CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 169Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsMind wandering and attentionCognitive Functions and Memory

Brief mindfulness meditation training reduces mind wandering: the critical role of acceptance

Open access
Rahl, Hayley A., Lindsay, Emily K., Pacilio, Laura E., Brown, Kirk W., Creswell, J. David·2017·Emotion
DOI 10.1037/emo0000250PMC PMC5329004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Mindfulness meditation programs, which train individuals to monitor their present-moment experience in an open or accepting way, have been shown to reduce mind wandering on standardized tasks in several studies. Here we test 2 competing accounts for how mindfulness training reduces mind wandering, evaluating whether the attention-monitoring component of mindfulness training alone reduces mind wandering or whether the acceptance training component is necessary for reducing mind wandering. Healthy young adults (N = 147) were randomized to either a 3-day brief mindfulness training condition incorporating instruction in both attention monitoring and acceptance, a mindfulness training condition incorporating attention monitoring instruction only, a relaxation training condition, or an active reading-control condition. Participants completed measures of dispositional mindfulness and treatment expectancies before the training session on Day 1 and then completed a 6-min Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART) measuring mind wandering after the training session on Day 3. Acceptance training was important for reducing mind wandering, such that the attention-monitoring plus acceptance mindfulness training condition had the lowest mind wandering relative to the other conditions, including significantly lower mind wandering than the attention-monitoring only mindfulness training condition. In one of the first experimental mindfulness training dismantling studies to-date, we show that training in acceptance is a critical driver of mindfulness-training reductions in mind wandering. This effect suggests that acceptance skills may facilitate emotion regulation on boring and frustrating sustained attention tasks that foster mind wandering, such as the SART. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/emo0000250

Cites

47 of 48 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 35 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    No significant interaction between baseline dispositional mindfulness and training condition on discrimination was observed (all ps > .42).

    “no significant dispositional mindfulness by training condition interactions were observed (all ps > .42) in multiple regression analyses (see Table 2).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In follow-up pairwise comparisons, there was a significant difference in mind-wandering between attention monitoring + acceptance and reading control (Mdiff=9.84, SE=3.31, p=.003).

    “as well as between attention monitoring + acceptance and reading control (Mdiff = 9.84, SE = 3.31, p = .003).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The observed condition differences in mind-wandering are not due to differences in treatment expectancy.
  • Findingown data

    The monitoring-plus-acceptance condition had significantly lower mind-wandering than the monitoring-only condition.

    “Acceptance training was important for reducing mind-wandering, such that the monitoring + acceptance mindfulness training condition had the lowest mind-wandering relative to the other conditions, including significantly lower mind-wandering relative to the monitor-only mindfulness training condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    No significant main effect of baseline dispositional mindfulness on discrimination was found (β=.07, t(8)=.36, p=.72).

    “no dispositional mindfulness main effect was found (β = .07, t(8) = .36, p = .72)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The study found beneficial effects of acceptance training on behavioral measures of mind-wandering performance outcomes.

    “Our study tested two basic mechanisms of mindfulness training and found that there are beneficial effects of acceptance training on behavioral measures of mind-wandering performance outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The observed condition differences in mind-wandering are not due to differences in treatment expectancy.
  • May combine two claims. 9
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Relaxation training was effective above and beyond the attention control condition at reducing mind-wandering, showing comparable effects to attention monitoring + acceptance mindfulness training.

    “one unexpected finding was that relaxation training was effective (above and beyond the attention control condition) at reducing mind-wandering, showing comparable effects to attention monitoring + acceptance mindfulness training.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The observed condition differences in mind-wandering are not due to differences in treatment expectancy.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The difference in mind-wandering between attention monitoring + acceptance and relaxation training was in the expected direction but nonsignificant (Mdiff=3.74, SE=2.85, p=.19).

    “The difference between attention monitoring + acceptance mindfulness training and relaxation training was in the expected direction but nonsignificant (Mdiff = 3.74, SE = 2.85, p = .19).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Acceptance may support greater emotion regulation, buffering the distracting effects of negative emotions and aiding on-task attention and performance.

    “Specifically, attentionally demanding tasks can induce boredom, frustration and other unpleasant emotions that may interfere with task performance, while acceptance may facilitate greater emotion regulation that buffers the distracting effects of these negative emotions and facilitates on-task attention and performance (Lindsay & Creswell, 2015; Teper & Inzlicht, 2013).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Lindsay & Creswell, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Teper & Inzlicht, 2013

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Prior work indicates that mindfulness training improves emotion regulation, which is important for performance on boring or challenging tasks requiring regulation of unpleasant emotions.

