Cited by 47Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Integrating mindfulness into the extended process model of emotion regulation: The dual-mode model of mindful emotion regulation.

Open access
Raugh, Ian M., Strauss, Gregory P.·2024·Emotion

Abstract

Extensive research has been conducted regarding how people manage their emotions. Within this research, there has been growing attention toward the role of mindfulness in emotion regulation. While prior reviews have discussed mindfulness in the context of emotion regulation, they have not provided a thorough integration using the prevailing models of emotion regulation or mindfulness. The present review discusses the Extended Process Model of Emotion Regulation and Monitoring and Acceptance Theory of mindfulness in order to propose a novel integrated framework, the Dual-mode Model of Mindful Emotion Regulation (D-MER). This model proposes two "modes" of mindfulness: Implementation and facilitation. Implementation posits that mindfulness skills can be used as emotion regulation strategies through attentional deployment and cognitive change. Facilitation posits that mindfulness as a state or trait affects emotion generation and regulation through effects on cognitive processes and positive or negative valence systems. Further, the D-MER posits that mindfulness experience can improve the efficiency of mindfulness-based emotion regulation strategies (implementation) while effects of mindfulness on emotion regulation processes become increasingly trait-like and automatic over time (facilitation). Empirical and theoretical support for this model are discussed, specific hypotheses to guide further research are provided, and clinical implications are presented. Use of this model may identify mechanisms underlying the interaction between mindfulness and emotion regulation which can be used in ongoing affective and clinical research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/emo0001308

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Raugh, I. M., & Strauss, G. P.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Corresponding author
Raugh, Ian M.
Venue
Emotion
Published
2024-04
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
847-866
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W4387661253
Cited by
47
References
189
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 11
FWCI
13.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R61-MH121560; R21-MH119438)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
mindfulness, emotion regulation, implementation modes, attentional deployment, cognitive change, trait mindfulness, automaticity
MeSH terms
Emotional Regulation, Attention, Emotions, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, 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