Cited by 75Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAttachment and Relationship DynamicsPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Psychological Well-being and Coping: the Predictive Value of Adult Attachment, Dispositional Mindfulness, and Emotion Regulation

Open access
Stevenson, Jodie C., Millings, Abigail, Emerson, Lisa-Marie·2019·Mindfulness

Abstract

The primary aim of this study was to examine the underlying relationship between adult attachment, dispositional mindfulness, and emotion regulation, and investigate how well these constructs can predict coping and well-being. A university sample of participants ( n = 174) completed an online survey to assess attachment (anxiety, avoidance, disorganized), emotion regulation, dispositional mindfulness, coping behaviors, and psychological well-being. Exploratory factor analysis assessed the underlying relationship between measures of attachment, emotion regulation, and mindfulness, and presented a two-factor solution accounting for 47% of total variance across participant scores. Attachment, mindfulness, and emotion regulation subscales differentially loaded across the two factors. The first factor, “resilient mental functioning,” accounted for 33% of variance; the second factor, “disorganized emotional functioning,” accounted for 14% of total variance. These two extracted factors were used in subsequent mediation modeling to determine the effects of coping behaviors on the relationship between the extracted factors and six subscales of psychological well-being. Mediation analyses revealed that defeatism coping was a significant mediator in the relationship between resilient mental functioning and five of the psychological well-being scales and between disorganized emotional functioning and all six of these scales. The results add to the current understanding of the relationship between all three constructs and are the first to examine the construct of adult disorganized attachment and its possible role in the relationship between adult attachment and dispositional mindfulness, as well as its influence on emotion regulation.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-018-0970-8

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These findings are consistent with Stevenson et al. (2019), which indicated that the scales of attachment avoidance and disorganization, expressive suppression, act with awareness, and describing load together and uniquely on a factor labelled 'disorganized emotional functioning'.

    “These findings are consistent with Stevenson et al. (2019), which indicated that the scales of attachment avoidance and disorganization, expressive suppression, act with awareness, and describing load together and uniquely on a factor labelled 'disorganized emotional functioning' (Stevenson et al., 2019).”

    From Facets of Mindfulness Mediate the Relationship Between Attachment Orientation and Emotion Regulation in University Students (2024) · cites this paper as Stevenson et al., 2019

    The Relationship Between Attachment, Mindfulness, and Emotion Regulation section identifies all five scales as loading on the factor labelled “disorganized emotional functioning,” and Table 2 lists their loadings on Factor 2. However, the Discussion also describes act with awareness as cross-loading, so the claim that all five load uniquely on that factor is not fully supported. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • These findings support the link between attachment disorganization and deficits in mindfulness (act with awareness and describe) and a reliance on maladaptive ER strategies.

    “Consistent with Stevenson et al., (2019), , these findings support the link between attachment disorganization and deficits in mindfulness (act with awareness and describe) and a reliance on maladaptive ER strategies.”
  • The factor labelled 'disorganized emotional functioning' loaded negatively on mindfulness subscales and positively on attachment avoidance and disorganization and expressive suppression.

    “The factor labelled 'disorganized emotional functioning' loaded negatively on mindfulness subscales and positively on attachment avoidance and disorganization and expressive suppression.”
  • The current findings support previous research that of the two attachment insecurity dimensions, disorganization shares a greater overlap with attachment avoidance than anxiety.

    “however, the current findings support previous research that presents the idea that of the two attachment insecurity dimensions, disorganization shares a greater overlap with attachment avoidance than anxiety (Stevenson et al., 2019)”
  • The cross-sectional design is particularly challenging for interpreting the direction of effects identified here, given the known relationships between attachment, emotion regulation, and mindfulness.

    “This is particularly challenging for interpreting the direction of effects identifies here, given the know relationships between attachment, emotion regulation, and mindfulness (Stevenson et al., 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Separation (Vol. 2). London: Hogarth.
  2. Shaver, P. R., & Mikulincer, M. (2002). Attachment-related psychody- namics. Attachment & Human Development, 4(2), 133-161.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevenson, J. C., Millings, A., & Emerson, L.-M.
Affiliations
University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Stevenson, Jodie C.
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2018-06-19
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
256-271
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W2809523408
Cited by
75
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2
FWCI
8.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lincoln Repository (University of Lincoln) (acceptedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
The University of Sheffield (Teaching Studentship)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
adult attachment, trait mindfulness, emotion regulation, coping, psychological well-being, disorganized attachment, attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, mediation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review