Tri-process model of interpersonal mindfulness: theoretical framework and study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, over 14% of the US population practice mindfulness meditation. The effects of mindfulness training on physical and mental health have been consistently documented, but its effects on interpersonal relationships are not yet fully understood or investigated. Interpersonal relationships play a crucial role in the wellbeing of individuals and society, and therefore, warrants further study. The aim of this paper is to present a tri-process theoretical model of interpersonal mindfulness and a study protocol to validate the proposed model. Specifically, according to the proposed model, mindfulness meditation training increases the self-awareness, self-regulation, and prosociality of those receiving the training, which ameliorates the quality of interpersonal interactions and the socioemotional support provided to other individuals. Finally, better socioemotional support increases the support receiver's ability to regulate their emotions. Using a multiphasic longitudinal design involving 640 participants randomized into 480 dyads, the proposed protocol aims to validate the tri-process model and to investigate its mechanisms of actions. The proposed study has important theoretical and social implications and will allow devising new and more effective interpersonal mindfulness programs with applications in multiple fields.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".