Mindfulness and mentalization: comparative study of their unique and overlapping effects on psychological and interpersonal functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Mindfulness and mentalization are distinct yet related psychological processes. • Both competencies predict lower psychological distress. • Both competencies predict higher life satisfaction and quality of interpersonal relationships. • Other-related mentalization predicts higher quality of interpersonal relationships. • Self- and other- related mentalization predict higher life satisfaction. Mindfulness and mentalization are two psychological processes central to the regulation of emotions. Despite their shared prominence in evidence-based practices, few studies have directly examined their unique and complementary contributions to psychological and interpersonal functioning. In this study, 271 participants from the general population ( M = 31.47, SD = 12.16) completed an online questionnaire, and their data were analyzed using hierarchical multiple linear regression models. As hypothesized, mindfulness and mentalization emerged as conceptually distinct yet related psychological processes, each independently associated with lower psychological distress, greater life satisfaction and higher quality of interpersonal relationships. When considering the facets of mentalization (i.e., self-related mentalization, other-related mentalization and motivation to mentalize), self-related mentalization predicted reduced psychological distress, whereas other-related mentalization predicted greater life satisfaction and quality of interpersonal relationships. Mindfulness accounted for a comparable portion of the variance in interpersonal functioning as mentalization, suggesting that mindful awareness may serve as a foundation for reflective processes that enable understanding of self and others. These findings highlight the roles of mindfulness and mentalization in promoting both psychological and interpersonal functioning. Implications, limitations and directions for future research 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".