms and the proposed mediators: positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance. To test the model in AMOS 16.0 (Arbuckle, 2007), raw data were used with maximum-likelihood estimation. The adequacy of model fit (i.e., how well the estimated model effectively account for the observed data), was examined through a variety of goodness-of-fit indices: the chi-square of the estimated model, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (v2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the probability of close fit (PCLOSE) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). For each of the variables in the model, measurement error was adjusted by fixing the error variance of the composite indicator or variable with the following formula to estimate reliability described by Baumgartner and Homburg (1996): (1 – Cronbach’s a) the variance of the indicator. Fixing the measurement error reduces the number of estimated parameters, thereby increasing precision and reducing estimation problems. Since using a composite scale with fixed measurement error leads to a just-identified model that has only one unique solution, the estimate of measurement error is based on the same sample that is used to test the structural model. Thus, the measurement model is omitted, predicated on the assumption – met by the variables in our study – that the measures have sufficient internal consistency. 4. Results Descriptive analyses and bivariate correlations of the variables are reported in Table 1. All self-report measures were statistically significantly intercorrelated and consistent with the proposed model linking dispositional mindfulness to depressive symptoms. As predicted, the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms was fully mediated by the variables proposed, with mindfulness significantly positively associated with positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and selfacceptance, but not significantly associated with depressive symptoms (r = 0.07, p = 0.18). The trimmed structural model with the path from mindfulness to depressive symptoms deleted resulted
Table 1 Bivariate correlations (N = 514).
**
1
2
3
4
1. 2. 3. 4.
Mindfulness Self-acceptance Positive emotions Mood regulation expectancies 5. Depressive symptoms
– 0.43** 0.40** 0.45**
– 0.55** 0.59**
– 0.52**
–
Means SD Range Cronbach’s a
29.42 6.48 12–47 0.83
p < 0.001.
0.29**
0.53** 41.01 6.90 24–54 0.85
0.46** 30.51 6.80 11–45 0.88
5
0.53** 54.67 8.85 27–75 0.85
– 14.72 9.35 0–46 0.91
in the following acceptable fit indices: v2 (1) = 1.79, p = 0.18; v2/ df = 1.79; CFI = 0.999; GFI = 0.999; RMSEA = 0.039 (0.000–0.132; 90% CI), PCLOSE = 0.425. Fig. 2 presents the significant standardized parameter estimates of the final trimmed structural model. Table 2 shows the parameter estimates for standardized direct effects, standardized indirect or mediated effects, and standardized total effects (direct and indirect effects). The strongest direct effects were found from self-acceptance to positive emotions (0.54), followed by the effect of mindfulness to self-acceptance (0.51), and the effect of self-acceptance on mood regulation expectancies (0.47). Overall, approximately 44% of the variance in depressive symptoms was explained by the direct and indirect standardized effects of the predictors in the model, with selfacceptance having the largest total standardized effect size on depressive symptoms ( 0.56) and mindfulness second ( 0.38). Taken together, the model suggests that the data are consistent with the conceptual model proposing that the association between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms are mediated by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, with self-acceptance emerging as a strong mediator.
5. Discussion This study tested a proposed model of affect regulation processes associated with dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms in a cross-sectional study of college students. Specifically, we examined the regulatory processes of emotion regulation, mood regulation and self-regulation as measured by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies (i.e., perceived mood repair ability), and self-acceptance respectively. As predicted, positive emotions fully mediated the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance. Our findings lend support for the regulatory role of mindfulness on depressive symptoms. Higher levels of dispositional mindfulness were associated with higher levels of positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, which in turn, were all negatively related to depressive symptoms. Likewise, higher levels of self-acceptance were associated with higher levels of positive emotions and mood regulation expectancies. The positive relationship between mindfulness and positive emotions is not surprising as mindful awareness may promote generation of positive emotions (Davidson et al., 2003; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Mindfulness was also positively related to mood regulation expectancies, which supports previous findings suggesting that mindfulness may confer a sense of efficacy with regard to emotions (Feldman et al., 2007). The strong mediating role of self-acceptance between mindfulness and depressive symptoms is noteworthy and consistent with the assertion of Markus and Wurf (1987) that selfconcept is one of the most powerful regulators of behavior and affect, extending previous research that has found an association between mindfulness and self-acceptance (Cohen-Katz et al., 2005). Our relatively large (N = 514) non-clinical sample, which had a meaningful range of dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms, provided support for the robustness of the theoretical model. However, caution must be used in interpreting and generalizing the results. Although our abbreviated 7-item FMI with a 7-point response format was based on sound psychometric principles and allowed for scale sensitivity and decreased study burden, our results are problematic with regard to future data comparison. Thus, as with myriad mindfulness studies using varying measures of mindfulness, our findings can only be discussed conceptually but not directly compared. Additionally, the mechanisms examined here were specific to the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms in a sample with varying
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
649
Fig. 2. Standardized parameter estimates of the final structural model of the Mindfulness Model of Affect Regulation and Depressive Symptoms. Latent variables are represented by ovals. The italicized values indicate the proportion of variance explained that was accounted for by the predictor variables in the model. FMI – Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory; PWB – Psychological Well-Being Scale: self-acceptance; mDES – The Modified Differential Emotions Scale; NMRE – Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies; CES-D – Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale.