    “Previous research has shown that mindfulness training improves emotion regulation (Arch & Craske, 2006), an important skill for successful performance on boring or challenging tasks that require regulation of unpleasant emotions (Philippot, Nef, Clauw, de Romree, & Segal, 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Arch & Craske, 2006

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Philippot et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    In the attention-monitoring form of mindfulness, attention is focused on a stimulus object while meta-awareness monitors or regulates attention to sustain it.

    “For example, in the attention monitoring form of mindfulness commonly taught in mindfulness training programs, attention is concentrated upon a stimulus object (e.g., bodily sensations associated with breathing) while meta-awareness, an apprehension of the current state of the mind, serves to monitor or regulate attention in order to sustain it (Dreyfus, 2011).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dreyfus, 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The SART is a widely used sustained attention task that is associated with mind-wandering reported in daily life and during mindful breathing, including self-caught task-unrelated thought.

    “The SART is a commonly used sustained attention task known to be associated with mind-wandering reported in daily life and mind-wandering measured during mindful breathing tasks, including self-caught task-unrelated thought (Mrazek et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mrazek et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Errors on the SART-failing to respond correctly or failing to withhold a response-indicate greater mind-wandering.

    “Failures to correctly respond or refrain from responding index greater mind-wandering.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    There was a marginally significant condition difference in Day 1 treatment expectancy controlling for age, with all three active treatment conditions having higher treatment expectancies than the active reading control condition.

    “As expected, there was a marginally significant (bordering on statistical significance) condition difference for Day 1 treatment expectancy controlling for age (F(3) = 2.66, p = .05), such that all three active treatment conditions had higher treatment expectancies (attention monitoring only: M = 6.32, SE = .26; attention monitoring + acceptance: M = 5.75, SE = .26; relaxation: M = 5.91, SE = .28)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Previous findings suggest that greater negative affect is associated with greater SART errors.

    “previous findings suggest that greater negative affect is associated with greater SART errors (Mrazek et al., 2012).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Mrazek et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomized to four conditions: attention-monitoring-only mindfulness training, attention-monitoring-plus-acceptance mindfulness training, relaxation training, or a reading control.

    “Healthy young adults (N=147) were randomized to either a 3-day brief mindfulness training condition incorporating instruction in both attention monitoring and acceptance, a mindfulness training condition incorporating attention monitoring instruction only, a relaxation training condition, or a reading control condition.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationown data

    This study provides one of the first dismantling tests of mindfulness training components (attention and acceptance) for attention-related outcomes.

    “This study provides one of the first dismantling tests of mindfulness training components (attention and acceptance) for attention-related outcomes.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study's mindfulness instructions correspond to other mindfulness trainings that use similar attention monitoring, thought labeling, and body scanning.

    “Mindfulness instructions in this study map onto other mindfulness trainings with similar attention monitoring, thought labeling, and body scanning practices.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Experimenter blinding to training condition was maintained by having an independent staff member create pre-randomized labeled audio files for each participant.

    “To ensure experimenter blinding to training condition, an independent research staff member created a pre-randomized set of labeled audio files for each participant.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductcitation

    The training expectancy measure had a study alpha of .91.

    “Four items from the Credibility/Expectancy Questionnaire (Devilly & Borkovec, 2000; study alpha=.91) measured belief in the relevance and effectiveness of the training on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much) (e.g. “at this point how much do you feel that attention training will help your cognitive performance at the end of the study?”).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Devilly & Borkovec, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    The study did not incorporate an acceptance-only condition, so it cannot make inferences that acceptance without training in attention monitoring improves mind-wandering.

    “we did not incorporate an acceptance only condition and are therefore not able to make inferences that acceptance without training in attention monitoring improves mind-wandering (Lindsay & Creswell, 2015).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Lindsay & Creswell, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    A number of studies show that mindfulness training is effective at improving emotion regulation.

    “a number of studies show that mindfulness training is effective at improving emotion regulation”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The reading control condition served as a relative baseline for assessing mind-wandering and matched the demands of the active training periods.

    “The purpose of this control condition was to match the demands experienced in the active treatment condition 20-minute training periods, and it provided a relative baseline comparison group for assessments of mind-wandering.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The orientation of acceptance is theorized to allow one to attend to negative affective states from a nonreactive perspective.

