Cited by 15

Dose–response effects of reported meditation practice on mental‐health and wellbeing: A prospective longitudinal study

Bowles, Nicholas I., Van Dam, Nicholas T.·2025·Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being

Abstract

The popularity of meditation has surged in recent years, driven by the accessibility of digital platforms. In this context, shorter sessions have become common, often accompanied by claims of substantial benefits. The vast differences in practice intensity—from traditional monastic training and residential retreats to multi‐week Mindfulness‐Based Programs and infrequent digital home practice—raise the question of how much practice is necessary to see meaningful benefits. Our previous analysis of lifetime practice history suggested that 160 hours were required for clinically meaningful improvements in psychological distress and life satisfaction, with more needed for stable changes in affect. However, those findings could not address the effects of newly undertaken practice, the best ways to accumulate experience, or how these effects vary by practice history. This study fills these gaps by examining dose–response relationships in a diverse sample of meditators engaging in self‐directed practice in ecologically valid settings, while testing the moderating effects of practice history, personality traits, and meditation goals. One thousand fifty‐three participants provided data across nine surveys over a two‐month period of prospectively monitored, self‐directed meditation practice, followed by a 2‐ to 4‐year follow‐up. Using a longitudinal design, we examined associations between meditation practice dose and outcomes including positive and negative affect, psychological distress, and life satisfaction. Meditation practice dose was significantly associated with improvements in well‐being, affect, and distress, with practice frequency being a stronger predictor of beneficial outcomes than session duration. During the 2‐month prospective period, after controlling for prior lifetime practice, 35 to 65 minutes daily practice was required for meaningful improvements in well‐being, and 50 to 80 minutes daily was needed for meaningful improvements in mental health outcomes. Dose–response effects were moderated by lifetime practice experience across all outcomes, while negative emotionality moderated the relationship for mental health‐related outcomes. Additionally, valuing mental health as a practice goal moderated dose–response effects for mental health outcomes, and cumulative practice from baseline to follow‐up predicted increased valuation of spiritual growth as a practice goal. Our findings indicate that practitioners with varied practice histories, personality traits, and practice goals/motivations benefit from meditation on outcomes measuring mental health and well‐being, with such benefits maintained over a 2–4 year follow‐up period.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/aphw.70063

