The current study examined the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and fading affect bias, where the affect associated with negative events fades more quickly and fully than affect associated with positive events. Although much of the previous work has focused on conditions that hinder fading affect bias (e.g., depression, anxiety), few studies have examined individual difference variables that could enhance the asymmetric fading of positive and negative affect associated with autobiographical events.
Methods
Participants (n = 241) recalled and described positive and negative life events and rated the initial and current emotional intensity of those events. Events were also rated on importance, memorability, and how often they had been thought about. Participants also completed the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) to assess dispositional mindfulness.
Results
Fading affect bias emerged in the study and the strength of the effect was predicted by dispositional mindfulness. The relationship was driven by the observing and describing subscales of the FFMQ. The data fit a model where increased thinking about positive events, but not negative events, mediated the relationship between the observing subscale and fading affect bias.
Conclusions
The findings suggest that an ability to be centred in the present moment—as measured by dispositional mindfulness—enhances one’s capacity to move on from past events. Specifically, the ability to both observe and describe internal states and the external world enhances the beneficial asymmetric fade of affect associated with negative and positive life events.
Preregistration
This study is not preregistered.
Opmerkingen
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Events from the past can affect one’s judgements and feelings about the present. Our autobiographical memories are associated with the emotions that were aroused when the event itself occurred; however, ample evidence suggests that those emotions do fade over time. The fading affect bias is a highly reliable finding that demonstrates that negative and positive emotions associated with autobiographical events fade asymmetrically over time. Specifically, affect associated with negative events fades more quickly and more fully than affect associated with positive events (Walker et al., 1997). Fading affect bias is thought to be an emotion regulation mechanism that helps to maintain a generally optimistic outlook on life (Walker & Skowronski, 2009; Walker et al., 2003b). This asymmetric fading of affect is thought to help prepare for new experiences without forgetting the lessons learned from past events (Ritchie et al., 2015; Skowronski et al., 2014). Support for this well-being function has generally relied on evidence showing that fading affect is disrupted by higher levels of depression or anxiety (e.g., Marsh et al., 2019; Skowronski et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2003a). There is, however, a paucity of empirical evidence linking fading affect bias to healthy psychological characteristics. This means that the predominant approach to understanding fading affect bias comes largely from a deficit rather than a resilience focus. As such, few studies have been able to provide a sound basis for enhancing the effect. The current study takes a psychological resilience perspective by examining the impact of dispositional mindfulness on the occurrence of fading affect bias.
As noted above, fading affect bias represents an asymmetric fading of affect such that negative affect fades more quickly and more fully than positive affect (Walker et al., 1997). This asymmetric fading can be demonstrated as quickly as 12 h post-event (Gibbons et al., 2011) and upward of 4.5 years (Walker et al., 1997). The phenomenon has been demonstrated via multiple methodologies using experimental (Landau & Gunter, 2009), daily diary (Ritchie & Skowronski, 2008; Ritchie et al., 2009) or cross-sectional retrospective designs (Gibbons & Lee, 2019). Fading affect bias is also present in both child and adult populations (Gibbons & Rollins, 2021; Marsh & Crawford, 2023; Rollins et al., 2018), and across multiple national samples from both individualistic and collectivist countries (Bond et al., 2016, 2022; Ritchie et al., 2015). Finally, fading affect bias is also found when using cued recall to specific memories (Schrauf & Hoffman, 2007), and across different affective perceptions of the same flashbulb memories (Bohn & Berntsen, 2007).
It has been suggested that the differential fade of positive and negative affects associated with memories reflects an emotion regulation mechanism that results in the maintenance of a positive self-view that enhances overall psychological well-being (Walker & Skowronski, 2009). Fading affect bias fits well within the psychological immune system (Gilbert et al., 1998) as a mechanism that serves to remove affect (especially negative affect) to maintain a positively biased view of life (Colombo et al, 2020; Sedikides & Skowronski, 2020). However, the fading affect bias mechanisms may not be restricted merely to enhancing one’s perceptions of their past, as people may deliberately reduce or retain the affect associated with memories to navigate current experiences and perceptions of the future. In line with the Broaden and Build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson, 1998, 2001), reminiscing on positive events and avoiding rumination on negative events elicit positive emotions, generating adaptive behaviours such as exploration. Therefore, if one can diminish the emotional toll of negative events and savour positive memories (i.e., an enhanced fading affect bias), they are more likely to maintain a positive outlook and are likely better equipped to adapt to new experiences.
