Content uploaded by Surabhi Lodha
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Surabhi Lodha on Jan 02, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Mindfulness
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-023-02288-0
ORIGINAL PAPER
Irrelevant Emotional Information Does Not Modulate Response
Conflict inMindfulness Meditators
SurabhiLodha1· RashmiGupta1
Accepted: 5 December 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2023
Abstract
Objectives Although mindfulness improves executive control and emotional processing, its impact on conflict resolution—an
essential executive function—in emotionally irrelevant contexts is unclear. The present study investigated the interactive
role of mindfulness and task-irrelevant emotional information in conflict resolution.
Method In total, 48 participants were categorized as mindfulness meditators and non-meditators based on prior medita-
tion experience. Data were collected from two flanker tasks. On each trial, an emotional face distractor (neutral, happy, or
angry) either preceded the target stimulus (Task 1) or appeared with it (Task 2). The flanker interference effect reflected the
magnitude of conflict. Self-reports of emotional states, affectivity, and trait mindfulness were also collected.
Results Non-meditators displayed a lower interference effect for happy face distractors in both tasks. The interference effect
was higher for angry than happy face distractors in Task 1 (p = 0.02, d = 0.73) and higher for angry than happy (p < 0.01,
d = 1.01) and neutral face distractors (p = 0.01, d = 0.61) in Task 2. In mindfulness meditators, similar interference effects
were observed for all face distractors in Task 1 (p > 0.292) and Task 2 (p > 0.540). Mindfulness meditators’ self-reports on
emotional states indicated lesser depressive symptoms than non-meditators (p = 0.01).
Conclusions The findings suggest that conflict resolution is influenced by the valence of emotionally irrelevant information
in non-meditators but not in mindfulness meditators. The study specifically demonstrates how mindfulness can act as a buffer
against the disruptive effects of emotional distractions on conflict resolution.
Preregistration This study is not preregistered.
Keywords Mindfulness· Conflict resolution· Task-irrelevant emotional information· Balance
Research on mindfulness-based practices has exponentially
increased in the last three decades due to their potential
to improve psychological well-being and physical health
in non-clinical populations (Baer, 2003; Creswell, 2017,
for reviews). Numerous scientific investigations attempt
to link mindfulness with cognition, and multiple reviews
and meta-analyses found that mindfulness is associated
with enhanced cognitive function (Baijal & Gupta, 2008;
Chiesa etal., 2011; Gallant, 2016; Lodha & Gupta, 2022;
Sumantry & Stewart, 2021). While mindfulness is not a
singular construct (Van Dam etal., 2018), current perspec-
tives suggest that it essentially involves the cognitive aspect
of paying purposeful attention to the present moment non-
judgmentally (Kabat-Zinn, 1990). The cognitive faculty of
mindfulness, or dispositional mindfulness, is presumed to be
innately present in all individuals to varying degrees. The
faculty develops through long-term meditation practice and
may manifest as a tendency to be mindful in everyday life,
commonly known as trait mindfulness (Grossman & Van
Dam, 2011; Lin etal., 2022). Typically, trait mindfulness
and individual differences in trait mindfulness are quantified
through cross-sectional research using behavioral tasks and
self-report scales (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Lin etal., 2022).
Empirical studies have widely examined the impact of short
mindfulness training on executive control using behavioral
tasks that require participants to focus on task-relevant infor-
mation while suppressing irrelevant processing (Friedman
& Miyake, 2004) and reported positive changes (Jha etal.,
2007; Kozasa etal., 2012; Moore & Malinowski, 2009;
Moore etal., 2012; Zeidan etal., 2010).
