The Effects of Mindful Coloring on State Mindfulness, Anxiety, and Stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult coloring books have recently surged in popularity, with five of Amazon's top fifteen bestsellers being adult coloring books at the end of 2015 (Ingram, 2015).Using intricate patterns, geometric shapes, and abstract designs, adult coloring books are sold not only as creative and artistic outlets, but are marketed as a "mindful exercise" and a way to eliminate stress and decrease anxiety (Farrarons, 2015).Despite their current popularity, knowledge regarding the purported benefits of adult coloring books largely stems from personal accounts and little is known regarding the efficacy of coloring as a "mindfulness exercise."Literature points to the use of structured coloring, opposed to free coloring, as being beneficial in reducing anxiety and increasing psychological health and well-being (Curry & Kasser, 2005).The present study evaluated the effects of coloring activities (structured and unstructured) versus a mind wandering control task on state mindfulness, state anxiety, and stress levels in a randomized controlled study.It was hypothesized that structured coloring, as opposed to unstructured coloring or mind wandering, would demonstrate a significantly greater increase in state mindfulness and a significantly greater decrease in both state anxiety and stress levels.Contrary to v
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".