    “The orientation of acceptance is theorized to allow one to attend to negative affective states from a nonreactive perspective (Bieling et al., 2012)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Bieling et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In all active treatment conditions, instructions were matched on word count, silent-period length, and training expectancies for upcoming task performance.

    “In all active treatment conditions, instructions were matched for word count, length of silent periods, and training expectancies for performance on upcoming tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The dispositional mindfulness measure had a Cronbach's alpha of .81 in this sample.

    “Individual items were reverse-scored, then averaged to create a composite dispositional mindfulness score, with higher scores reflecting higher dispositional mindfulness (Cronbach’s α=.81).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Higher basic dispositional mindfulness has been found to enhance mindfulness training effects in some previous research.

    “Higher basic dispositional mindfulness has been found to enhance mindfulness training effects in some previous research (Creswell et al., 2014; Shapiro et al., 2011)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Creswell et al., 2014

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Shapiro et al., 2011

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    There was a significant baseline condition difference in age.

    “There was a significant condition difference in age (F(3) = 2.69, p = .049), so age was included as a covariate in all study analyses.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Five participants were excluded from analysis, leaving 142 participants.

    “We excluded five participants from study analyses, two for reporting being outside of the required age range after enrollment in the study, one for prior meditation experience, and two for equipment failure resulting in missing SART data. Analyses were thus conducted on N=142 participants.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    The study did not measure negative affect during the SART.

    “we did not measure negative affect during the SART”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Acceptance has been linked to positive outcomes in previous studies of Acceptance Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Emotion Regulation Therapy (ERT), including effects on emotion outcomes.

    “Acceptance, the embracing of present experience without judgment or attempts to change the experience (Hayes, Luoma, Bond, Masuda, & Lillis, 2006), has been linked to positive outcomes in previous studies of Acceptance Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Emotion Regulation Therapy (ERT), including effects on emotion outcomes (Arch et al., 2012; Bond & Bunce, 2003; Forman et al., 2007; Fresco et al., 2013”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Arch et al., 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bond & Bunce, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Forman et al., 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

25 of 25

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mechanisms by which brief mindfulness training lowers mind-wandering on the SART are not yet known.

    “While there are now several studies showing that brief mindfulness meditation training reduces mind-wandering during the SART (Morrison et al., 2013; Mrazek et al., 2012), the underlying mechanisms driving these effects are not yet known.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed condition differences in mind-wandering are not due to differences in treatment expectancy.

    “there was a marginally significant (bordering on statistical significance) condition difference for Day 1 treatment expectancy controlling for age (F(3) = 2.66, p = .05), such that all three active treatment conditions had higher treatment expectancies”
2 of 2

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Not confirmedt(2) = 1.22reported p = .23 · recomputed p = .347

    “t(2) = 1.22, p = .23”

  • Consistentχ²(3) = 1.74reported p = .63 · recomputed p = .628

    “χ2(3) = 1.74, p = .63”

  • Consistentχ²(18) = 10.3reported p = .92 · recomputed p = .922

    “χ2(18) = 10.30, p = .92”

  • Consistentt(8) = 0.36reported p = .72 · recomputed p = .728

    “t(8) = .36, p = .72”

4 of 4

Self-check

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

  • Assigned group sizes fall short of enrollment

    Minor

    The four reported group sizes total 142, not the stated 147 enrolled participants. Because the text also says five participants were excluded to leave 142 for analysis, these group sizes may describe the analyzed sample rather than the initial assignments.

    Reported 147 · recomputed 142

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rahl, H. A., Lindsay, E. K., Pacilio, L. E., Brown, K. W., & Creswell, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Emotion
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2017-03
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
224-230
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
DOI
10.1037/emo0000250
PMC
PMC5329004
OpenAlex
W2556280752
Semantic Scholar
5ab4de720b9d36c47bc8cdb0097ebc6e634063a2
Cited by
169
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 5
FWCI
16.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Pittsburgh Life Sciences Greenhouse Opportunity Fund
  • Berkman Faculty Development Fund
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services (R21AT008493, R01AT008685)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
Keywords
mind wandering, acceptance, attention monitoring, sustained attention, Sustained Attention to Response Task, emotion regulation, trait mindfulness, treatment expectancy, relaxation training
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-04.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-04.

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