The relationship between mindfulness, wisdom, and emotion dysregulation: a cross sectional survey study in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Emotional dysregulation (ED), a hallmark of psychiatric disorders, is characterised by an impaired ability to regulate unpleasant emotions. Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) reduce symptoms of mental health conditions with presence of ED. This has encouraged empirical research on mindfulness within the context of emotional difficulties. Mindfulness is defined as awareness cultivated through non-judgemental attention to the present moment. Wisdom is defined as the application of meta-cognitive capacities for navigating complex social and ethical life matters. While wisdom is conceptually linked to mindfulness, the relationship between these constructs and their connection to emotion regulation (ER) remains understudied. To fill this gap, this study investigated the relationship between wisdom and mindfulness, and compared mindfulness and wisdom among healthy adults with high and low ED. This cross-sectional study, involving 132 healthy adults (103 female), employed valid and reliable self-reported measures. Results indicated a large positive correlation between wisdom and mindfulness, with factor analysis supporting a single underlying factor. Healthy adults with lower levels of ED showed higher levels of mindfulness and wisdom compared to those with high ED. These findings support a positive association between wisdom, mindfulness, and decreased ED, calling into question the existing theoretical differences between wisdom and mindfulness, which suggest they would not converge into the same empirical concept. Future studies should explore the role of mindfulness in wisdom and its potential as an antidote to ED.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".