Supporting the view of fading affect bias as an emotion-regulation mechanism, the literature demonstrates that fading affect bias is negatively affected by factors related to impaired self- or emotion regulation. For example, researchers have demonstrated an attenuated effect due to depressive symptomology (Marsh et al., 2019), dysphoria (Walker et al., 2003a), anxiety (Walker et al., 2014), narcissism (Ritchie et al., 2014), alexithymia (Muir et al., 2017), and eating disorders (Ritchie et al., 2019). These studies demonstrate that unhealthy psychological characteristics related to self-regulatory processes disrupt fading affect bias. It is worth noting, however, that there are some findings that demonstrate enhancement (rather than attenuation) of fading affect bias. Fading affect bias has been shown to be positively related to GRIT (Walker et al., 2020) and interoceptive awareness (Muir et al., 2017) which supports the idea that some variables related to greater psychological health and resilience positively influence the phenomenon. Other work has demonstrated that participants with a present or a future-oriented perspective demonstrated an enhanced effect compared to participants with a past-oriented perspective (Brunson et al., 2009). This suggests that attending to the present or future may facilitate asymmetric affect fade, whereas being consistently attentive to the past may inhibit this pattern. Taken together, these findings suggest that a general focus on the present that involves bodily awareness should produce an enhanced fading affect bias.
Such bodily awareness and capacity to purposely pay, and maintain, attention to the present are fundamental to the conceptualization of mindfulness (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Research in psychology has often differentiated between state mindfulness and trait mindfulness. The former approach generally focuses on the impact of specific interventions (e.g., meditation, mindfulness training) on the immediate state of mindfulness of the practitioner (Garland et al., 2015; Mahmood et al., 2016). In the current paper, we adopt the trait approach in which dispositional mindfulness is conceptualized as an individual difference variable that represents one’s tendency towards being mindful in day-to-day life (Baer et al., 2006; Bishop et al., 2004; Karl & Fischer, 2022). That is, not only is mindfulness evident in practitioners of meditation and other practices, there is a measurable distribution of mindfulness in the general population of non-practitioners. Mindfulness as an individual difference, in this sense, reflects one’s standing on multiple dimensions related to mindfulness as a state (e.g., observing and describing internal states in a non-judgemental manner). Researchers postulate that dispositional mindfulness promotes well-being by helping individuals avoid being overcritical of events (Brown et al., 2007), facilitating self-regulated behaviour (Ryan & Deci, 2001), and generating a heightened sense of positive affect.
Researchers interested in dispositional mindfulness frequently take a correlational approach that examines the relationship between mindfulness and other variables (Carpenter et al., 2019; Tomlinson et al., 2018). For example, research using non-clinical samples has demonstrated negative relations between dispositional mindfulness and various psychopathological symptoms. Jimenez et al. (2010) found that the relationship between dispositional mindfulness was positively related to emotion, mood, and self-regulation processes and that these affect-regulation processes mediated the relationship between mindfulness and depressive symptomatology. Similarly, Marks et al. (2010) found that the relationship between life stressors and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and distress were attenuated by dispositional mindfulness and exacerbated by rumination (i.e., a past-focused orientation). Brown and Ryan (2003) found dispositional mindfulness to be positively associated with high positive affect, self-esteem, and autonomy, and inversely related to unpleasant affect and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Thus, it seems that dispositional mindfulness may allow people to engage in healthy self-regulation, moderating the processing of negative events, resulting in decreased adverse psychological outcomes.
