Evaluating a Mindfulness Induction for Coping with Social Exclusion in Emerging Adults who Engage in Non-Suicidal Self-Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research suggests that individuals who engage in non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) experience heightened sensitivity to social stressors such as exclusion. Mindfulness practice may buffer social stress among the general population, but whether it functions differently among those who engage in NSSI remains unclear. This experimental study sought to investigate the effects of a mindfulness induction relative to a control task as a buffer against social exclusion among emerging adults with and without a past-year history of NSSI, in terms of state stress and negative and positive affect, over time (baseline, reactivity, recovery). Participants included 172 emerging adults: 82 who reported past-year engagement in NSSI ( M age = 22.51, SD = 2.74; 78% women) and 90 who have never engaged in NSSI ( M age = 22.57, SD = 2.61; 80% women). All participants completed baseline measures of state stress and affect and were randomly assigned to either a mindfulness induction or active control task. Following completion of these activities, they underwent a social exclusion task (i.e., Cyberball), followed by reactivity measures of state stress and affect. Following a brief delay, participants finally completed recovery measures of state stress and affect. Three 3-way ANCOVAs (Time X Group X Condition) revealed no significant effects of the mindfulness induction on any outcomes at either follow-up time point ( p ’s > .05), although exploratory supplemental analyses revealed significant decreases in state stress and both positive and negative affect from baseline to reactivity ( p ’s < .001). Thus, while the mindfulness induction did not differ from a control task in terms of buffering stress and affect in response to social exclusion, participants did report a decrease on outcomes from baseline to post-social exclusion. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".