* Rashmi Gupta
rash_cogsci@yahoo.com
1 Cognitive andBehavioural Neuroscience Laboratory,
Department ofHumanities andSocial Sciences, Indian
Institute ofTechnology Bombay, First floor, Mumbai, India
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
Executive control involves abilities enabling individuals
to override automatic behavior and respond appropriately to
current task demands. This includes higher-level functions
like conflict resolution, working memory, cognitive flexibil-
ity, response inhibition, and attentional control (Botvinick
etal., 2001; Corbetta & Shulman, 2002). In this study, we
focused on conflict resolution, a unique aspect of execu-
tive control (Friedman & Miyake, 2004). Conflict resolution
is the process of detecting and resolving conflicts arising
from competing information or interpretations leading to
opposing response tendencies (Botvinick etal., 2001). This
competing information may involve stimulus–response asso-
ciations (e.g., Simon task) or peripheral distractor stimuli
(e.g., Flanker task). When this information conflicts with the
current goal, detection and resolution occur by monitoring
task demands and adjusting attentional allocation to main-
tain goal-directed behavior.
Experimental studies on conflict resolution use tasks like
Flanker, Stroop, or go/no-go tasks, creating situations with
conflicting information or response options, and requiring
participants to decide or select appropriate responses. For
example, in a Flanker task, participants respond to the cen-
tral stimulus direction, flanked by similar stimuli. The cen-
tral target can be compatible or incompatible with flankers,
generating more conflict in incompatible trials, measured as
the flanker interference effect, indicating executive control
(Friedman & Miyake, 2004). A higher flanker interference
effect signals increased response conflict and reduced execu-
tive control.
The content of a stimulus, particularly its emotional infor-
mation, influences conflict resolution (Gupta, 2012; Kan-
ske, 2012). Emotions play a vital role in daily activities, but
research suggests they affect the allocation of attentional
resources (e.g., Eastwood etal., 2001; Gupta, 2012, 2016;
Lodha & Gupta, 2023a, b; Pandey & Gupta, 2022a, b, c;
Pessoa, 2009). To minimize interference in goal-directed
tasks, it is crucial to reduce the impact of emotionally irrel-
evant information. Task-irrelevant emotional stimuli, like
distractors in the traditional flanker task, must be ignored
(Lichtenstein-Vidne etal., 2012). For example, if an emo-
tional scene precedes flanker stimuli, though task-irrele-
vant, it may interfere with conflict resolution by drawing
limited attentional resources. This interference is especially
noticeable during incompatible trials, which are inherently
unpleasant (Dreisbach etal., 2018), requiring adjustments
in executive control (Kanske, 2012). Assessing the effects of
task-irrelevant emotional information on executive control is
essential for understanding how affective systems influence
cognitive processing (Goschke, 2014; Gupta, 2007, 2011;
Gupta & Kar, 2010, 2012; Gupta etal., 2006, 2011; Srivas-
tava & Gupta, 2021; van Veen & Carter, 2002).
Several studies show connections between emotional
valence and flanker interference, indicating both positive
and negative emotions can impact conflict resolution (Cohen
etal., 2012, 2016; Dreisbach & Goschke, 2004; Etkin etal.,
2006; Fenske & Eastwood, 2003; Kanske & Kotz, 2010,
2011; Srinivasan & Gupta, 2011; Zinchenko etal., 2017).
