CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 141Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Mindfulness and emotional outcomes: Identifying subgroups of college students using latent profile analysis

Open access
Pearson, Matthew R., Lawless, Adrienne K., Brown, David B., Bravo, Adrian J.·2015·Personality and Individual Differences
DOI 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.009PMC PMC4269250
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In non-meditating samples, distinct facets of mindfulness are found to be negatively correlated, preventing the meaningful creation of a total mindfulness score. The present study used person-centered analyses to distinguish subgroups of college students based on their mindfulness scores, which allows the examination of individuals who are high (or low) on all facets of mindfulness. Using the Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT test, we settled on a 4-class solution that included a high mindfulness group (high on all 5 facets, N = 245), low mindfulness group (moderately low on all 5 facets, N = 563), judgmentally observing group (high on observing, but low on non-judging and acting with awareness, N =63), and non-judgmentally aware group (low on observing, but high on non-judging and acting with awareness, N =70). Consistent across all emotional outcomes including depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms (i.e., worry), affective instability, and distress intolerance, we found that the judgmentally observing group had the most maladaptive emotional outcomes followed by the low mindfulness group. Both the high mindfulness group and the non-judgmentally aware group had the most adaptive emotional outcomes. We discuss the implications of person-centered analyses to exploring mindfulness as it relates to important psychological health outcomes.

Verified 2026-10-05 · 1 reference not checked yet

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.009

Cites

38 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 21 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The non-judgmentally aware group, which was low on observing, describing, and non-reactivity, had adaptive emotional outcomes.

    “However, we also found that the non-judgmentally aware group, which was low on the observing, describing, and non-reactivity to inner experience facets, had adaptive emotional outcomes as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
  • Findingown data

    The largest class, labeled low mindfulness, was moderately low on all facets and comprised about 57.4% (N=540.59) of the sample.

    “Finally, the largest group, Class 4, comprised 57.45% of the sample (N = 540.59), and we label this class the “low mindfulness group” as they were moderately low on all facets of mindfulness (−.330 < zs < −.110).”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “It is important to note that the largest class in this sample of college students was the low mindfulness group, comprising 57.44% of the sample, suggesting that mindfulness-based interventions could have a meaningful impact in this population.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
  • Findingown data

    Despite having the highest observing scores, the judgmentally observing class had emotional outcomes much like the low mindfulness class.

    “Further, the judgmentally observing group closely resembled the low mindfulness group in terms of emotional outcomes despite being the highest on the observing facet of all groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
  • Interpretationreasoning

    Under factor analysis, the construct of mindfulness is defined by high scores on four facets and a low score on observing.

    “Thus, in a factor analytic model, mindfulness becomes defined as individuals who are high in four of the five facets of mindfulness, but low in observing.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning

    People who score high on every mindfulness facet should be expected to gain the health benefits linked to mindfulness.

    “Therefore, individuals high on all facets of mindfulness should be expected to experience the health benefits associated with mindfulness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 15
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 4
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Another class, non-judgmentally aware, scored high on non-judging and acting with awareness yet very low on observing, and represented 7.61% (N=71.61).

    “Class 3 comprised 7.61% of the sample (N = 71.61), and we label this class the “non-judgmentally aware group” as they were high on non-judging of inner experience (z = 1.278) and acting with awareness (z = 1.082), but very low on the observing facet of mindfulness (z = −1.535).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The authors chose a four-class solution after applying the Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test.

    “Given the results of the Likelihood Ratio Test, we settled on the 4-class solution.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lo et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vuong, 1989 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    One class, labeled high mindfulness, was relatively high on every facet and comprised 27.15% (N=255.49) of the sample.

    “Class 2 comprised 27.15% of the sample (N = 255.49), and we label this class the “high mindfulness group” as they were relatively high on every facet of mindfulness (.472 < zs < .911).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The authors identified four mindfulness-profile subgroups, two of which showed adaptive emotional patterns and two maladaptive patterns.

