Cited by 114Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

A shift in perspective: Decentering through mindful attention to imagined stressful events

Open access
Lebois, Lauren A.M., Papies, Esther K., Gopinath, Kaundinya, Cabanban, Romeo, Quigley, Karen S., Krishnamurthy, Venkatagiri, Barrett, Lisa Feldman, Barsalou, Lawrence W.·2015·Neuropsychologia

Abstract

Ruminative thoughts about a stressful event can seem subjectively real, as if the imagined event were happening in the moment. One possibility is that this subjective realism results from simulating the self as engaged in the stressful event (immersion). If so, then the process of decentering—disengaging the self from the event—should reduce the subjective realism associated with immersion, and therefore perceived stressfulness. To assess this account of decentering, we taught non-meditators a strategy for disengaging from imagined events, simply viewing these events as transient mental states (mindful attention). In a subsequent neuroimaging session, participants imagined stressful and non-stressful events, while either immersing themselves or adopting mindful attention. In conjunction analyses, mindful attention down-regulated the processing of stressful events relative to baseline, whereas immersion up-regulated their processing. In direct contrasts between mindful attention and immersion, mindful attention showed greater activity in brain areas associated with perspective shifting and effortful attention, whereas immersion showed greater activity in areas associated with self-processing and visceral states. These results suggest that mindful attention produces decentering by disengaging embodied senses of self from imagined situations so that affect does not develop.

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 · 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.05.030

Cites

127 of 127 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?

  • Lebois et al. (2015) and Duncan et al. (2021) identified attention regulation/decentering as a constructive coping mechanism which supported stress regulation in university students.

    “The role that attention regulation/decentering could play in reduced stress has been identified by both Lebois et al. (2015) and Duncan et al. (2021) as a constructive coping mechanism which supported stress regulation in university students.”
  • In line with previous research, the current study provided supporting evidence for the effectiveness of this mindfulness component compared to a sham intervention.

    “In short, in line with previous research (Bernstein et al., 2015; Hoge et al., 2015; Lebois et al., 2015), the current study provided supporting evidence for the effectiveness of this mindfulness component compared to a sham intervention.”

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lebois, L. A. M., Papies, E. K., Gopinath, K., Cabanban, R., Quigley, K. S., Krishnamurthy, V., Barrett, L. F., & Barsalou, L. W.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • Emory University (US)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Corresponding author
Lebois, Lauren A.M.
Venue
Neuropsychologia
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
75
Pages
505-524
ISSN
0028-3932 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1622770599
Cited by
114
References
127
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
9.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuropsychologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, United States (1 F31 AT007130-01, 5 F31 AT007130-02)
  • National Institute of Health Director's Pioneer Award (DPI OD003312)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
decentering, mindful attention, rumination, immersion, perspective shift, self-processing, affect, perceived stress, meditation training
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Brain, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Stress, Psychological, Meditation, Young Adult, 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