Research by Kanske and Kotz (2010, 2011) found that
presenting emotional words in a conflict task reduced the
interference effect for positive and negative words com-
pared to neutral words. Another study showed a decrease
in the interference effect for negative images when irrel-
evant neutral and negative images were in the background
(Grützmann etal., 2019). However, during compatible trials,
higher flanker distraction occurred for negative compared to
neutral images when irrelevant emotional stimuli preceded
the flanker target, irrespective of individuals’ emotion regu-
lation strategies (Cohen etal., 2012). Divergent findings
exist due to differences in flanker task processes, interfer-
ence effect measurement parameters, and types of emotional
stimuli (e.g., words, pictures, video clips). Research using
the flanker task in behavioral studies has consistently shown
that long-term mindfulness meditation practice enhances
conflict resolution. Empirical studies (Andreu etal., 2017; Jo
etal., 2017; van den Hurk etal., 2010) reveal that individuals
with extensive meditation experience perform better in the
flanker task, particularly in terms of accuracy. Meditators
consistently outperform passive controls, showing higher
accuracy, especially in incompatible trials, irrespective of
reaction times. Notably, a study by Jha etal. (2007) found
that individuals with meditation experience, compared to
those without any experience, demonstrated significant
differences in their ability to focus on task-relevant infor-
mation and ignore distractions, leading to faster response
times and increased accuracy in the flanker task. Overall,
these studies suggest that long-term mindfulness meditation
positively influences conflict resolution abilities. Few stud-
ies have explored the impact of a single, brief mindfulness
meditation session on conflict resolution, and the results are
inconclusive. In a study by Norris etal. (2018), participants
new to meditation were randomly assigned to either a medi-
tation session or an active control condition. Those in the
meditation group, who listened to a 10-min guided medita-
tion, showed improved accuracy on incompatible trials in the
flanker task without affecting reaction times. On the other
hand, a different study by Larson etal. (2013) found no sig-
nificant differences in reaction times, accuracy, or post-error
slowing on the flanker task between a group that underwent
brief mindfulness induction and an active control group.
Few randomized controlled studies have also investi-
gated the effects of mindfulness meditation programs on
attention (Basso etal., 2019; Oken etal., 2017). Partici-
pants in mindfulness programs did not show improved
performance on flanker tasks compared to control groups
(active podcast listening group—Basso etal., 2019;
waitlist group—Oken etal., 2017). In sum, the research
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
examining the effects of mindfulness on conflict resolution
has yielded mixed results. These inconsistencies may be
partly due to variations in controlling for prior medita-
tion experience. Further investigations are needed to better
understand how mindfulness influences conflict resolution.
In addition to measuring mindfulness and its impact
on conflict resolution, studies have examined how mind-
fulness affects emotions. Mindfulness-based techniques
are powerful tools for improving emotional well-being
(Wadlinger & Isaacowitz, 2011). Mindfulness influences
emotion to improve health and foster contentment (Keng
etal., 2011). The focus on present-moment experiences
in mindfulness promotes decentering from feelings and
thoughts, offering more voluntary control over attention
to thoughts (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Farb etal., 2014).
Research indicates that mindfulness can affect the pro-
cessing of both negative and positive emotions (Chiesa
etal., 2013; Magalhaes etal., 2018). For example, when
emotional stimuli were targeted, mindfulness improved
positive emotional states, reduced reactivity to negative
emotions, and influenced related brain activity.
So far, quantitative assessments of mindfulness and
conflict resolution in emotional contexts are extremely
rare. Ainsworth etal. (2013) investigated the effects of
8days of focused attention and open monitoring forms
of mindfulness meditation training on executive control
using an emotional flanker task. In this task, the flanker
stimulus was preceded by negative, neutral, or non-word
cues representing different emotional conditions. The post-
training results showed that both types of meditation train-
ing (focused attention and open monitoring) decreased the
flanker interference effect, as indicated by reaction times.
However, there was no significant difference among the
various emotional conditions.
A recent study (O’Hare & Gemelli, 2023) examined the
effects of focused attention and self-compassion aspects of
mindfulness training on undergraduate students using an
emotional version of the flanker task. In this task, a neutral
or negative word was briefly presented before the flanker
stimulus. After 10weeks of mindfulness training, partici-
pants in the focused attention group showed reduced inter-
ference effects in reaction times on the flanker task, regard-
less of emotional primes. However, the self-compassion
group did not show changes in behavioral performance post
training. Researchers have speculated that negative words
were processed more efficiently in the self-compassion
group, causing less distraction. The observed changes were
attributed to the attention and the non-judgmental compo-
nent of mindfulness (Isbel & Summers, 2017) in the focused
attention and self-compassion groups, respectively. Overall,
participants showed improved reaction times in their post-
training performance, supporting the role of mindfulness in
enhancing executive control.