levels of mindfulness and depressive symptoms. Although this allowed for examination of the relationship across a continuous range, replication with meditators and clinical samples would help elucidate how the model functions across restricted ranges. For example, a clinical sample would allow for further examination of the role of mindfulness and self-acceptance, which may have protective effects in preventing depression and depression relapse, but may not be significantly related to symptoms during severe depressive episodes, and in the presence of powerful adverse life events. Because our cross-sectional design does not allow for inferTable 2 Parameter estimates for standardized total, direct, and indirect effects of variables. Mindfulness SelfPositive Mood acceptance emotions regulation expectancies Standardized direct effects Self-acceptance Positive emotions Mood regulation expectancies Depressive symptoms
0.51 0.20 0.20 0.00
Standardized indirect effects Self-acceptance – Positive emotions 0.28 Mood regulation 0.33 expectancies Depressive symptoms 0.38 Standardized total effects Self-acceptance 0.51 Positive emotions 0.47 Mood regulation 0.54 expectancies Depressive symptoms 0.38
– 0.54 0.47
– – 0.20
0.31 – – 0.11 0.25
– – –
0.13 – – –
Ethical statement 0.30
– – – 0.06
ences about causality, prospective longitudinal research would permit refined hypothesis testing with regard to the significance of mindfulness in predicting the onset, duration and intensity of depressive symptoms. Finally, the model tested in this study is admittedly incomplete as we did not examine the regulatory roles of attention, affect labeling, emotional acceptance, and experiential acceptance as outlined in our theoretical model. As such, these constructs warrant exploration in future studies. Our findings suggest that mindfulness might serve a regulatory function by targeting low positive emotionality, poor mood regulation, and negative self-concept, risk factors implicated in the onset, development, and maintenance of depressive symptoms. These findings have important clinical implications for mindfulnessbased clinical interventions, which have been proposed to buffer the effects of depressive symptoms and help to decrease the duration or dampen the severity of depressive symptoms should they arise.
This study was carried out following the ethical standards outlined by the APA. Informed consent was obtained and all relevant ethical safeguards were met in relation to subject rights and protection.
–
Acknowledgements – 0.54 0.58 0.56
– – 0.20 0.19
– – – 0.30
This research is based on the first author’s dissertation, which was supported, in part, by the University of Connecticut Dissertation Fellowship Award and the Dissertation Extraordinary Expense Award.
650
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
Writing of this manuscript was supported, in part, by a training grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH019836) awarded to Terence M. Keane, Ph.D. at the National Center for PTSD at VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine. We are grateful to D. Betsy McCoach, Ph.D. and David Kenny, Ph.D. for advice and comments on the analytic plan and to Katherine Iverson, Ph.D. for her helpful comments. References Aftanas, L., & Golosheykin, S. (2005). Impact of regular meditation practice on EEG activity at rest and during evoked negative emotions. International Journal of Neuroscience, 115, 893–909. Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS. Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125–143. Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 139. Beck, A. T. (1974). The development of depression: A cognitive model. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007a). Addressing fundamental questions about mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 272–281. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007b). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: The development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research, 1, 11–34. Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D. H., Brown, T. A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2006). Effects of suppression and acceptance on emotional responses of individuals with anxiety and mood disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1251–1263. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1996). Self-regulation and its failures. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 32–40. Catanzaro, S. J., & Mearns, J. (1990). Measuring generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation: Initial scale development and implications. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 546–563. Catanzaro, S. J., Wasch, H. H., Kirsch, I., & Mearns, J. (2000). Coping related expectancies and dispositions as prospective predictors of coping responses and symptoms. Journal of Personality, 68, 757–788. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336. Coffey, K. A., & Hartman, M. (2008). Mechanisms of action in the inverse relationship between mindfulness and psychological distress. Complementary Health Practice Review, 13, 79–91. Cohen-Katz, J., Wiley, S., Capuano, T., Baker, D. M., Deitrick, L., & Shapiro, S. (2005). The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on nurse stress and burnout: A qualitative and quantitative study, part III. Holistic Nursing Practice, 19, 78–86. Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 560–565. Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225–256. Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F., et al. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 564–570.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 61–77. Dixon, W. J., & Tukey, J. W. (1968). Approximate behavior of the distribution of Winsorized t (trimming/Winsorization 2). Technometrics, 10, 83–98. Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177–190. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365–376. