Cited by 48Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionForgiveness and Related Behaviors

Dispositional mindfulness and rejection sensitivity: The critical role of nonjudgment

Open access
Peters, Jessica R., Eisenlohr-Moul, Tory A., Smart, Laura M.·2016·Personality and Individual Differences

Abstract

The pain of rejection is a crucial component of normal social functioning; however, heightened sensitivity to rejection can be impairing in numerous ways. Mindfulness-based interventions have been effective with several populations characterized by elevated sensitivity to rejection; however, the relationship between mindfulness and rejection sensitivity has been largely unstudied. The present study examines associations between rejection sensitivity and multiple dimensions of dispositional mindfulness, with the hypothesis that a nonjudgmental orientation to inner experiences would be both associated with decreased rejection sensitivity and attenuate the impact of sensitivity to rejection on general negative affect. A cross-sectional sample of undergraduates (n = 451) completed self-report measures of rejection sensitivity, dispositional mindfulness, and trait-level negative affect. Significant zero-order correlations and independent effects were observed between most facets of dispositional mindfulness and rejection sensitivity, with nonjudging demonstrating the largest effects. As predicted, rejection sensitivity was associated with negative affectivity for people low in nonjudging (β = .27, t = 5.12, p < .001) but not for people high in nonjudging (β = .06, t = .99, p = .324). These findings provide preliminary support for mindfulness, specifically the nonjudging dimension, as a protective factor against rejection sensitivity and its effects on affect.

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.paid.2015.06.029

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.

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?

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 48 · Cited by 48

Authors
Peters, J. R., Eisenlohr-Moul, T. A., & Smart, L. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Peters, Jessica R.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-04
Volume
93
Pages
125-129
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W829575813
Cited by
48
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) (submittedVersion)
  • UNC Libraries
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH093315)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
Keywords
trait mindfulness, rejection sensitivity, non-judgment, negative affect, mindfulness-based interventions, protective factors, undergraduate students

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