Tomlinson et al. (2018) reviewed the literature linking dispositional mindfulness (DM) to psychological health, examining the results of 93 papers and identified three dominant themes. The first theme is that dispositional mindfulness is inversely related to psychopathological symptoms such as depression (Gilbert & Christopher, 2010; Raphiphatthana et al., 2016), anxiety (Pearson et al., 2015a; Tan & Martin, 2016), PTSD (Smith et al., 2011), and disordered eating (Lavender et al., 2009, 2011)—all factors that have been demonstrated to attenuate fading affect bias. The second theme involved the impact of dispositional mindfulness on cognitive processes related to psychological health. For example, people higher in DM are less likely to engage in ruminative thinking (Alleva et al., 2014; Petrocchi & Ottaviani, 2016) and other avoidant coping strategies linked to poorer psychological health (Kiken & Shook, 2012). Again, rumination has been demonstrated to adversely affect the fading affect bias (Marsh et al., 2019). The third theme focused on the relationship between DM and emotional factors. Specifically, DM predicts lower stress and emotional reactivity suggesting that dispositional mindfulness works by enhancing emotion regulation (Adams et al., 2015; Coffey & Hartman, 2008; Feldman et al., 2016). A key factor that emerged is the that the relationship between DM and emotional well-being is related to greater use of adaptive emotion regulation (Pearson et al., 2015b). Taken together, the three themes and the findings of the published research reviewed by Tomlinson et al. (2018) fit remarkably well with what is known about fading affect bias.
The current research is guided by the findings that dispositional mindfulness is negatively related to multiple variables that diminish fading affect bias (e.g., depression, anxiety, rumination, avoidant coping) and that mindfulness relies on its impact on effective emotion regulation. Based on these findings, we hypothesized that dispositional mindfulness should be positively related to this asymmetric affect fade. To that end, the current research examines the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and the strength of the fading affect bias. Participants in the current study completed a measure of dispositional mindfulness (FFMQ-24; Baer et al., 2006, 2008). They then recalled and described positive autobiographical events and negative autobiographical events. These recollected events were rated for emotional intensity at the time of the event (i.e., “how pleasant/unpleasant was the event at the time that it happened?”) and at the time of the recollection (i.e., “how pleasant/unpleasant is the event right now?”). It was expected that a significant fading affect bias would emerge such that greater affect fade would be demonstrated for negative events than for positive events (H1). Furthermore, we predicted that the strength of the fading affect bias would be positively related to mindfulness as measured by the FFMQ (H2). Specifically, based on the alexithymia findings of Muir et al. (2017), it was further expected that the FFMQ subscales of Observing (H3) and Describing (H4) would emerge as significant positive predictors of fading affect bias strength. If the current theorising is correct, the findings will provide further insight into the relationship between fading affect bias and characteristics associated with positive health outcomes, thus supporting the inference that fading affect bias is a psychological coping mechanism focused on reappraising autobiographical memories.
Method
Participants
A total of 248 individuals recruited through Prolific.co completed both sessions of the study. All participants were current residents of New Zealand or Australia and were paid a total of NZ$3.90 for their participation. The responses from seven participants (2.8%) were excluded due to either multiple failed attention checks (n = 6) or evidence of random responding (n = 1). A total of 241 participants were included in the final sample for analysis.
Of the retained participants, 50.21% (n = 121) identified as female, 48.55% (n = 117) identified as male, and 0.08% (n = 2) identified non-binary. Participant age ranged from 18 to 81 with a sample average age of 34.30 years (SD = 12.10 years).
Measures
FFMQ-24
There are a number of self-report measures of dispositional mindfulness that have been developed with a multidimensional conceptualization of mindfulness (Sauer et al., 2013). The most commonly used of these measures—the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)—comes from the work of Baer et al. (2006). The original scale identified, as the name indicates, five factors. The Observing factor represents one’s ability to be aware of both internal experiences (e.g., emotions, arousal, thoughts) and external stimuli. The Describing factor represents the ability of the individual to put these experiences into words. A third factor, Acting with Awareness, reflects one’s focus and demonstrating behaviour in accordance with one’s present experience. The final 2 factors represent the individual’s ability to avoid reacting strongly to transient emotional states (i.e., Non-Reactivity) and the avoidance of labelling thoughts or emotions as being either good or bad (i.e., Non-Judging). The FFMQ-24 was developed as a shorter version of the original FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006) and demonstrates good reliability and validity as an instrument. The FFMQ-24 consists of 24 items rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = never or very rarely true to 5 = very often or always true. Internal reliability values (McDonald’s omega) for the full scale were good (ω = 0.868) as were the reliability scores for the five subscales: Describing (ω = 0.861), Observing (ω = 0.822), Acting with Awareness (ω = 0.850), Non-reactivity (ω = 0.811), Non-judging (ω = 0.857).
