Valuing happiness predicts higher well-being: The moderating role of acceptance

Self-disclosure, mindfulness, and their relationships with happiness and well-being

Background

This study aims to test how self-disclosure relates to mindfulness, whether self-disclosure or mindfulness best predicts happiness and well-being, and whether there are significant differences between happiness and well-being levels due to self-disclosure and mindfulness. Data from a public sample was collected using e-mails and social media platforms (N = 486).

Results

The findings demonstrated a weak relationship between mindfulness and self-disclosure (r = 0.16) and acting with awareness but a strong relationship between happiness, wellness, mindfulness, and its factors. The results revealed four values that predict the differentiation between happy and unhappy people, and these values are statistically significant, namely, mindfulness, description, acceptance without judgment, and self-disclosure, as well as four values that predict the distinction between being well and unwell, namely mindfulness, observation, description, and self-disclosure. Additionally, results showed significant differences in the means of each of the mindfulness predictor variables in favor of happiness, wellness, and females. For the self-disclosure variable, the results showed differences in its means favoring females, happiness, and wellness. Finally, when controlling for gender and age, regression analyses found mindfulness to be an important predictor for happiness and well-being at 59% and 48% of the variance, respectively, while self-disclosure was a weak predictor at 12% and 15%, respectively.

Conclusions

In general, the results indicate that mindfulness is more effective and beneficial for living a happy and healthy life than self-disclosure

Do people who highly value happiness tend to ruminate?

Previous studies have suggested that an extremely strong desire for happiness might ironically reduce a person's well-being, particularly among Western people. According to the goal progress theory and the theory of valuing happiness, rumination might explain the relationship between valuing happiness and well-being. Based on these theoretical rationales, this study examined the following hypotheses: (1) valuing happiness is significantly associated with rumination, (2) people who experience low life stress have a stronger association between valuing happiness and rumination, and (3) people with more interdependent self-construal have a weaker association between valuing happiness and rumination. University students in Japan participated in a cross-sectional study (N = 350; Study 1) and a 4-weeks longitudinal study (N = 329; Study 2). They responded to a packet of questionnaires assessing valuing happiness, trait rumination, depressive symptoms, negative events, and interdependent self-construal. Consistent with our hypothesis, valuing happiness was concurrently and longitudinally associated with increased rumination after controlling for depressive symptoms. However, negative events did not moderate the association between valuing happiness and rumination. Furthermore, Study 1, but not Study 2, indicated that the association between valuing happiness and rumination was stronger among students with highly interdependent self-construal than those with less interdependent self-construal. The preset findings indicated that valuing happiness might be a factor that perpetuates rumination. More sophisticated evidence on the influence of valuing happiness on rumination can lead to effective psychotherapies for decreasing rumination and depression.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-022-04131-6.

Effects of Mobile Mindfulness Meditation on the Mental Health of University Students: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mobile mindfulness meditation (MMM) is a mindfulness meditation intervention implemented using mobile devices such as smartphones and apps. MMM has been used to help manage the mental health of university students.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of MMM on the mental health of university students in the areas of stress, anxiety, depression, mindfulness, well-being, and resilience.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of MMM on the mental health of university students. This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. An electronic literature search was performed on PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases, from inception to July 16, 2021. This study was conducted to identify studies that reported the effects of MMM on the primary outcomes including stress, anxiety, and depression, and on the secondary outcomes including mindfulness, well-being, and resilience. Two reviewers retrieved articles, evaluated quality, and extracted data independently. The methodological quality of the selected studies was determined using the Cochrane criteria for risk-of-bias assessment. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes were calculated. Sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were performed for results with high heterogeneity. The RevMan version 5.3 was used to perform meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies, including 958 university students, were selected for this meta-analysis. Results of the primary outcome showed that the MMM groups were more effective than the control groups in decreasing stress (SMD -0.41, 95% CI -0.59 to -0.23; P<.001) and alleviating anxiety (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; P=.004). However, there was no difference between the MMM groups and the control groups in depression (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.03; P=.11). The use of either waitlist control or traditional face-to-face intervention in the control group was identified as the source of heterogeneity. Specifically, the waitlist control subgroup (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.53 to -0.13; P=.002) was superior when compared with the face-to-face subgroup (SMD 0.29, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.59; P=.06). Results of the secondary outcome showed that the MMM groups were more effective than the control groups in enhancing well-being (SMD 0.30, 95% CI 0.11-0.50; P=.003) and improving mindfulness (SMD 2.66, 95% CI 0.77-4.55; P=.006). Whether commercial sponsorship was obtained was considered as the source of heterogeneity. The "without company support" group (SMD 17.60, 95% CI 11.32-23.87; P<.001) was superior to the "with company support" group (SMD 1.17, 95% CI -0.82 to 3.15; P=.25) in raising the level of mindfulness. However, there was no difference between the MMM and control groups in resilience (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.15; P=.59). The evidence level of the results from the 10 studies was determined to be moderate to low.

CONCLUSIONS

MMM was an effective method to reduce stress and anxiety, and to increase the well-being and mindfulness of university students. However, further studies are needed to confirm our findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42022303585; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=303585.