Emotion regulation versus emotion care as a mechanism of mindfulness in predicting well-being

Abstract

<h3>Objectives</h3><p>Researchers predominantly understand mindfulness in terms of cognitivist or top-down models. However, the applicability of emotion-regulation strategies from such models in mindfulness is questionable. The aim of the current study was to determine whether emotion-regulation strategies (distraction, suppression, and cognitive reappraisal) or alternative emotion-care strategies (anchoring, acceptance, and decentering) were mechanisms that explained the effects of mindfulness on well-being.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 283 educators assigned to two groups (8-week mindfulness training vs. waitlist control). At three time points, T0 (baseline), T1 (post-intervention), and T2 (2-month follow-up), they completed questionnaires that measured their levels of mindfulness, well-being (i.e., general health, stress, positive and negative affect, life satisfaction), and frequency in using strategies of emotion regulation and emotion care.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Participants in the mindfulness training group reported higher levels of mindfulness and well-being. They also reported more frequent use of all three emotion-care strategies but only one emotion-regulation strategy (cognitive reappraisal) than their counterparts in the control group at T1 and T2. Mediation analyses indicated that none of the three emotion-regulation strategies mediated the effects of mindfulness training on well-being. Instead, anchoring and decentering were significant mediators (<em>p</em> < 0.05) while acceptance was a near significant mediator (<em>p</em> < 0.06).</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Emotion-care strategies instead of emotion-regulation strategies were found to be a mechanism that explained the effectiveness of mindfulness. The results offer evidence for an alternative to cognitivist or top-down models in understanding the mechanisms of mindfulness.</p>