Coping with the crisis: A mindfulness manipulation positively affects the emotional regulation of action crises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action crises are the intrapsychic conflicts people face when hesitating between continuing and giving up on a goal after the accumulation of setbacks. They are detrimental to goal achievement and psychological health. While many predictors of action crises have been identified, including dispositional mindfulness, almost none have been investigated in terms of their helpfulness during an action crisis. This experimental laboratory study tested whether a 15-minute mindfulness meditation influenced the emotional regulation of imagined action crises. Participants (N = 121, 105 students, 44 men, M = 28.26 years) were randomly assigned to meditate with a body scan meditation recording or to read magazines after identifying their most important current personal goal. Those in the body scan condition reported more adaptive emotion regulation strategies after reading an action crisis scenario personalized with their goal than those in the control, magazine-reading, condition. This effect was found even when controlling for baseline action crisis and baseline autonomous and controlled motivation. No difference between the groups was found in terms of maladaptive emotion regulation. Results suggest that mindfulness training is a promising tool to help people cope with goal-related difficulties such as action crises.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".