Procedure
All the instructions and measures were presented via Qualtrics online survey software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) (Qualtrics (2005)). Participants completed the current study across two sessions. In the first session, participants’ level of mindfulness was assessed using the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire—Short Form (FFMQ-24; Bohlmeijer et al., 2011). Participants completed the FFMQ-24, demographic information, and several other questionnaires that were unrelated to the current study. On completion of these measures, participants were thanked for their participation and received payment (NZ$2.20). In total, 320 individuals completed this first session.
All participants who completed Session 1 were invited 1 week later to complete another study via the Prolific.co interface. Over 77% of the original sample (248/320) completed the second session. All materials were presented using Qualtrics online survey software (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) and participants completed the study at their own pace on their own devices (limited to devices with keyboards). Session 2 involved two sections: (a) Event recollection, and (b) Event rating.
Participants first completed the event recollection task in which they recalled three positive and three negative autobiographical events from the previous 12 months and described them in some detail. The order of positive and negative recording was counterbalanced across the study. Participants were encouraged to write as much as they wished with the recommendation of at least three sentences per memory. Participants could not advance from one memory to the next until a minimum of 100 characters had been recorded. After recording the events, participants completed the events rating task. Specifically, the previously described autobiographical events were presented to the participant in random order and each was rated on several dimensions: (a) How well can you remember the event? (1 = barely, to 7 = perfectly). (b) How important is the event? (1 = not at all, to 7 = most important event in my life). (c) How often have you thought about this event? (1 = never, to 7 = frequently). (d) How pleasant/unpleasant was the event at the time it happened? (− 3 = extremely unpleasant to + 3 = extremely pleasant). (e) How pleasant/unpleasant is the event right now? (− 3 = extremely unpleasant to + 3 = extremely pleasant). The first three questions are intended to measure degree of elaboration on specific memories whereas the latter two questions make up the items to calculate affect fade. After completing ratings for all six events, participants were thanked, debriefed, and received payment (NZ$1.70) for the session.
Data Analyses
Analyses were carried out using JAMOVI version 2.2.5.0. Responses to the FFMQ-24 were submitted to an exploratory factor analysis with an Oblimin rotation and the number of factors based on parallel analysis. In order to obtain a measure of affective intensity so that positive and negative events could be compared, a value of 4 was added to each rating on the original − 3 to + 3 scale of pleasantness. This produced a 7-point scale ranging from 1 to 7 with higher scores equating to greater affective intensity. These scores were then reversed for negative events so that, for example, a negative event originally rated as “ − 3” (extremely unpleasant) would have the same rated intensity (i.e., 7) as a positive event originally rated as “ + 3” (extremely pleasant). We used 2 × 2 repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test for the presence of fading affect bias.
Simple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and the strength of the fading affect bias. Fading affect bias was calculated for these analyses by subtracting Time 2 ratings of pleasantness (i.e., “how pleasant is the event currently?”) from Time 1 ratings of pleasantness (i.e., “how pleasant was the event when it happened?”) for positive events and the amount of fade for negative events separately. An overall Fading Affect Bias score was also calculated for each participant by subtracting the amount of positive fade from the amount of negative fade. Higher scores on this index represent greater fading of negative compared to positive affect.
The average ratings of event vividness, importance, and rehearsal (i.e., thinking about the event) for pleasant events were calculated per person. The 3 items showed acceptable reliability (ω = 0.76) and were combined into a single index of Positive Elaboration. The same analysis was conducted for the ratings of negative events. The 3 items again showed acceptable reliability (ω = 0.77) and were combined into a single index of Negative Elaboration. Finally, regression analysis using a the JAMOVI medmod bootstrap estimation method (1000 samples) was used to examine whether the data fit a mediational model including elaboration as a mediator in the mindfulness – fading affect bias relationship.
Results
FFMQ-24
The EFA revealed a 5-factor solution that corresponds to the 5 factors identified in the original paper. The 5-factor solution accounted for 55.3% of the variance (χ2(166) = 211, p = 0.01). Factor 1 (eigenvalue 5.72, 11.92% variance) included the 5 Non-judging items. Factor 2 (eigenvalue 2.18, 11.83% variance) included the 5 Describing items. Factor 3 (Eigenvalue 1.61, 11.65% variance) included the 5 Acting with Awareness items. Factor 4 (eigenvalue 1.07, 10.69% variance) included the 5 Non-reacting items. Factor 5 (eigenvalue 1.02, 9.20% variance) included the 4 Observing items. As noted in the “Measures” section above, all reliability scores for the subscales as well as the overall scale were good.
