Cited by 129Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intensive mindfulness training-related changes in cognitive and emotional experience

Orzech, Kevin M., Shapiro, Shauna L., Brown, Kirk Warren, McKay, Matthew·2009·The Journal of Positive Psychology

Abstract

This study examined the role of intensive mindfulness training on changes in day-to-day experiential processing, psychological symptoms, resilience, and well-being in two groups of community adults (N = 69). Using both quasi-experimental and longitudinal methods, the study found that intensive training, operationalized as 10–12 hours of formal mindfulness practice per day for 1 month, was significantly related to increases in training-specific experiential processing capacities, namely trait mindfulness and decentering (reperceiving), in comparison to pre–post-training wait-list controls. In both training groups combined, mindfulness, decentering, and acceptance increased over the pre-training to 1-month follow-up period. Intensive mindfulness training was also related to declines in anxiety and enhanced both subjective well-being and self-compassion from pre-training to follow-up in the two training groups. Finally, increases in trait mindfulness and acceptance were related to improvements in psychological symptoms, well-being, and resilience. Future directions for this novel area of mindfulness research are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/17439760902819394

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 51 references

1 of the 51 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Al-Hussaini A, 2001, SQU Journal for Scientific Research: Medical Sciences, 3, 87
  2. Bond FW, 2008, Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire
  3. 10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542 · DOI · Paper page
  4. SAS Institute, 1992, SAS technical report P-229, SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements
  5. SAS Institute, 1997, SAS/STAT software: Changes and enhancements through release 6.12
  6. West SG, 1991, Journal of Personality, 59, 611

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–101 of 101

Metadata

Authors
Orzech, K. M., Shapiro, S. L., Brown, K. W., & McKay, M.
Affiliations
  • Wright Institute (US)
  • Santa Clara University (US)
  • Virginia Commonwealth University (US)
Corresponding author
Brown, Kirk Warren
Venue
The Journal of Positive Psychology
Published
2009-05-01
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
212-222
ISSN
  • 1743-9760 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-9779
OpenAlex
W2118259764
Cited by
129
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
FWCI
9.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
The Journal of Positive Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
trait mindfulness, decentering, acceptance, experiential processing, resilience, subjective well-being, self-compassion, anxiety, psychological symptoms, community-dwelling adults

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