    “Despite the limitations of the present study, we were able to distinguish between four subgroups of individuals based on their mindfulness profiles, and found two ‘adaptive’ and two ‘maladaptive’ groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For all four outcomes, the high mindfulness and non-judgmentally aware classes showed the best adjustment-lower depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance-and did not differ significantly from one another.

    “Across each emotional outcome, we found that the “high mindfulness” (Class 2) and “non-judgmentally aware” (Class 3) groups had the most adaptive emotional outcomes (i.e., lower depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance), and did not significantly differ from each other on any outcome.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
    • Rests on an assumption: Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The likelihood ratio test showed sequential improvement from one to two, two to three, and three to four classes, but adding a fifth class did not significantly improve fit over four.

    “The Likelihood Ratio Test suggests that a 2-class solution fit better than a 1-class solution (p < .001), a 3-class solution fit better than a 2-class solution (p = .020), and a 4-class solution fit better than a 3-class solution (p = .025); however, a 5-class solution did not fit significantly better than a 4-class solution (p = .413).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lo et al., 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Vuong, 1989 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    For every emotional outcome, the judgmentally observing class fared worst-showing the highest depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance-and was significantly worse than every other class.

    “In contrast, the “judgmentally observing” group (Class 1) had the poorest emotional outcomes (i.e., highest depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance), which were significantly worse than all other groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
    • Rests on an assumption: Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    On every outcome, the low mindfulness class did significantly better than the judgmentally observing class but significantly worse than both the non-judgmentally aware and high mindfulness classes.

    “Finally, the “low mindfulness group” was always significantly better than the “judgmentally observing” group (Class 4) on these outcomes, but significantly worse than the “non-judgmentally aware” and “high mindfulness groups.””
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “Consistent with variable-centered analyses that show negative correlations between mindfulness and emotional disturbances (Barnhofer, Duggan, & Griffith, 2011; Carlson, Ursuliak, Goodey, & Speca, 2001; Goldin & Gross, 2010; Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011; Teasdale, Segal, Williams, Ridgeway, Soulsby, & Lau, 2000), we found that the low mindfulness group had more negative emotional symptoms compared”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Barnhofer et al., 2011 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Carlson et al., 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Goldin & Gross, 2010 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.
    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
    • Rests on an assumption: Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    One class, labeled judgmentally observing, had the top observing score but markedly low non-judging and acting-with-awareness scores, and made up 7.79% (N=73.32) of the sample.

    “Class 1 comprised 7.79% of the sample (N = 73.32), and we tentatively label this class the “judgmentally observing group” as they were the highest on observing (z = 1.001), but very low on non-judging of inner experience (z = −1.660) and acting with awareness (z = −1.545).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Information criteria kept decreasing across one to six classes, but entropy peaked at five classes.

    “Although the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; Akaike, 1973, 1974; and see Sakamato, Ishiguro, & Kitagawa, 1986) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC, Schwarz, 1978) continue to improve (i.e., decrease) from 1 through 6 class solutions, Entropy was highest for the 5-class solution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Akaike, 1973, 1974

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Schwarz, 1978 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Of the mindfulness facets, observing shows the strongest positive association with meditation experience and rises after mindfulness-based interventions.

    “observing has been found to be the mindfulness facet that is most strongly positively correlated with meditation experience (Baer et al.) and increases following mindfulness based interventions (Carmody & Baer, 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Baer et al.

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Carmody & Baer, 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Observing is a key component of mindfulness and can be developed through mindfulness practice.

    “These results confirm that observing is an important facet of mindfulness that can be cultivated through mindfulness practices.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Lilja et al. (2013) applied hierarchical cluster analysis to mindfulness scores and found 13 clusters; meditators were overrepresented in clusters with above-average observing and underrepresented in clusters with below-average observing.