Correlations Amongst Measures
Correlations between measures can be seen in Table 1. As can be seen in the first column of the table, the size of the Fading Affect Bias correlated positively with overall FFMQ-24, the Describing and Observing subscales, and with Positive (but not Negative) Elaboration. None of the other FFMQ-24 subscale scores correlated with Fading Affect Bias. One other set of relationships is also of some importance—specifically, the relationships between the FFMQ and the initial intensity of positive and negative affect (i.e., the rated affect “at the time” of the event). As can be seen in the second column of the table, initial rated intensity of positive events was significantly related to the overall FFMQ score. Looking at the relation with subscales, rated intensity of positivity at the time of the event is positively related to the Acting with Awareness and Non-Reacting subscales. The intensity of negative affect at the time of negative events (column 3) was not correlated with either the FFMQ overall score or any of the individual sub-scales.
Table 1
Correlations between Fading Affect Bias, Mindfulness sub-factors, and event elaboration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1. Fading Affect Bias
–
2. Positive Intensity
− 0.43***
–
3. Negative Intensity
− 0.22***
− 0.14*
–
4. FFMQ-24 total
0.13*
0.14*
0.10
–
5. Non-Judging
0.08
− 0.01
0.09
0.69***
–
6. Describing
0.17**
0.08
− 0.03
0.59***
0.29***
–
7. Acting with Awareness
0.03
0.18**
0.12
0.75***
0.45***
-0.39***
–
8. Non-Reacting
0.01
0.14*
0.10
0.62***
0.26***
0.28***
0.31***
–
9. Observing
0.13*
0.04
0.01
0.40***
− 0.01
− 0.02
− 0.13*
0.08
–
10. Positive Elaboration
0.18**
0.18**
− 0.10
0.14*
− 0.06
0.07
0.12
0.03
0.27***
–
11. Negative Elaboration
0.03
0.07
− 0.29***
− 0.02
− 0.12
0.01
− 0.03
− 0.07
0.16*
0.47***
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001
Fading Affect Bias
To demonstrate evidence for fading affect bias, ratings of emotional intensity were submitted to a 2 (Valence: positive vs. negative) × 2 (Time: then vs. now) repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analysis revealed a significant main effect of Valence, F(1, 240) = 13.60, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.054 indicating that, overall, positive events (M = 5.90, SD = 0.70) were rated as more intense than negative (M = 5.69, SD = 0.70) events. The analysis also revealed a main effect for Time, F(1, 240) = 171.30, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.416. As expected, events were rated as less intense now (M = 5.55, SD = 0.60) than when they occurred (M = 6.05, SD = 0.61). These effects, however, were subsumed by a significant Valence × Time interaction, F(1, 240) = 84.50, p < 0.001, η2p = 0.260. Follow-up analyses examining Time differences between rated intensity at each level of Valence demonstrated that even though the decrease over time was significant for both, the amount of affect fade was greater for negative (Mthen = 6.12, SDthen = 0.75 vs. Mnow = 5.25, SDnow = 0.87; p < 0.001) than for positive (Mthen = 5.97, SDthen = 0.86 vs. Mnow = 5.84, SDnow = 0.79; p = 0.028) events. That is, a significant fading affect bias was demonstrated in this sample.
Mindfulness Predicts Fading Affect Bias
A simple linear regression showed that Mindfulness (i.e., total FFMQ-24 scale) significantly predicted strength of Fading Affect Bias, β = 0.13, t(239) = 2.04, p < 0.05, and explained a significant proportion of variance in fading affect bias, R2 = 0.02, F(1, 239) = 4.16, p < 0.05. In order to examine which aspects of mindfulness accounted for this effect, a standard multiple regression with each of the FFMQ-24 subscales (i.e., Non-Judging, Describing, Acting with Awareness, Non-Reacting, and Observing) as predictors of Fading Affect Bias was conducted. The model including all predictors accounted for 23.6% of the variance in fading affect bias scores and was significant, F(5, 235) = 2.78, p = 0.018. As can be seen in Table 2, both the Describing and Observing subscales of the FFMQ-24 were significant predictors of Fading Affect Bias. Additionally, both remained significant predictors when controlling for the other four subscales (final column of Table 2). The other three factors (i.e., Non-Judging, Acting with Awareness, Non-Reacting) did not account for significant variance in Fading Affect Bias.