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57, 35–43. Hayes, A. M., & Feldman, G. (2004). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the context of emotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 255–262. Johnson, J. A. (2005). Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from web-based personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 103–129. Kassel, J. D., Bornovalova, M., & Mehta, N. (2007). Generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation predict change in anxiety and depression among college students. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 939–950. Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, K. R., et al. (2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 3095–3105. Kohls, N., Sauer, S., & Walach, H. (2009). Facets of mindfulness – Results of an online study investigating the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 224–230. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, 197–208. Mennin, D. S. (2005). Emotion and the acceptance-based approaches to the anxiety disorders. In S. M. Orsillo & L. Roemer (Eds.), Acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches to anxiety: Conceptualization and treatment (pp. 37–68). New York, NY, USA: Springer Science + Business Media. Nielsen, L., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2006). Awareness of subtle emotional feelings: A comparison of long-term meditators and nonmeditators. Emotion, 6, 392–405. Nyklícˇek, I., & Kuijpers, K. F. (2008). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention on psychological well-being and quality of life: Is increased mindfulness indeed the mechanism? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 331–340. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1996). Psychological well-being: Meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 14–23. Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 373–386. SPSS Inc. (2007). SPSS for windows (version 16.0). Chicago: SPSS Inc.. Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness – The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1543–1555. Watkins, E., & Teasdale, J. D. (2004). Adaptive and maladaptive self-focus in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 1–8. Williams, J. M. G., Russell, I., & Russell, D. (2008). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: Further issues in current evidence and future research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 524–529.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
A mindfulness model of affect regulation and depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms Sherlyn S. Jimenez a,b,*, Barbara L. Niles b, Crystal L. Park a a b
Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Road, Unit 1020, Storrs, CT 06269-1020, USA National Center for PTSD at VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Ave. (116B-4), Boston, MA 02130, USA
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 21 October 2009 Received in revised form 20 April 2010 Accepted 27 May 2010 Available online 30 June 2010 Keywords: Mindfulness Depressive symptoms Self-acceptance Affect regulation Positive emotions
a b s t r a c t Mindfulness is increasingly conceptualized in terms of its regulatory function with research suggesting that mindfulness may have a salutary effect on psychological well-being. The present cross-sectional study of 514 college students (84% Caucasian and 62% females), using self-report questionnaires, tested a proposed model for understanding the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms through three types of affect regulation: emotion regulation, mood regulation and self-regulation, as measured by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies (i.e., perceived mood repair ability), and self-acceptance, respectively. Structural equation modeling revealed that the model fit the data well, with the relationship between mindfulness, as measured by the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory, and depressive symptoms, as measured by the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, fully mediated by the proposed regulatory processes. Higher levels of dispositional mindfulness were associated with higher levels of positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, which in turn, were all inversely related to depressive symptoms. Self-acceptance emerged as the strongest mediator of mindfulness and depressive symptoms. Our findings suggest that mindfulness might serve a regulatory function by targeting low positive emotionality, poor mood regulation, and negative self-concept, risk factors implicated in the onset, development, and maintenance of depressive symptoms. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
1. Introduction Depression is associated with a marked personal, social and economic burden (Kessler et al., 2003), necessitating continuing research on promising interventions. Over the last decade, evidence on the beneficial effects of mindfulness-based interventions on psychological health has been accruing, with research suggesting an association between increased levels of mindfulness and improvement in psychological functioning (Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; Nyklícˇek & Kuijpers, 2008). As Brown, Ryan, and Creswell (2007b) observed in their review of mindfulness theory and evidence, mindfulness may be considered an inherent trait which can be enhanced through training. In their review, they cited that both dispositional mindfulness and increased mindfulness following training were related to positive psychological outcomes. Notably, they proposed that mindfulness may enhance regulatory processes which may help buffer against mood
* Corresponding author at: National Center for PTSD (116B-4), VA Boston Healthcare System, 150 South Huntington Ave., Boston, MA 02130, USA. Tel.: +1 857 364 4589; fax: +1 857 364 4501. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.S. Jimenez). 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.041