    “Lilja et al. (2013) used hierarchical cluster analysis to identify 13 clusters of individuals based on their mindfulness scores (cluster size ranged from 37 to 93 participants).”
    • Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
      “meditators were overrepresented in four clusters, all of which had higher than average observing scores, and meditators were underrepresented in three clusters, all of which had lower than average observing scores.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lilja et al., 2013 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Among college students with no meditation experience, observing is linked to more psychological symptoms; among those with meditation experience, it is linked to fewer such symptoms.

    “observing has been shown to be positively related to psychological symptoms among college students without prior meditation experience, whereas it has been shown to be negatively related to these outcomes among individuals with meditation experience (Baer et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Baer et al., 2008 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The cross-sectional study design prevents causal inferences.

    “Finally, the cross-sectional study design prevents our ability to make causal inferences.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    An entropy of .748 suggests roughly 75% correct classification, close to the conventional high threshold.

    “The entropy value of .748 indicates that it is estimated that about three-fourths of subjects were correctly classified in the appropriate latent class, which approaches a level of entropy that is considered high (i.e., 80, Clark & Muthén, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clark & Muthén, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Some theoretical models treat mindfulness as a unified whole, meaning that high overall mindfulness should involve high levels on every component.

    “According to some theoretical models (e.g., Shapiro et al., 2006), mindfulness is best understood as an integrated whole, that is, cultivating high mindfulness should be associated with being high on all of the components of mindfulness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Shapiro et al., 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The sharp difference between the non-judgmentally aware and judgmentally observing classes implies that non-judging and acting with awareness matter more for adaptive emotional functioning, consistent with earlier definitions of mindfulness.

    “The sharp contrast in emotional functioning of the non-judgmentally aware and judgmentally observing groups suggests the relative importance of non-judging of inner experience and acting with awareness to achieve adaptive emotional functioning, which supports previous definitions of mindfulness (Bishop et al., 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 1994).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Bishop et al., 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Kabat-Zinn, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

    • The authors state this as an assumption: Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.
18 of 18

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    The population contains separate subgroups that differ in their mindfulness levels.

    “if we assume that there are distinct classes of individuals in terms of their level of mindfulness, LPA is a technique that can be usefully applied to analyzing mindfulness data and has several strengths over more traditional variable-centered analyses.”

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Differences in mindfulness profiles play a meaningful role in accounting for variation in emotional functioning between subgroups.

    “Although we have assumed that mindfulness profiles are important in explaining differences across subgroups’ emotional functioning, there are several ‘third variable’ explanations for our findings for which we cannot account.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, affective instability, and distress intolerance have high prevalence among college students.

    “four distinct emotional health outcomes that were selected given their high prevalence among college students including depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms (i.e., worry), affective instability, and distress intolerance.”
3 of 3

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?

  • Students who scored high on monitoring but low on acceptance had higher depressive and anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance than students low on both.

    “In another student sample, participants high in monitoring (Observe) but low in acceptance (Nonjudgment) had higher levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms, affective lability, and distress intolerance than participants low in both monitoring and acceptance skills (Pearson, Lawless, Brown, & Bravo, 2015).”

    From Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT (2017) · cites this paper as Pearson, Lawless, Brown, & Bravo, 2015

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Class 4 is assigned to two different groups

    Minor

    The results identify Class 4 as the low mindfulness group, but later label the judgmentally observing group as Class 4. The latter group is identified earlier as Class 1.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 42 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Eaton, 2004, Center for epidemiologic studies depression scale: Review and revision (CESD and CESD-R), 363

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Pearson, M. R., Lawless, A. K., Brown, D. B., & Bravo, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Old Dominion University (US)
Corresponding author
Pearson, Matthew R.
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
76
Pages
33-38
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.009
PMC
PMC4269250
OpenAlex
W2063435023
Cited by
140
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3
FWCI
9.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • ODU Digital Commons (Old Dominion University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (K01AA023233)
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
mindfulness, mindfulness facets, person-centered analysis, latent profile analysis, university students, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, worry, neuroticism, distress intolerance, non-judgmental awareness, observation, emotional outcomes

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 by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-05.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-05.

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