Table 2
Multiple Regression with mindfulness sub-factors predicting Fading Affect Bias
95% CI for B
Β
LL
UL
B
p
R2a(b,c)
Non-Judging
0.07
− 0.22
0.07
− 0.09
0.305
0.004
Describing
0.20
0.06
0.34
0.37
0.005
0.032
Acting with Awareness
− 0.08
− 0.07
0.23
0.12
0.269
0.005
Non-Reacting
− 0.05
− 0.19
0.08
− 0.08
0.442
0.002
Observing
0.15
0.02
0.27
0.22
0.023
0.021
Because ratings of positive event intensity at the time of the event were related with both overall mindfulness scores and fading affect bias, we also ran semi-partial correlations to examine the relationship between fading affect bias and the significant subscales while controlling for positive event intensity. For both Describing and Observing subscales, the relationship was stronger when controlling for initial rated affect. Specifically, for the Observing subscale, the correlation increased from r(239) = 0.13, p = 0.048 to r(239) = 0.16, p = 0.014; for the Describing subscale, the correlation increased from r(239) = 0.17, p < 0.01, to r(239) = 0.23, p < 0.001. Thus, differences in rated intensity of positive events at the time of occurrence cannot explain the relationship between fading affect bias and the observing or describing subscales of the FFMQ.
Exploratory: Mediation Analyses
In order to explore the impact of event elaboration on the relationship between the Observing and Describing subscales and fading affect bias, exploratory mediation analyses were conducted. As negative elaboration had no relation to strength of fading affect bias, we focused on positive elaboration, which was related to Observing, but not Describing, scores on the FFMQ-24. The focus on positive elaboration here is driven by fading affect bias research that has examined the effects of savouring-type processes on affect fading bias (e.g., Ritchie et al., 2006).
Regression analysis using a the JAMOVI medmod bootstrap estimation method (1000 samples) was used to investigate the hypothesis that our data will fit a model suggesting that Positive Elaboration mediates the effect of Observing on Fading Affect Bias (Fig. 1). Results indicated that Observing was significantly related to Positive Elaboration, B = 0.85, SE = 0.19, 95%CI [0.47, 1.23], β = 0.27, p < 0.001, and that Positive Elaboration was significantly related to Fading Affect Bias, B = 0.08, SE = 0.03, 95%CI [0.02,0.14], β = 0.18, p = 0.017. These results indicate that these data fit the mediational model. Observing was no longer significantly related to Fading Affect Bias after controlling for Positive Elaboration, B = 0.12, SE = 0.09, 95%CI [− 0.06,0.29], β = 0.08, p = 0.169, consistent with full mediation. Approximately 34.6% of the variance in Fading Affect Bias was accounted for by the predictors. The indirect effect was testing using a percentile bootstrap estimation approach with 1000 samples, implemented with the medmod package for JAMOVI. These results indicated the indirect coefficient was significant, B = 0.06, SE = 0.03, 95%CI [0.01,0.14], p = 0.042. These results indicate that the relationship between the Observing subscale of the FFMQ-24 and Fading Affect Bias fits a mediational model such that the relationship is affected by extent to which positive events are seen as more important and memorable and how often they are thought about. This savouring-type activity serves to maintain the affect associated with positive events, leading to a stronger fading affect bias.
Fig. 1
Mediation model with positive elaboration as a mediator of the relationship between observing and fading affect bias
×
Discussion
Reflecting on past events in the present can elicit the emotional experience that accompanied those events. However, that emotion is likely to be much less intense in the present—and this is especially true for affect associated with negative events. The current research demonstrated that dispositional mindfulness is positively associated with the strength of the fading affect bias. Furthermore, the findings identify the components of mindfulness that have the greatest impact on fading affect bias. Specifically, the components most strongly related to interoceptive awareness (i.e., observing and describing) are driving the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and fading affect bias. The exploratory mediational analysis fit with the idea (but cannot conclusively demonstrate) that the effect of observing on fading affect bias is likely due to a greater elaboration of positive events. Taking the time to observe, reflect, and describe one’s response to positive events leads to greater retention of positive affect which produces a stronger fading affect bias.
