Cited by 218Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionMental Health Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 160 of the 165 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 120 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

How mindfulness training promotes positive emotions: Dismantling acceptance skills training in two randomized controlled trials.

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Mindfulness meditation interventions-which train skills in monitoring present-moment experiences with a lens of acceptance-have shown promise for increasing positive emotions. Using a theory-based approach, we hypothesized that learning acceptance skills in mindfulness interventions helps people notice more positive experiences in daily life, and tested whether removing acceptance training from mindfulness interventions would eliminate intervention-related boosts in positive affect. In 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of stressed community adults, mindfulness skills were dismantled into 2 structurally equivalent interventions: (a) training in both monitoring and acceptance (Monitor + Accept) and (b) training in monitoring only (Monitor Only) without acceptance training. Study 1 tested 8-week group-based Monitor + Accept and Monitor Only interventions compared with a no treatment control group. Study 2 tested 2-week smartphone-based Monitor + Accept and Monitor Only interventions compared with an active control training. In both studies, end-of-day and momentary positive affect and negative affect were measured in daily life for 3 days pre- and post-intervention using ambulatory assessments. As predicted, across 2 RCTs, Monitor + Accept training increased positive affect compared with both Monitor Only and control groups. In Study 1, this effect was observed in end-of-day positive affect. In Study 2, this effect was found in both end-of-day and momentary positive affect outcomes. In contrast, all active interventions in Studies 1 and 2 decreased negative affect. These studies provide the first experimental evidence that developing an orientation of acceptance toward present-moment experiences is a central mechanism of mindfulness interventions for boosting positive emotions in daily life. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pspa0000134

Cites

160 of 160 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

79 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

68 Not checked yet · 68 Own result · 65 Own method · 42 Own interpretation · 5 No basis given

Verify all 120 references — free account

Show all 87 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 113
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 95
161 of 161
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The mechanisms through which mindfulness training enhances positive affective experience remain largely unknown.

    “Still, little is known about the underlying mechanisms of mindfulness training that promote positive affective experience.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Mindfulness meditation does not intentionally generate positive thoughts and feelings.

    “Although mindfulness meditation does not involve intentionally generating positive thoughts and feelings”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The ambulatory assessment data are missing at random, so that the multilevel models' estimates are unbiased.

    “MLMs model all available data and provide unbiased estimates for data missing at random; thus, MLMs are robust to missing data.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The MO program successfully excluded acceptance-related content, so that MA and MO differ primarily in acceptance skills training.

    “Of note, although the language and practices associated with acceptance were excised as much as possible from MO, the teachers embodied the acceptance and inclusion that are essential to cultivating a safe learning environment for participants.”
4 of 4

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 that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

1 of 1

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.

  • Doesn’t add upχ²(2) = 10.82reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .004

    “χ2(2)=10.82, p = .005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 3.37reported p = .186 · recomputed p = .185

    “χ2(2)=3.37, p = .186”

  • ConsistentF(1, 96) = 0reported p = .983 · recomputed p = 1.000

    “F(1,96)=0.00, p = .983”

  • ConsistentF(1, 96) = 2.97reported p = .088 · recomputed p = .088

    “F(1,96)=2.97, p = .088”

  • ConsistentF(2, 133) = 0.91reported p = .404 · recomputed p = .405

    “F(2,133)=0.91, p = .404”

  • ConsistentF(2, 133) = 2.49reported p = .087 · recomputed p = .087

    “F(2,133)=2.49, p = .087”

  • ConsistentF(1, 98) = 0.15reported p = .7 · recomputed p = .699

    “F(1,98)=0.15, p = .700”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 0.25reported p = .617 · recomputed p = .618

    “F(1,93)=0.25, p = .617”

  • ConsistentF(1, 93) = 0.1reported p = .758 · recomputed p = .753

    “F(1,93)=0.10, p = .758”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 25.01reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=25.01, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 1.48reported p = .477 · recomputed p = .477

    “χ2(2)=1.48, p = .477”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 4.12reported p = .043 · recomputed p = .042

    “χ2(1)=4.12, p = .043”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 10.35reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “χ2(1)=10.35, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 2.02reported p = .155 · recomputed p = .155

    “χ2(1)=2.02, p = .155”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 4.08reported p = .043 · recomputed p = .043

    “χ2(1)=4.08, p = .043”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 3.71reported p = .054 · recomputed p = .054

    “χ2(1)=3.71, p = .054”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 1.28reported p = .257 · recomputed p = .258

    “χ2(1)=1.28, p = .257”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 5.55reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .018

    “χ2(1)=5.55, p = .019”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 10.96reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=10.96, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 6.29reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .012

    “χ2(1)=6.29, p = .012”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 57.46reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=57.46, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 0.81reported p = .666 · recomputed p = .667

    “χ2(2)=0.81, p = .666”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 15.23reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(2)=15.23, p = .001”

    The paper prints p at a floor (such as p < .001)

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 1.25reported p = .263 · recomputed p = .264

    “χ2(1)=1.25, p = .263”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 15.1reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=15.10, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 8.48reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “χ2(1)=8.48, p = .004”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 16.61reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=16.61, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 0.17reported p = .918 · recomputed p = .919

    “χ2(2)=0.17, p = .918”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 8.7reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “χ2(2)=8.70, p = .013”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 2.54reported p = .111 · recomputed p = .111