disorders (Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007a; Brown et al., 2007b). In the current study, we tested a proposed model of affect regulation involving dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms. Implicit in our model is the assumption that dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms are present in varying degrees within individuals and that examining their relationship across a continuum helps to broaden our conceptualization of their relationship. Specifically, we proposed that the association between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms is explained in part by emotion regulation, mood regulation, and selfregulation processes as measured by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies (i.e., perceived mood repair ability), and selfacceptance respectively. 1.1. Mindfulness Mindfulness is increasingly being conceptualized in terms of its regulatory capacity (Baer, 2003; Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006), with a recent finding that emotion regulation, along with nonattachment and rumination, mediated the effects of mindfulness on psychological distress (Coffey & Hartman, 2008). In this study,
646
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
we consider not only emotion regulation but also mood regulation and self-regulation under the broader term affect regulation. Although these terms have sometimes been used interchangeably, for the present study, we define them as follows: emotion regulation refers to efforts to alter short-lived emotions as they arise while mood regulation refers to efforts to alter emotional experience of longer duration and more diffused quality (Gross, 1998). Self-regulation refers to efforts to reduce discrepancies between one’s current state or self-schema and a desired state by relying on feedback to alter thoughts, feelings and behavior (Baumeister & Heatherton, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 1996). 2. Mindfulness Model of Affect Regulation and Depressive Symptoms We propose that dispositional mindfulness is associated with adaptive affect regulation buttressed by nonreactivity and acceptance – foundational aspects of mindfulness training (see Fig. 1). First, mindfulness promotes emotion regulation by fostering awareness of emotions as they arise, leading to accurate labeling of emotions, flexible responding to emotions through emotional acceptance and generation and/or maintenance of positive emotions (Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, & Lieberman, 2007; Davidson et al., 2003; Nielsen & Kaszniak, 2006). Second, mindfulness promotes mood regulation by fostering experiential acceptance of internal and external states (e.g., thoughts, moods) and consequently, a sense of efficacy in mood repair (Feldman et al., 2007). Finally, mindfulness promotes self-regulation by fostering selfacceptance (Cohen-Katz et al., 2005). 2.1. Emotion regulation and mindfulness Depression is distinguished by reduced positive affect, marked by diminished response to pleasant stimuli and difficulty activating or sustaining positive emotions (Clark & Watson, 1991). Further, depression may arise from a lack of emotional awareness and understanding (Mayer & Salovey, 1995) and a lack of emotional acceptance (Campbell-Sills, Barlow, Brown, & Hofmann, 2006). Mindfulness can aid emotion regulation by promoting generation of positive emotions and positive affect (Davidson et al.,
2003). In turn, positive emotions may lead to faster recovery from negative emotional states, attenuation of negative responses, and improved ability to repair and undo lingering adverse physiological effects (Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Increased levels of mindfulness have also been linked with enhanced emotional awareness and affect labeling (Creswell et al., 2007; Nielsen & Kaszniak, 2006). 2.2. Mood regulation and mindfulness Depression may also be influenced by belief or expectation of efficacy in mood repair (Catanzaro & Mearns, 1990; Catanzaro, Wasch, Kirsch, & Mearns, 2000). Also associated with increased depressive symptoms is a lack of experiential acceptance, leading to a habitual response of experiential avoidance and rumination (Hayes & Feldman, 2004). Experiential acceptance may help regulate mood by acting as a form of exposure, allowing for a nonevaluative appraisal toward experiences without attempts to alter, suppress, avoid, or prolong them (Mennin, 2005). Along with an associated decrease in emotional and physiological reactivity and heightened abilities to modulate the intensity of arousal, mindfulness may bring about a paradoxical sense of mastery and increased belief in one’s ability to repair mood, resulting in increased engagement in active repair efforts (Aftanas & Golosheykin, 2005; Brown et al., 2007b). 2.3. Self-regulation and mindfulness According to Beck (1974), negative beliefs about the self are central to depressive disorders. Markus and Wurf (1987) asserted that self-concept – or the dynamic representations of what individuals think, feel, or believe about themselves – is one of the most significant and powerful regulators of behavior and affect. Since most affective states necessarily implicate the self, a threatened self-concept could disturb the affective state. Mindful self-acceptance, which involves a nonjudgmental regard for past, present and future aspects of the self, whether good or bad (Ryff & Singer, 1996), may counteract this threat to the self. Increased levels of self-acceptance have been found following mindfulness interventions (Cohen-Katz et al., 2005), possibly by facilitating a shift from critical self-focus toward a nonelaborative experience (Watkins &
Fig. 1. Mindfulness Model of Affect Regulation and Depressive Symptoms with the variables tested in the present study (positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance) marked by asterisks.