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289– 300. 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cheung, F., & Lucas, R. E. (2014). Assessing the validity of single‐item life satisfaction measures: Results from three large samples. Quality of Life Research, 23(10), 2809– 2818. 10.1007/s11136-014-0726-4 24890827 PMC4221492 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Crane, R. S., Brewer, J., Feldman, C., Kabat‐Zinn, J., Santorelli, S., Williams, J. M. G., & Kuyken, W. (2017). What defines mindfulness‐based programs? The warp and the weft. Psychological Medicine, 47(6), 990– 999. 10.1017/s0033291716003317 28031068 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Davies, J. N., Faschinger, A., Galante, J., & Van Dam, N. T. (2024). Prevalence and 20‐year trends in meditation, yoga, guided imagery and progressive relaxation use among US adults from 2002 to 2022. Scientific Reports, 14(1). 10.1038/s41598-024-64562-y PMC11217305 38951149 · DOI
  5. Diener, E., Emmons, R., Larsen, R., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), 71– 75. 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 16367493 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Diener, E., Wirtz, D., Biswas‐Diener, R., Tov, W., Kim‐Prieto, C., Choi, D., & Oishi, S. (2009). New measures of well‐being. In Diener, Ed (ed.), Assessing well‐being: The collected works of Ed Diener (pp. 247–266). Springer Science + Business Media. 10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12 · DOI
  7. Erekson, D. M., Lambert, M. J., & Eggett, D. L. (2015). The relationship between session frequency and psychotherapy outcome in a naturalistic setting. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(6), 1097– 1107. 10.1037/a0039774 26436645 · DOI
  8. Fincham, G. W., Mavor, K., & Dritschel, B. (2023). Effects of mindfulness meditation duration and type on well‐being: An online dose‐ranging randomized controlled trial. Mindfulness, 14(5), 1171– 1182. 10.1007/s12671-023-02119-2 37304656 PMC10090715 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Fredrickson, B. L., Boulton, A. J., Firestine, A. M., Van Cappellen, P., Algoe, S. B., Brantley, M. M., Kim, S. L., Brantley, J., & Salzberg, S. (2017). Positive emotion correlates of meditation practice: A comparison of mindfulness meditation and loving‐kindness meditation. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1623– 1633. 10.1007/s12671-017-0735-9 29201247 PMC5704778 · DOI
  10. Galante, J., Grabovac, A., Wright, M., Ingram, D. M., Van Dam, N. T., Sanguinetti, J. L., Sparby, T., van Lutterveld, R., & Sacchet, M. D. (2023). A framework for the empirical investigation of mindfulness meditative development. Mindfulness, 14(5), 1054– 1067. 10.1007/s12671-023-02113-8 · DOI
  11. Gethin, R. (1998). The foundations of Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
  12. Gleig, A. (2019). American dharma: Buddhism beyond modernity. Yale University Press.
  13. Kessler, R. C., Barker, P. R., Colpe, L. J., Epstein, J. F., Gfroerer, J. C., Hiripi, E., Howes, M. J., Normand, S.‐L. T., Manderscheid, R. W., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2003). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(2), 184– 189. 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184 12578436 · DOI · Paper page
  14. King, B. G., Conklin, Q. A., Zanesco, A. P., & Saron, C. D. (2019). Residential meditation retreats: Their role in contemplative practice and significance for psychological research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 28, 238– 244. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.021 30878004 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Nagata, J. M., Ganson, K. T., Bonin, S. L., Twadell, K. L., Garcia, M. E., Langrock, O., Vittinghoff, E., Tsai, A. C., Weiser, S. D., & Abdel Magid, H. S. (2022). Prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of unmet need for mental health counseling among adults during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Psychiatric Services, 73(2), 206– 209. 10.1176/appi.ps.202100111 34189929 PMC8716612 · DOI
  16. Palmer, R., Roos, C., Vafaie, N., & Kober, H. (2023). The effect of ten versus twenty minutes of mindfulness meditation on state mindfulness and affect. Scientific Reports, 13(1). 10.1038/s41598-023-46578-y PMC10673854 38001316 · DOI
  17. Riordan, K. M., Simonsson, O., Frye, C., Vack, N. J., Sachs, J., Fitch, D., Goldman, R. I., Chiang, E. S., Dahl, C. J., Davidson, R. J., & Goldberg, S. B. (2024). How often should I meditate? A randomized trial examining the role of meditation frequency when total amount of meditation is held constant. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 71(2), 104– 114. 10.1037/cou0000725 38376930 PMC10883600 · DOI
  18. Schultchen, D., Terhorst, Y., Holderied, T., Stach, M., Messner, E.‐M., Baumeister, H., & Sander, L. B. (2021). Stay present with your phone: A systematic review and standardized rating of mindfulness apps in European app stores. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 28(5), 552– 560. 10.1007/s12529-020-09944-y 33215348 PMC8384800 · DOI
  19. Sedlmeier, P., & Theumer, J. (2020). Why do people begin to meditate and why do they continue? Mindfulness, 11(6), 1527– 1545. 10.1007/s12671-020-01367-w · DOI
  20. Shapiro, D. H. (1992). A preliminary study of long term meditators: Goals, effects, religious orientation, cognitions. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 24(1), 23– 39.
  21. Smith, C. D., & Scarf, D. (2017). Spacing repetitions over long timescales: A review and a reconsolidation explanation. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00962 PMC5476736 28676769 · DOI
  22. Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2017b). The next big five inventory (BFI‐2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(1), 117– 143. 10.1037/pspp0000096 27055049 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowles, N. I., & Van Dam, N. T.
Affiliations
Contemplative Studies Centre, Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences University of Melbourne Australia
Venue
Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2025-08
Volume
17
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1758-0846
  • 1758-0854
Cited by
15
References
24
Language
en
Funders
University of Melbourne

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