Cited by 46Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

An eight-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) workshop increases regulatory choice flexibility.

Alkoby, Alon, Pliskin, Ruthie, Halperin, Eran, Levit-Binnun, Nava·2019·Emotion

Abstract

Individuals encounter a variety of emotional challenges daily, with optimal emotion modulation requiring adaptive choice among available means of regulation. However, individuals differ in the ability to flexibly and adaptively move between engaging and disengaging emotion regulation (ER) strategies as per contextual demands, referred to as regulatory choice flexibility. Greater regulatory choice flexibility is associated with greater mental health, well-being and resilience, warranting the development of interventions to increase such flexibility. We hypothesized that a mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) program would fulfill this goal. To test our hypothesis, we recruited college students to either participate in an 8-week MBSR workshop or join a waiting list for a later workshop (i.e., control participants). After the workshop's completion, all participants were invited to the laboratory and completed several computerized tasks examining their regulatory choice flexibility when exposed to universally emotion-laden stimuli as well as stimuli specifically related to the students' social and political environment. The regulatory choice patterns of participants who underwent MBSR training were found to be more flexible than those of participants who had not yet completed the workshop, with the former more likely than the latter to favor an engaging ER strategy (i.e., reappraisal) when faced with low-intensity stimuli and a disengaging strategy (i.e., distraction) when faced with high-intensity stimuli. The findings' importance is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/emo0000461

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alkoby, A., Pliskin, R., Halperin, E., & Levit-Binnun, N.
Affiliations
  • Reichman University (IL)
  • Leiden University (NL)
Venue
Emotion
Published
2019-06
Volume
19
Issue
4
Pages
593-604
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2809921465
Cited by
45
References
67
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
5.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Sponsor name not included (2016-1440)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
mindfulness-based stress reduction, emotion regulation, cognitive reappraisal, distraction, emotion regulation training, university students, stress reduction
MeSH terms
Adult, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Stress, Psychological, Time Factors, 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