    “χ2(1)=2.54, p = .111”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 8.59reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “χ2(1)=8.59, p = .003”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 2.29reported p = .13 · recomputed p = .130

    “χ2(1)=2.29, p = .130”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 5.33reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .021

    “χ2(1)=5.33, p = .021”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 0.65reported p = .42 · recomputed p = .420

    “χ2(1)=0.65, p = .420”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 0.82reported p = .365 · recomputed p = .365

    “χ2(1)=0.82, p = .365”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 10.75reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “χ2(1)=10.75, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 6.7reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “χ2(1)=6.70, p = .010”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 2.16reported p = .142 · recomputed p = .142

    “χ2(1)=2.16, p = .142”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 3.5reported p = .061 · recomputed p = .061

    “χ2(1)=3.50, p = .061”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 0.44reported p = .508 · recomputed p = .507

    “χ2(1)=0.44, p = .508”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 1.49reported p = .222 · recomputed p = .222

    “χ2(1)=1.49, p = .222”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 30.53reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=30.53, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 0.54reported p = .764 · recomputed p = .763

    “χ2(2)=0.54, p = .764”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 4.75reported p = .093 · recomputed p = .093

    “χ2(2)=4.75, p = .093”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 1.42reported p = .491 · recomputed p = .492

    “χ2(2)=1.42, p = .491”

  • ConsistentF(2, 146) = 0.4reported p = .67 · recomputed p = .671

    “F(2,146)=0.40, p = .670”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 3.1reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .212

    “χ2(2)=3.10, p = .21”

  • Consistentχ²(5) = 16.1reported p = .007 · recomputed p = .007

    “χ2(5)=16.10, p = .007”

  • Consistentχ²(5) = 15.01reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .010

    “χ2(5)=15.01, p = .010”

  • Consistentχ²(5) = 13.72reported p = .018 · recomputed p = .017

    “χ2(5)=13.72, p = .018”

  • ConsistentF(2, 146) = 1.03reported p = .36 · recomputed p = .360

    “F(2,146)=1.03, p = .360”

  • ConsistentF(2, 146) = 1.55reported p = .22 · recomputed p = .216

    “F(2,146)=1.55, p = .22”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 38.02reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=38.02, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 2.25reported p = .325 · recomputed p = .325

    “χ2(2)=2.25, p = .325”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 12.67reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “χ2(2)=12.67, p = .002”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 6.17reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .013

    “χ2(1)=6.17, p = .013”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 11.49reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=11.49, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 1.45reported p = .228 · recomputed p = .229

    “χ2(1)=1.45, p = .228”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 8.7reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “χ2(1)=8.70, p = .003”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 12.53reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=12.53, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 6.24reported p = .013 · recomputed p = .012

    “χ2(1)=6.24, p = .013”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 11.93reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=11.93, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 1.28reported p = .258 · recomputed p = .258

    “χ2(1)=1.28, p = .258”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 3.79reported p = .052 · recomputed p = .052

    “χ2(1)=3.79, p = .052”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 13.6reported p = .0002 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=13.60, p = .0002”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 2.25reported p = .324 · recomputed p = .325

    “χ2(2)=2.25, p = .324”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 11.13reported p = .004 · recomputed p = .004

    “χ2(2)=11.13, p = .004”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 4.91reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “χ2(1)=4.91, p = .027”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 10.4reported p = .001 · recomputed p = .001

    “χ2(1)=10.40, p = .001”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 1.55reported p = .213 · recomputed p = .213

    “χ2(1)=1.55, p = .213”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 18.08reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=18.08, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 2.93reported p = .231 · recomputed p = .231

    “χ2(2)=2.93, p = .231”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 2.96reported p = .227 · recomputed p = .228

    “χ2(2)=2.96, p = .227”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 3.66reported p = .16 · recomputed p = .160

    “χ2(2)=3.66, p = .160”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 4.32reported p = .115 · recomputed p = .115

    “χ2(2)=4.32, p = .115”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 1.66reported p = .435 · recomputed p = .436

    “χ2(2)=1.66, p = .435”

  • Consistentχ²(1) = 32.77reported p < .0005 · recomputed p < .001

    “χ2(1)=32.77, p < .0005”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 1.67reported p = .434 · recomputed p = .434

    “χ2(2)=1.67, p = .434”

  • Consistentχ²(2) = 1.62reported p = .446 · recomputed p = .445

    “χ2(2)=1.62, p = .446”

79 of 79

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Citations

Cites

Show all 165 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Cohen S, & Williamson G (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the US. In Spacapam S & Oskamp S (Eds.), The social psychology of health: Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 31– 67). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Lindsay, E. K., Chin, B., Greco, C. M., Young, S., Brown, K. W., Wright, A. G. C., Smyth, J. M., Burkett, D., & Creswell, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2018-12
Volume
115
Issue
6
Pages
944-973
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W2904393964
Cited by
218
References
165
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 2
FWCI
14.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • MindRxiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • MindRxiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R21AT008493 and R01AT008685, UL1TR000005)
  • Sponsor name not included (F32AT009508)
  • Yoga Science Foundation
  • Mind & Life Institute
  • American Psychological Association
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 › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, positive affect, positive emotions, negative affect, present-moment awareness, smartphone-based intervention, daily affect, stress, community-dwelling adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Emotions, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Stress, Psychological, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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