The current research contributes to literatures on fading affect bias and dispositional mindfulness by demonstrating a previously unrecognized connection between the two. Fading affect bias, as a phenomenon, has long been discussed as serving an emotion regulation function related to well-being, but this has predominantly been linked to demonstrations of factors (e.g., depression) that inhibit the effect (Marsh et al., 2019; Muir et al., 2017; Ritchie et al., 2014; Skowronski et al., 2014; Walker et al., 2003a, 2014). The effects of variables related to positive well-being—like dispositional mindfulness—have been much less prevalent. This is important because it demonstrates that fading affect bias is not just a normally operating mechanism that can be hindered but that it is one that can be enhanced as well. The current work dovetails nicely with the previous work by Ritchie et al. (2006) demonstrating that savouring-type event rehearsals (e.g., more frequent thoughts about positive events) leads to stronger fading affect bias by helping to retain more of the positive affect associated with those events. Those same savouring processes (here referred to as positive elaboration) play an important role in the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and fading affect bias.
By identifying the specific components of dispositional mindfulness that relate to greater fading affect bias, the current research also points the way to potential intervention to enhance the phenomenon. From a practical perspective, mindfulness provides an intriguing opportunity because it can be enhanced through training (Baer et al., 2008; Quaglia et al., 2016). Because the observing and describing components of mindfulness account for the relationship, interventions focused on those abilities seem to be the most fruitful avenues to pursue. Mindfulness trainings that focus on identifying and labelling internal bodily sensations (e.g., mindful breathing, body scan) seem likely to prove beneficial as they are directly related to the abilities underlying these Observing and Describing components. Indeed, Fissler et al. (2016) found that regular mindfulness practice involving body scan meditation, mindful movement, mindful breathing, and focus on body sensations increased self-reported interoceptive awareness and ability to handle stressors in a sample of individuals with depression. Lima-Araujo et al. (2022) also showed a change in self-report interoception following a 3-day intervention of body-scan and mindful breathing. Unfortunately, the mindfulness training did not affect interoceptive accuracy (i.e., using the heartbeat counting task) so it is not clear to what extent this short training would produce downstream consequences. A future study could examine the impact of a state mindfulness intervention on the strength of fading affect bias.
Although the observing and describing subscales make intuitive sense given their relation to interoceptive awareness and labelling of body states, it is worth wondering why the other components of dispositional mindfulness did not account for significant variance in fading affect bias. One might assume, for example, that approaching events in a non-judgemental manner (e.g., not labelling a negative event as “bad”) would serve to help in the reduction of the affect associated with those events. There was, however, no evidence that non-judging was related either to affect fade (overall) or relative fade (i.e., fading affect bias). Similarly, a more non-reacting response to an event could serve to dampen initial affect. Contrary to that reasoning, non-reacting was positively related to initial affective intensity for pleasant (but not unpleasant) events. Even though this offers the possibility of greater affect fade for positive than negative events, such a weakening of the fading affect bias did not occur. Finally, acting with awareness showed a similar pattern to that of non-reacting. That is, positively related to initial affect for pleasant (but not unpleasant) events, but with no subsequent impact on fading affect bias. Thus, it seems that not all components of dispositional mindfulness are created equal in their impact on fading affect bias.
From the perspective of Monitoring and Acceptance Theory (MAT; Lindsay & Creswell, 2017), this distinction between components makes some sense. The theory proposes that there are two mechanisms related to the impact of mindfulness on health and well-being. The first mechanism (monitoring) is related to how attuned one is to their experiences “in the moment” (e.g., sensory experience within the environment, bodily sensations, thoughts, and emotions). The observing and describing components of the FFMQ are clearly relevant to this first mechanism. That is, the greater the ability to be aware of internal experiences and external stimuli and to be able to communicate these sensations and experiences, the better one will be able to monitor the totality of their present experience. The second mechanism (acceptance) relates to the evaluation of the monitored experience. An accepting mindset would be one that is non-judging and non-reactive. That is, viewing the experience dispassionately—not labelling it as good or bad—is beneficial in terms of resilience and well-being. If one were to divide these four components of the FFMQ into the MAT framework as above, then it would appear that, at least for the differential fading of affect that makes up the fading affect bias, the monitoring mechanism is more important than the acceptance mechanism. It should be noted, of course, that this is merely speculation, and that subsequent research should attempt to further elucidate the relationship between facets of mindfulness and fading affect bias.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations of this study should be considered. As with any research using self-report measures, the quality of the data is, in part, determined by what participants are able to judge about themselves and are willing to divulge to the researcher. Because mindfulness has been discussed extensively in public spheres as “a good thing”, there may be some social desirability motivation or other response biases in responding to measures of mindfulness (Bergomi et al., 2013; Sauer et al., 2013; Van Dam et al., 2009). Additionally, how much experience one has with mindfulness and meditation is likely to affect how they answer questions related to these practices. That said, the psychometric properties of these measures have been investigated extensively and they do consistently predict a number of outcome variables that are unlikely to be predicted by socially desirable responding or acquiescence bias. A way around this limitation would be to conduct a randomized control trial examining the impact of mindfulness training on the strength of the fading affect bias over time.
