Cited by 15Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Mindfulness and Depersonalization: a Nuanced Relationship

Open access
Levin, Kaitlin K., Gornish, Akiva, Quigley, Leanne·2022·Mindfulness

Abstract

Objectives: Although depersonalization has been described as the antithesis of mindfulness, few studies have empirically examined this relationship, and none have considered how it may differ across various facets of mindfulness, either alone or in interaction. The present study examined the relationship between symptoms of depersonalization and facets of dispositional mindfulness in a general population sample. Methods: A total of 296 adult participants (139 male, 155 female, 2 other) were recruited online via Qualtrics and completed the Cambridge Depersonalisation Scale; Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale; and Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire. Results: Controlling for general distress, depersonalization symptoms were positively associated with Observe, Describe, and Nonreactivity facets and negatively associated with Acting with Awareness and Nonjudgment facets. After controlling for intercorrelations among the facets, depersonalization symptoms remained significantly associated with higher Nonreactivity and lower Acting with Awareness. The overall positive relationship between depersonalization symptoms and the Observe facet was moderated by both Nonjudgment and Nonreactivity. Specifically, higher Observing was related to increased depersonalization symptoms at low levels of Nonjudgment and to decreased symptoms at low levels of Nonreactivity. Conclusions: The current study provides novel insight into the relationship between depersonalization symptoms and various aspects of mindfulness. Experiences of depersonalization demonstrated divergent relationships with mindfulness facets, alone and in interaction. The results may inform theoretical models of depersonalization and mindfulness-based interventions for depersonalization. © 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12671-022-01890-y

Cites

58 of 60 references verified2 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 4 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Finding

    The authors report that the planned statistical analyses were well-powered.

    “Thus, the planned statistical analyses were well-powered.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    Controlling for general distress, greater depersonalization symptoms were significantly associated with higher Observing, Describing, and Nonreactivity, and lower Acting with Awareness and Nonjudgment.

    “Controlling for general distress, greater depersonalization symptoms were significantly associated with higher levels of Observing, Describing, and Nonreactivity, and lower levels of Acting with Awareness and Nonjudgment (Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The unique associations of depersonalization with Observing, Describing, and Nonjudgment were not significant after controlling for intercorrelations among mindfulness facets.

    “The unique associations between depersonalization symptoms and the Observing, Describing, and Nonjudgment facets were non-significant when controlling for the intercorrelations among the mindfulness facets in addition to general distress.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The study suggests its results may inform theoretical models of depersonalization and mindfulness-based interventions for depersonalization.

    “The results may inform theoretical models of depersonalization and mindfulness-based interventions for depersonalization.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified
  • Finding

    The association between Observing and depersonalization was moderated by Nonjudgment and Nonreactivity.

    “The overall positive relationship between depersonalization symptoms and the Observe facet was moderated by both Nonjudgment and Nonreactivity.”
    Quote in the paperNot yet classified

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?

Self-check

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

  • Participant exclusions do not yield the reported final sample

    Major

    The methods state that 321 participants had eligible data and 34 were subsequently removed. That leaves 287 participants, not the reported 296 used in the analyses.

    Reported 296 · recomputed 287

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Levin, K. K., Gornish, A., & Quigley, L.
Affiliations
Yeshiva University (US)
Corresponding author
Quigley, Leanne
Venue
Mindfulness
Published
2022-04-27
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
1479-1489
ISSN
  • 1868-8527 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-8535
OpenAlex
W4224939577
Cited by
15
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Mindfulness (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
depersonalization, trait mindfulness, mindfulness facets, Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, non-reactivity, non-judgment, acting with awareness, observation, mindfulness-based interventions

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.

Claims read (extract-v1) on 2026-09-24.

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