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
Teasdale, 2004). This nonevaluative stance toward the self is thought to activate the focus on the present moment-to-moment experiential self while deactivating the focus on the future-conditional or past-imperfect narrative self linked with vulnerability to depression and depression relapse (Watkins & Teasdale, 2004; Williams, Russell, & Russell, 2008). 2.4. Current study We tested a proposed model of the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms through the construct of affect regulation. In our model, positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance served as corresponding markers of emotion regulation, mood regulation and self-regulation. Through structural equation modeling (SEM), we examined a model of dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms among a non-clinical sample of college students with a full range of depressive symptoms. We hypothesized that the mindfulness– depressive symptoms relationship would be mediated by the proposed markers of regulation, with higher levels of dispositional mindfulness associated with greater levels of positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, which in turn, would be inversely associated with levels of depressive symptoms. 3. Methods 3.1. Participants Participants were 514 undergraduate students (318 women and 196 men) enrolled in Introductory Psychology courses at a large university in the Northeastern United States who received course credits for taking part in the study. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (83.57%), followed by Asian/Pacific Islander (6.6%), Black (4.1%), Hispanic/Latino (2.3%) and other (2.4%). Mean age was 18.8 (range 17–32). 3.2. Measures The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), a 20-item Likert-type scale, assessed depressive symptoms. The CES-D has high internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.85–0.90) and test–retest reliability (r = 0.57), correlating well with clinical ratings of severity of depression. Sample items are ‘‘I felt sad” and ‘‘I could not get going”, which are rated from 0 = ‘‘rarely or none of the time” to 3 = ‘‘most or all of the time” regarding symptoms frequency over the past week. Higher scores indicate greater levels of depressive symptoms. The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (Buchheld, Grossman, & Walach, 2001; Kohls, Sauer, & Walach, 2009; Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006) assesses nonjudgmental present awareness and acceptance. The original 30-item FMI has adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.87–0.93) as does the short-form 14-item FMI (Cronbach’s a = 0.79–0.86). Sample items include, ‘‘When I notice an absence of mind, I gently return to the experience of the here and now,” and ‘‘I am friendly to myself when things go wrong”, which are rated on a Likert-type scale from 1 = ‘‘rarely” to 4 = ‘‘almost always”. Higher scores indicate greater level of dispositional mindfulness. Seven items (FMI-7; Cronbach’s a = 0.83) from the 14-item FMI were used in this study (items #4, #8, #17, #21, #22, #24, and #26 from the original 30-item FMI). The seven items were chosen based on confirmatory analysis from a sample of 205 college students (unpublished results) in which items with low factor loadings (<0.50) were dropped. This analysis was undertaken prior to the 8-item FMI proposed by Kohls and col-
647
leagues (2009). CFA suggested good model fit for FMI-7, v2 (13) = 12.71, p = 0.47; v2/df = 0.977; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = 0.000 (0.000–0.68; 90% CI), PCLOSE = 0.832, with a theoretically based two-factor model consisting of present-moment attention (items #4, #8 and #21; factor loadings range, 0.67–0.72) and nonjudgmental acceptance (items #17, #22, #24, and #26; factor loadings range, 0.58–0.71). In addition, the original 4-point rating scale was changed to a 7-point rating scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘never” to 7 = ‘‘always”. This change was made based on scale development studies suggesting that a 7-point response format allowed for increased scale sensitivity (Dawes, 2008). Our test of comparability (Cummins, 2003) yielded comparable results with the original 4-point scales used. FMI-7 has high correlations with the FMI-14 (r = 0.95) and FMI-30 (r = 0.92). Perceived ability to induce a positive state or alleviate or tolerate a negative state was assessed by the 15-item revised attitudes toward feelings scale, also known as Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies scale (NMR-15; Catanzaro & Mearns, 1990). This scale assesses self-efficacy beliefs (i.e., perceived mood repair ability) with regard to negative mood states, providing a useful construct in understanding the processes of mood regulation (Catanzaro et al., 2000; Kassel, Bornovalova, & Mehta, 2007). The revised 15-item NMR has shown adequate validity and internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.86–0.92) and good test–retest reliability (r = 0.76). Sample items are ‘‘When I’m upset, I can feel better by doing something creative”, and ‘‘When I’m upset, I can find some humor in the situation and feel better”. Items are rated on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree” to 5 = ‘‘strongly agree”. Higher scores indicate greater mood regulation self-efficacy. The Modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES; Fredrickson, Tugade, Waugh, & Larkin, 2003). The 9-item positive emotions subscale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.88). Items used are ‘‘amusement, compassion, contentment, gratitude, hope, joy, interest, love” and ‘‘pride”, which are rated from 1 = ‘‘very slightly or not at all”, to 5 = ‘‘extremely”. Higher scores indicate greater levels of positive emotions. Self-acceptance was measured by using the self-acceptance subscale from the Psychological Well-Being Scale (Ryff & Singer, 1996). Self-acceptance measures positive regard toward the self and acceptance of both good and bad aspects of the self. The 9-item scale has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s a = 0.91). Sample items are ‘‘In general, I feel confident and positive about myself” and ‘‘I like most aspects of my personality”, which are rated on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘strongly disagree” to 6 = ‘‘strongly agree”. Higher scores indicate greater level of selfacceptance. 3.3. Procedure Participants (N = 690) signed up for the study through the Department of Psychology Participant Pool. Cross-sectional data were collected through questionnaires administered online. Informed consent was obtained and all relevant ethical safeguards were met in relation to subject rights and protection based on the standards outlined and approved by the university Institutional Review Board (IRB). Following guidelines suggested by Johnson (2005), participants who used the same response category repeatedly and/or declined to respond to any item were excluded from analyses. In addition, participants whose data completion time was less than 20 min or who left any item unanswered in the variables of interest were excluded. Following these strict criteria, 514 participants remained for analyses. T-tests on the means of the variables of interest between the final 514 participants and the 176 who were excluded from the study were statistically nonsignificant.
