1 / 10

Beverley Clack Research Associate Dr Jen Unwin Dr Alistair Smith

Relationships between mindfulness, emotional distress and subjective wellbeing: are these underpinned by enhanced decentring and diminished recurrent negative thinking?. Beverley Clack Research Associate Dr Jen Unwin Dr Alistair Smith

latif
Download Presentation

Beverley Clack Research Associate Dr Jen Unwin Dr Alistair Smith

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Relationships between mindfulness, emotional distress and subjective wellbeing: are these underpinned by enhanced decentring and diminished recurrent negative thinking? • Beverley Clack • Research Associate • Dr Jen UnwinDr Alistair Smith • Consultant Clinical & Health Psychologist Clinical Psychologist

  2. Mindfulness Paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally (Kabat-Zinn, 1994)

  3. Mechanisms of Action • Models of mechanisms of action (Grabovac, Lau & Willett, 2011) • Overlap: Decentring and Recurrent negative thinking (RNT) • Empirical evidence • Subjective wellbeing • Positive and negative affect and hedonic treadmill

  4. Research Aims

  5. Method • Ethical approval • Online questionnaire (n = 539) • Questionnaire design • FFMQ, EQ, RRQ, PSWQ, DASS-21, PANAS (PA), SWLS • Analysis: Structural equation modelling - path analysis (maximum likelihood estimation)

  6. Results 1 • Means and Correlations reflecting previous research • Hypothesised model: Acceptable though not good fit to data: Χ2(5) = 21.48; p< 0.001; CFI = .99; SRMR = 0.02; and RMSEA = .08 (Confidence Intervals: .05 to .11; p > .05). • Built-up model: Χ2(4) = 7.09; p> .05; CFI = .99; SRMR = 0.01; and RMSEA = .04 (Confidence Intervals: .00 to .08; p = .61

  7. Results 2

  8. Implications: Research • Some support for models of mechanisms of action • Only study to examine decentring empirically (cf. Coffey & Hartman, 2008) • Only study to examine decentring and RNT simultaneously (Coffey & Hartman, 2008; rumination; Roemer & Orsillo, 2002; worry • Transdiagnostic mechanism of action • But decentring as important for mood • Subjective wellbeing • Mechanisms of action not formally explicated or examined but desire discrepancy via decentring and positive affect • Useful approach

  9. Limitations & Future Directions • Sampling • Self-report (positive wording and self-kindness) • SEM • Linearity – e.g. stress • Causality • Indirect effects - specific • Future design (facets, pre- post) & self-kindness

  10. Thank you for listeningb.clack@lancaster.ac.uk

More Related