A randomized trial on differential changes in thought and affect after mindfulness versus dyadic practice indicates phenomenological fingerprints of app-based interventions

2Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Contemplative practice has demonstrated benefits for mental health and well-being. Most previous studies, however, implemented in-person trainings containing a mix of different, mostly solitary, practices and focused on pre- to post-training outcomes. In this randomized trial, we explore the immediate differential efficacy of two daily app-delivered practices in shifting emotional (valence, arousal) and thinking patterns (thought content on future-past, self-other, positive–negative dimensions). For 10 weeks of daily training, 212 participants (18–65 years) performed either a novel 12-min partner-based socio-emotional practice (Affect Dyad) or a 12-min attention-focused solitary mindfulness-based practice. Using ordinal Bayesian multilevel modeling, we found that both practice types led to more positive affect and higher arousal. However, whereas mindfulness-based practice partly led to a decrease in active thoughts, particularly in future-, other-related and negative thoughts, the Dyad in contrast led to increases in other-related, and positive thoughts. This shift towards more social and positive thoughts may specifically support overcoming ruminative thinking patterns associated with self-related and negative thought content. Overall, these differential findings may help inform the adaptation of scalable app-based mental trainings in different segments of the population with the goal to improve mental health and well-being.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Petzold, P., Silveira, S., Godara, M., Matthaeus, H., & Singer, T. (2023). A randomized trial on differential changes in thought and affect after mindfulness versus dyadic practice indicates phenomenological fingerprints of app-based interventions. Scientific Reports, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-40636-1

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free