PreprintCited by 220Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Mindfulness, acceptance, and emotion regulation: Perspectives from Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT)

Open access
Lindsay, Emily K, Creswell, J. David·2019·Current Opinion in Psychology

Preprint — published as 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.004 · Paper page

Abstract

Experiential acceptance—an orientation of receptivity and noninterference with present-moment experiences—is described as central to mindfulness interventions, yet little experimental work has tested acceptance as a mechanism for mindfulness intervention effects. Guided by Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT), this review situates acceptance as an emotion regulation mechanism and reviews self-report mindfulness literature showing that attention monitoring skills are only associated with beneficial mental and physical health outcomes when accompanied by acceptance skills. New experimental dismantling work shows that removing acceptance training from mindfulness interventions reduces their efficacy for improving stress, positive emotion, and social relationship outcomes. Overall, converging evidence demonstrates that acceptance is a critical emotion regulation mechanism of mindfulness interventions. This work advances basic research, has translational value, and offers opportunities for future research.

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 · 10.31231/osf.io/xtrgb

Cites

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

Self-check

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

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

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 65 · Cited by 220

Authors
Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
Lindsay, Emily K
Venue
Current Opinion in Psychology
Published
2019-10-05
Volume
28
Pages
120-125
ISSN
2352-250X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2912349592
Cited by
220
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • MindRxiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MindRxiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (F32AT009508, R21AT008493, R01AT008685)
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 › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
mindfulness, acceptance, emotion regulation, attention monitoring, mindfulness-based interventions, stress, positive emotions, interpersonal relationships
MeSH terms
Emotional Regulation, Humans, Psychological Theory, 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