648
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
3.4. Analytic plan 3.4.1. Preliminary analyses Data were first examined for normality of variance, missing data and random or systematic errors with SPSS 16.0 (SPSS Inc., 2007). As recommended by Dixon and Tukey (1968), outliers were Winsorized to improve statistical power, meaning that the most extreme observations were replaced with less extreme values in the distribution of scores. 3.4.2. Structural equation modeling SEM was employed to examine relationships among mindfulness, depressive symptoms and the proposed mediators: positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance. To test the model in AMOS 16.0 (Arbuckle, 2007), raw data were used with maximum-likelihood estimation. The adequacy of model fit (i.e., how well the estimated model effectively account for the observed data), was examined through a variety of goodness-of-fit indices: the chi-square of the estimated model, the chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio (v2/df), the comparative fit index (CFI), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the probability of close fit (PCLOSE) (Browne & Cudeck, 1993). For each of the variables in the model, measurement error was adjusted by fixing the error variance of the composite indicator or variable with the following formula to estimate reliability described by Baumgartner and Homburg (1996): (1 – Cronbach’s a) the variance of the indicator. Fixing the measurement error reduces the number of estimated parameters, thereby increasing precision and reducing estimation problems. Since using a composite scale with fixed measurement error leads to a just-identified model that has only one unique solution, the estimate of measurement error is based on the same sample that is used to test the structural model. Thus, the measurement model is omitted, predicated on the assumption – met by the variables in our study – that the measures have sufficient internal consistency. 4. Results Descriptive analyses and bivariate correlations of the variables are reported in Table 1. All self-report measures were statistically significantly intercorrelated and consistent with the proposed model linking dispositional mindfulness to depressive symptoms. As predicted, the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms was fully mediated by the variables proposed, with mindfulness significantly positively associated with positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and selfacceptance, but not significantly associated with depressive symptoms (r = 0.07, p = 0.18). The trimmed structural model with the path from mindfulness to depressive symptoms deleted resulted
Table 1 Bivariate correlations (N = 514).
**
1
2
3
4
1. 2. 3. 4.
Mindfulness Self-acceptance Positive emotions Mood regulation expectancies 5. Depressive symptoms
– 0.43** 0.40** 0.45**
– 0.55** 0.59**
– 0.52**
–
Means SD Range Cronbach’s a
29.42 6.48 12–47 0.83
p < 0.001.
0.29**
0.53** 41.01 6.90 24–54 0.85
0.46** 30.51 6.80 11–45 0.88
5
0.53** 54.67 8.85 27–75 0.85
– 14.72 9.35 0–46 0.91
in the following acceptable fit indices: v2 (1) = 1.79, p = 0.18; v2/ df = 1.79; CFI = 0.999; GFI = 0.999; RMSEA = 0.039 (0.000–0.132; 90% CI), PCLOSE = 0.425. Fig. 2 presents the significant standardized parameter estimates of the final trimmed structural model. Table 2 shows the parameter estimates for standardized direct effects, standardized indirect or mediated effects, and standardized total effects (direct and indirect effects). The strongest direct effects were found from self-acceptance to positive emotions (0.54), followed by the effect of mindfulness to self-acceptance (0.51), and the effect of self-acceptance on mood regulation expectancies (0.47). Overall, approximately 44% of the variance in depressive symptoms was explained by the direct and indirect standardized effects of the predictors in the model, with selfacceptance having the largest total standardized effect size on depressive symptoms ( 0.56) and mindfulness second ( 0.38). Taken together, the model suggests that the data are consistent with the conceptual model proposing that the association between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms are mediated by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, with self-acceptance emerging as a strong mediator.
