Reappraisal and mindfulness: A comparison of subjective effects and cognitive costs
Open accessAbstract
The present study investigated the relative effects of mindfulness and reappraisal in reducing sad mood and whether trait mindfulness and habitual reappraisal moderated the effects. The study also compared the extent to which implementation of these strategies incurred cognitive resources. A total of 129 participants were randomly assigned to receiving training in mindfulness, reappraisal, or no training prior to undergoing an autobiographical sad mood induction. Results showed that mindfulness and reappraisal were superior to no training, and equivalent in their effects in lowering sad mood. Compared to mindfulness, reappraisal resulted in significantly higher interference scores on a subsequent Stroop test, reflecting greater depletion of cognitive resources. Higher trait mindfulness, but not habitual reappraisal, predicted greater reductions in sadness across conditions. The study suggests that although mindfulness and reappraisal are equally effective in down-regulating sad mood, they incur different levels of cognitive costs.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The literature is inconsistent about whether higher trait mindfulness predicts greater benefit from mindfulness interventions.
“A number of studies have shown that those higher in trait mindfulness benefit more from mindfulness interventions”
From The Effect of a Brief Mindfulness Training on Distress Tolerance and Stress Reactivity. (2019) · cites this paper as Keng, Robins, Smoski, Dagenbach, & Leary, 2013
The Results (no page supplied) report that higher trait mindfulness predicted greater decreases in sadness, but the association held across all conditions; there was no significant interaction showing greater benefit specifically from mindfulness training. The Discussion (no page supplied) does not establish that a number of studies found this pattern. Its discussion of inconsistent findings concerns mindfulness versus reappraisal, not whether trait mindfulness predicts intervention benefit. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredEmotional acceptance is effective in reducing negative emotions such as sadness and increasing positive affect in short-term experiments.
“Several studies on emotion regulation [10] have shown that a strategy of emotional acceptance is effective in reducing negative emotions such as sadness [11–14] and increasing positive affect [15] in short-term experiments.”
From Effects of five-minute internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy and simplified emotion-focused mindfulness on depressive symptoms: A randomized controlled trial (2017) · cites this paper as [11]
The Discussion reports that brief mindfulness training reduced experimentally induced sadness compared with no training. The paper does not report an increase in positive affect, so it supports only the negative-emotion part of the claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 43 · Cited by 120
- Authors
- Keng, S.-L., Robins, C. J., Smoski, M. J., Dagenbach, J., & Leary, M. R.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Keng, Shian-Ling
- Venue
- Behaviour Research and Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-12
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 899-904
- ISSN
- 0005-7967 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4030543
- OpenAlex
- W2046221678
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 43
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 5.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Behaviour Research and Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Duke Interdisciplinary Initiative in Social Psychology
- Duke University Graduate School
- NIMH (K23 MH087754)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Keywords
- cognitive reappraisal, mindfulness, sad mood, emotion regulation, trait mindfulness, cognitive cost, cognitive depletion, Stroop interference, mood induction, emotion regulation training
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mood Disorders, Young Adult, Stroop Test, Mindfulness
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
