The Effectiveness of a Mindfulness Induction as a Buffer Against Stress Among University Students With and Without a History of Self-Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stressful experiences are abundant in university and students with a history of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) may be hyper-reactive to stress. While brief mindfulness inductions have been proposed as a buffer against acute stress, whether they function differently in students with a history of NSSI remains in question. This study sought to explore the impact of an online mindfulness induction on (a) two facets of state mindfulness (i.e., mind and body) and (b) state stress, following a stress induction task, in university students with versus without a history of NSSI. Participants were Canadian university students with ( n = 82; M age = 21.30 years, SD = 2.92; 87.8% female) and without ( n = 82; M age = 21.71 years, SD = 3.18; 87.8% female) a history of NSSI, matched on gender, age, and faculty, who completed baseline (T1) measures of state stress and state mindfulness. Participants were randomly assigned to complete a mindfulness induction or an active control task. All participants then underwent a stress induction, and again completed measures of state stress and state mindfulness (T2). Results from three-way mixed ANOVAs revealed that state stress increased from T1 to T2 for all participants, regardless of group or condition. Among those assigned to the control condition, state mindfulness of the body was lower at T2 for participants with a history of NSSI compared to those without such a history. However, participants with a history of NSSI who completed the mindfulness induction reported greater state mindfulness of the body at T2 than students with a history of NSSI who completed an active control task. Findings highlight the unique response of university students with a history of NSSI to a brief mindfulness induction. Implications are discussed in the context of future research and clinical applications.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".