5. Discussion This study tested a proposed model of affect regulation processes associated with dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms in a cross-sectional study of college students. Specifically, we examined the regulatory processes of emotion regulation, mood regulation and self-regulation as measured by positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies (i.e., perceived mood repair ability), and self-acceptance respectively. As predicted, positive emotions fully mediated the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance. Our findings lend support for the regulatory role of mindfulness on depressive symptoms. Higher levels of dispositional mindfulness were associated with higher levels of positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies, and self-acceptance, which in turn, were all negatively related to depressive symptoms. Likewise, higher levels of self-acceptance were associated with higher levels of positive emotions and mood regulation expectancies. The positive relationship between mindfulness and positive emotions is not surprising as mindful awareness may promote generation of positive emotions (Davidson et al., 2003; Fredrickson & Joiner, 2002). Mindfulness was also positively related to mood regulation expectancies, which supports previous findings suggesting that mindfulness may confer a sense of efficacy with regard to emotions (Feldman et al., 2007). The strong mediating role of self-acceptance between mindfulness and depressive symptoms is noteworthy and consistent with the assertion of Markus and Wurf (1987) that selfconcept is one of the most powerful regulators of behavior and affect, extending previous research that has found an association between mindfulness and self-acceptance (Cohen-Katz et al., 2005). Our relatively large (N = 514) non-clinical sample, which had a meaningful range of dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms, provided support for the robustness of the theoretical model. However, caution must be used in interpreting and generalizing the results. Although our abbreviated 7-item FMI with a 7-point response format was based on sound psychometric principles and allowed for scale sensitivity and decreased study burden, our results are problematic with regard to future data comparison. Thus, as with myriad mindfulness studies using varying measures of mindfulness, our findings can only be discussed conceptually but not directly compared. Additionally, the mechanisms examined here were specific to the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and depressive symptoms in a sample with varying
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
649
Fig. 2. Standardized parameter estimates of the final structural model of the Mindfulness Model of Affect Regulation and Depressive Symptoms. Latent variables are represented by ovals. The italicized values indicate the proportion of variance explained that was accounted for by the predictor variables in the model. FMI – Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory; PWB – Psychological Well-Being Scale: self-acceptance; mDES – The Modified Differential Emotions Scale; NMRE – Negative Mood Regulation Expectancies; CES-D – Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale.
levels of mindfulness and depressive symptoms. Although this allowed for examination of the relationship across a continuous range, replication with meditators and clinical samples would help elucidate how the model functions across restricted ranges. For example, a clinical sample would allow for further examination of the role of mindfulness and self-acceptance, which may have protective effects in preventing depression and depression relapse, but may not be significantly related to symptoms during severe depressive episodes, and in the presence of powerful adverse life events. Because our cross-sectional design does not allow for inferTable 2 Parameter estimates for standardized total, direct, and indirect effects of variables. Mindfulness SelfPositive Mood acceptance emotions regulation expectancies Standardized direct effects Self-acceptance Positive emotions Mood regulation expectancies Depressive symptoms
0.51 0.20 0.20 0.00
Standardized indirect effects Self-acceptance – Positive emotions 0.28 Mood regulation 0.33 expectancies Depressive symptoms 0.38 Standardized total effects Self-acceptance 0.51 Positive emotions 0.47 Mood regulation 0.54 expectancies Depressive symptoms 0.38
– 0.54 0.47
– – 0.20
0.31 – – 0.11 0.25
– – –
0.13 – – –
Ethical statement 0.30
– – – 0.06
ences about causality, prospective longitudinal research would permit refined hypothesis testing with regard to the significance of mindfulness in predicting the onset, duration and intensity of depressive symptoms. Finally, the model tested in this study is admittedly incomplete as we did not examine the regulatory roles of attention, affect labeling, emotional acceptance, and experiential acceptance as outlined in our theoretical model. As such, these constructs warrant exploration in future studies. Our findings suggest that mindfulness might serve a regulatory function by targeting low positive emotionality, poor mood regulation, and negative self-concept, risk factors implicated in the onset, development, and maintenance of depressive symptoms. These findings have important clinical implications for mindfulnessbased clinical interventions, which have been proposed to buffer the effects of depressive symptoms and help to decrease the duration or dampen the severity of depressive symptoms should they arise.
This study was carried out following the ethical standards outlined by the APA. Informed consent was obtained and all relevant ethical safeguards were met in relation to subject rights and protection.
–
Acknowledgements – 0.54 0.58 0.56
– – 0.20 0.19
– – – 0.30
This research is based on the first author’s dissertation, which was supported, in part, by the University of Connecticut Dissertation Fellowship Award and the Dissertation Extraordinary Expense Award.
