Emotion Regulation Versus Emotion Care as a Mechanism of Mindfulness in Predicting Well-Being

Researchers predominantly understand mindfulness in terms of cognitivist or top-down models. However, the applicability of emotion-regulation strategies from such models in mindfulness is questionable. The aim of the current study was to determine whether emotion-regulation strategies (distraction, suppression, and cognitive reappraisal) or alternative emotion-care strategies (anchoring, acceptance, and decentering) were mechanisms that explained the effects of mindfulness on well-being.

A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 283 educators assigned to two groups (8-week mindfulness training vs. waitlist control). At three time points, T0 (baseline), T1 (post-intervention), and T2 (2-month follow-up), they completed questionnaires that measured their levels of mindfulness, well-being (i.e., general health, stress, positive and negative affect, life satisfaction), and frequency in using strategies of emotion regulation and emotion care.

Participants in the mindfulness training group reported higher levels of mindfulness and well-being. They also reported more frequent use of all three emotion-care strategies but only one emotion-regulation strategy (cognitive reappraisal) than their counterparts in the control group at T1 and T2. Mediation analyses indicated that none of the three emotion-regulation strategies mediated the effects of mindfulness training on well-being. Instead, anchoring and decentering were significant mediators (p < 0.05) while acceptance was a near significant mediator (p < 0.06).

Emotion-care strategies instead of emotion-regulation strategies were found to be a mechanism that explained the effectiveness of mindfulness. The results offer evidence for an alternative to cognitivist or top-down models in understanding the mechanisms of mindfulness.