Several concerns have also been raised regarding the use of the retrospective memory procedure in fading affect bias research. The first concern is that asking participants to rate affect at the time of the event and at the time of recollection could implicitly communicate that there should be a difference between the ratings. Differences in affect fade between negative and positive events, according to this view, could reflect lay theories about affect fade rather than actual affect fade. Evidence from both Ritchie et al. (2009) and Crawford and Marsh (2023) suggest that lay theories about affect fade cannot account for the fading affect bias. In particular, Crawford and Marsh (2023) demonstrated that beliefs about affect fade for positive and negative events are actually counter to the findings of fading affect bias research in that individuals believe that positive affect fades both more quickly and more fully than negative affect. That is, if participants were relying on their lay theories about how affect fades over time, the fading affect bias would not emerge.
The other potential criticism of the retrospective methodology is based on the concern that people may be inaccurate in their recollections of their past feelings (Skowronski et al., 2014). That is, if people are unable to remember their emotional experiences accurately at a later time (as is required here), then the fading affect bias may reflect something other than how it has been discussed in the literature. The evidence, however, suggests that people are relatively good at remembering the intensity of their past emotions with research showing that recalled emotion is significantly correlated with emotion reported at the time of an event (Levine & Safer, 2002; Levine et al., 2001). Although this suggests that people are pretty accurate in remembering how they felt at the time of an event, it would also be important to demonstrate that accuracy does not differ between recollections of emotional intensity for positive and negative events. If, for example, people were to overestimate the intensity of past negative affect more than positive affect, then that would allow for greater apparent fade than is actually the case.
Ritchie et al. (2009) conducted a diary-based fading affect bias study in which they had participants record positive and negative events over a period of several weeks. These events were rated for pleasantness at the time they occurred. At a later point, participants were presented with their original event descriptions and asked to remember the emotional intensity of the event at the time that it happened. This allowed for a direct examination of accuracy in recalling affective intensity for positive and negative events. Although people were somewhat more accurate in remembering initial intensity of positive events than negative events, fading affect emerged even when controlling for this difference. It is worth noting that if retrospective ratings of initial unpleasantness are lower than what was actually at the time, then this would dampen, not enhance (or falsely create) the fading affect bias.
Ultimately, fading affect bias has been demonstrated using longitudinal diary studies (Gibbons et al., 2011; Ritchie et al., 2009, 2015; Walker et al., 1997, 2014) and experimental designs (Landau & Gunter, 2009), as well as in numerous previous cross-sectional studies (see Skowronski et al., 2014 for an overview). While most fading affect bias studies, including the current work, using the more convenient retrospective data collection method, the evidence across multiple methodologies and populations indicates that the fading affect bias is a robust phenomenon that cannot be attributed as an artefact of the measurement. The greater fading of negative compared to positive affect helps pave the way toward a more positive view of one’s life by allowing one to learn from the past without having to relive the emotions that, although functional at the time, may be counterproductive in the present. The current findings demonstrate that the ability to be centred in the present moment—as measured by dispositional mindfulness—enhances one’s capacity to move on from past events. Specifically, the ability to both observe and describe internal states and the external world enhances the beneficial asymmetric fade of affect associated with negative and positive life events.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics Approval
The research reported in this article was approved by the Victoria University of Wellington Human Ethics Committee (Approval #0029282) in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Informed Consent
All participants provided informed consent prior to participation and could withdraw without penalty at any time.
Use of Artificial Intelligence Statement
No AI was used.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.