650
S.S. Jimenez et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 49 (2010) 645–650
Writing of this manuscript was supported, in part, by a training grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH019836) awarded to Terence M. Keane, Ph.D. at the National Center for PTSD at VA Boston Healthcare System and Boston University School of Medicine. We are grateful to D. Betsy McCoach, Ph.D. and David Kenny, Ph.D. for advice and comments on the analytic plan and to Katherine Iverson, Ph.D. for her helpful comments. References Aftanas, L., & Golosheykin, S. (2005). Impact of regular meditation practice on EEG activity at rest and during evoked negative emotions. International Journal of Neuroscience, 115, 893–909. Arbuckle, J. L. (2007). Amos 16.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS. Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125–143. Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. (1996). Self-regulation failure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 1–15. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 139. Beck, A. T. (1974). The development of depression: A cognitive model. In R. J. Friedman & M. M. Katz (Eds.), The psychology of depression: Contemporary theory and research. Oxford, England: John Wiley and Sons. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007a). Addressing fundamental questions about mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 272–281. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007b). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buchheld, N., Grossman, P., & Walach, H. (2001). Measuring mindfulness in insight meditation (vipassana) and meditation-based psychotherapy: The development of the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Journal for Meditation and Meditation Research, 1, 11–34. Campbell-Sills, L., Barlow, D. H., Brown, T. A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2006). Effects of suppression and acceptance on emotional responses of individuals with anxiety and mood disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1251–1263. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1996). Self-regulation and its failures. Psychological Inquiry, 7, 32–40. Catanzaro, S. J., & Mearns, J. (1990). Measuring generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation: Initial scale development and implications. Journal of Personality Assessment, 54, 546–563. Catanzaro, S. J., Wasch, H. H., Kirsch, I., & Mearns, J. (2000). Coping related expectancies and dispositions as prospective predictors of coping responses and symptoms. Journal of Personality, 68, 757–788. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336. Coffey, K. A., & Hartman, M. (2008). Mechanisms of action in the inverse relationship between mindfulness and psychological distress. Complementary Health Practice Review, 13, 79–91. Cohen-Katz, J., Wiley, S., Capuano, T., Baker, D. M., Deitrick, L., & Shapiro, S. (2005). The effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on nurse stress and burnout: A qualitative and quantitative study, part III. Holistic Nursing Practice, 19, 78–86. Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural correlates of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic Medicine, 69, 560–565. Cummins, R. A. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: Measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64, 225–256. Davidson, R. J., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli, S. F., et al. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 65, 564–570.
Dawes, J. (2008). Do data characteristics change according to the number of scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point scales. International Journal of Market Research, 50, 61–77. Dixon, W. J., & Tukey, J. W. (1968). Approximate behavior of the distribution of Winsorized t (trimming/Winsorization 2). Technometrics, 10, 83–98. Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177–190. Fredrickson, B. L., & Joiner, T. (2002). Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, 172–175. Fredrickson, B. L., Tugade, M. M., Waugh, C. E., & Larkin, G. R. (2003). What good are positive emotions in crisis? A prospective study of resilience and emotions following the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 365–376. Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271–299. Grossman, P., Niemann, L., Schmidt, S., & Walach, H. (2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57, 35–43. Hayes, A. M., & Feldman, G. (2004). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the context of emotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 255–262. Johnson, J. A. (2005). Ascertaining the validity of individual protocols from web-based personality inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 39, 103–129. Kassel, J. D., Bornovalova, M., & Mehta, N. (2007). Generalized expectancies for negative mood regulation predict change in anxiety and depression among college students. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 939–950. Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, K. R., et al. (2003). The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 3095–3105. Kohls, N., Sauer, S., & Walach, H. (2009). Facets of mindfulness – Results of an online study investigating the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 224–230. Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337. Mayer, J. D., & Salovey, P. (1995). Emotional intelligence and the construction and regulation of feelings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, 197–208. Mennin, D. S. (2005). Emotion and the acceptance-based approaches to the anxiety disorders. In S. M. Orsillo & L. Roemer (Eds.), Acceptance and mindfulness-based approaches to anxiety: Conceptualization and treatment (pp. 37–68). New York, NY, USA: Springer Science + Business Media. Nielsen, L., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2006). Awareness of subtle emotional feelings: A comparison of long-term meditators and nonmeditators. Emotion, 6, 392–405. Nyklícˇek, I., & Kuijpers, K. F. (2008). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction intervention on psychological well-being and quality of life: Is increased mindfulness indeed the mechanism? Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 331–340. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. Ryff, C. D., & Singer, B. (1996). Psychological well-being: Meaning, measurement, and implications for psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 65, 14–23. Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 373–386. SPSS Inc. (2007). SPSS for windows (version 16.0). Chicago: SPSS Inc.. Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness – The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 1543–1555. Watkins, E., & Teasdale, J. D. (2004). Adaptive and maladaptive self-focus in depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 82, 1–8. Williams, J. M. G., Russell, I., & Russell, D. (2008). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: Further issues in current evidence and future research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 524–529.