The effects of computer-based mindfulness training on Self-control and Mindfulness within Ambulatorily assessed network Systems across Health-related domains in a healthy student population (SMASH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

The Costs and Benefits of Mindfulness and Reappraisal in Daily Life

Reappraisal and mindfulness represent two fundamentally different but interconnected ways of dealing with one's emotions: whereas reappraisal is aimed at changing one's thoughts and emotions, mindfulness is aimed at not immediately changing, but appreciating them. Despite this difference, prior research has shown that both are beneficial for one's affective well-being. However, research on the spontaneous use of reappraisal and mindfulness in daily life found that they might be differentially associated with positive and negative affect, with reappraisal and mindful attention being more strongly associated with increased positive affect and mindful acceptance with decreased negative affect. Moreover, the spontaneous use of reappraisal may be less effective than mindfulness in daily life given that it is more cognitively taxing. To compare these possibly different benefits (i.e., change in positive and negative affect) and costs (i.e., feeling depleted), we re-analyzed two experience sampling studies (N = 125 and N = 179). Regarding benefits, endorsing reappraisal and mindful attention was significantly associated with increases in positive affect, whereas endorsing mindful acceptance was significantly associated with decreases in negative affect. Regarding costs, we found that endorsing reappraisal led to more depletion and that reappraisal was selected less often than mindfulness in daily life. Our results demonstrate the importance of assessing not only the different benefits but also the costs of emotion regulation in daily life.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s42761-022-00178-7.

Person × domain interactions in resisting desires in daily life

Self-control has predominantly been characterized as a domain-general individual difference, assuming that highly self-controlled individuals are generally, that is, irrespective of domain, better at resisting their desires. However, qualitative differences in the domains in which these desires emerge and how individuals interact with these domains have rarely been examined. We re-analyzed three experience sampling datasets ( N participants = 431, N observations = 15,962) and found that person × domain interactions predicted significant additional variance in momentary self-control above and beyond person differences, ranging from additional 6.2% of variance in desire strength to 17.0% of variance in conflict strength. Moreover, person × domain interactions in resistance strength predicted significantly more variance in resistance success than person or domain differences. Nevertheless, the number of individual resistance profiles was too diverse to be meaningfully reduced to a core set of latent resistance profiles. Thus, our results demonstrate the importance of considering person × domain interactions in future investigations of self-control and show that there is great diversity in how and how successfully different people interact with their self-control conflicts in different domains.

Variability in negative affect is an important feature of neuroticism above mean negative affect once measurement issues are accounted for

Neuroticism is an important predictor of well-being that is conceptualized by high levels of mean negative affect and negative affect variability. However, research has shown that negative affect variability only explained limited additional variance in neuroticism when the confound with mean negative affect was accounted for using a modified version of the standard deviation ( SD), the relative standard deviation ( RSD). Here, we (a) examined the suitability of the RSD as a variability measure, (b) introduced the number of negative affect episodes as an alternative measure of negative affect variability, and (c) investigated the relationship between neuroticism and negative affect variability, accounting for measurement error. Re-analyzing three experience sampling datasets ( N = 430 participants), we found several issues with the RSD, which limits its use as a negative affect variability measure, and which were not found for the number of negative affect episodes measure. Moreover, only the SD and the number of negative affect episodes explained substantial variance in neuroticism above mean negative affect. Thus, neuroticism was associated with experiencing negative affect more strongly and more often in daily life, when measurement error was accounted for, which demonstrates the importance to model reliability and to correct accordingly.

How mindfulness shapes the situational use of emotion regulation strategies in daily life

Mindfulness is associated with a wide range of beneficial outcomes such as well-being. However, less is known about the mechanisms underlying these benefits. Some researchers suggest that the benefits could be driven by emotion regulation, either by improving the effectiveness of emotion regulation or by lessening the need for effortful emotion regulation. By using two longitudinal Ambulatory Assessment data sets (N_Study1  = 125, N_Study2  = 175), based on a six-week randomised controlled trial and a one-week study, we tested these competing notions in daily life and found support for the latter: Mindfulness, and especially its non-judgmental acceptance facet, was significantly associated with less use of emotion regulation strategies. However, mindfulness was not significantly associated with more effective emotion regulation strategy implementation. Moreover, the mindfulness training focusing on present-moment attention and awareness did not significantly influence emotion regulation. These findings demonstrate the importance of the non-judgmental acceptance component for emotion regulation and affective well-being.

Setbacks in Self-Control: Failing Not Mere Resisting Impairs Subsequent Self-Control

Research on ego depletion has often relied on the dual-task setting employing short tasks with low ecological validity. The comparatively few studies on ego depletion in daily life so far used diverging operationalization and yielded ambiguous results. We argue that fundamental research on short-term self-control limitations can benefit from research on the limit violation effect, which highlights the danger to self-control when setbacks are attributed to internal causes. To test the role of setbacks and compare different ego depletion operationalizations in daily life, we used data from two ambulatory assessment studies ( N = 125 and 205). No consistent ego depletion effects were observed in Study 1; instead, momentary self-control success was only impaired after setbacks (prior self-control efforts failed). The role of prior setbacks was replicated in Study 2, highlighting the importance of setbacks in subsequent self-control efforts beyond mere resisting, which should be incorporated in interventions targeting self-control improvements.