Both studies imply that mindfulness training reduces
response conflict. However, the limited number of studies
highlights the need for further research to understand how
mindfulness impacts conflict resolution in emotional con-
texts. Empirical studies provide converging evidence that
the dysfunctional relationship between conflict resolution
and emotions is associated with various psychopathological
disorders, such as schizophrenia, obsessive–compulsive dis-
order, ADHD, depression, anxiety, and personality-related
issues (for review, see van Veen & Carter, 2002; Gupta
etal., 2011). Considering the positive impact of mindful-
ness in conflict resolution, probing the relationship between
mindfulness, conflict resolution, and emotion might help
determine the potentiality of mindfulness as an alternative,
function-specific treatment for psychopathological disorders.
Notably, previous studies did not explore how positive emo-
tions affect response conflict when they are task-irrelevant.
Lodha and Gupta (2023a) investigated the interactive effects
of mindfulness and emotion on response inhibition, finding
that positive emotions improved response inhibition in non-
meditators, while negative emotions improved it in mindful-
ness meditators. This emotion-specific effect, coupled with
the ability of mindfulness to filter distractions, suggests that
understanding how mindfulness relates to response inhibi-
tion and conflict resolution separately would be worthwhile
(Friedman & Miyake, 2004).
Furthermore, Kanske (2012) noted that response con-
flict from irrelevant emotional information differs when the
emotional system is engaged prior to a primary task versus
simultaneous engagement. This would indicate that the tim-
ing of when the executive control is required can signifi-
cantly affect attention demands (Lodha & Gupta, 2023a).
Therefore, evaluating how emotional and executive systems
engage differently over time would offer vital insights into
the temporal dynamics between mindfulness and conflict
resolution.
The current study examined the interactive role of trait
mindfulness and emotional information in conflict resolution
considering varying intervals between the target and emo-
tional distractor. Executive control was evaluated concerning
valence and the timing of emotional information using a
flanker task. The examination was conducted using a flanker
task in a mindfulness meditator and a non-meditator group.
Participants in both groups viewed emotional faces (neu-
tral, happy, and angry), which preceded the flanker stimulus
(prime: Task 1) or appeared with the flanker stimulus (con-
current: Task 2). Pictures of faces were used in the study
for better experimental control since low-level visual dif-
ferences between faces are less variable in valence. Faces,
being potent social cues impacting daily behavior, are ideal
for exploring attention-emotion interactions (Schindler &
Bublatzky, 2020). Additionally, self-report scales (Posi-
tive and Negative Affect Scale, Depression Anxiety Stress
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
Scales, and Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale) were
included to collect subjective data on attention and emotion
modulation, complementing the flanker task results.
The following hypotheses were formulated based on
previous evidence. Since processing happy faces requires
less attentional resources (Gupta etal., 2016) and would
leave enough resources for correct target detection, happy
face distractors would exhibit a smaller response conflict
than neutral and angry face distractors in the non-meditator
group. Evidence has indicated that mindfulness improves
the efficiency of attentional resource deployment (Chan &
Woollacott, 2007; Jha etal., 2007; Kozasa etal., 2012) and
also increases attentional resources (Kramer etal., 2013;
Lodha & Gupta, 2023a, b). Therefore, mindfulness medi-
tators can process neutral, happy, and angry face distrac-
tors due to increased attentional resources, leaving enough
resources for correct target detection without compromising
task performance. Thus, distractors would not modulate the
response conflict in the mindfulness meditator group. No
prediction was made regarding the time course between the
target and the emotional distractor. We expected the mind-
fulness meditator group to score higher on the MAAS and
PANAS positive scales, and lower on the PANAS negative
and DASS-21 scales than the non-meditator group.
Method
Participants
To achieve a power of 0.95 and an effect size of 0.25
(Cohen, 1988), we estimated the required sample size to be
44 (G-power: F-tests ANOVA, repeated measures, within-
between interaction) for a 2 (group: mindfulness meditator
and non-meditator) × 3 (emotions: neutral, happy, angry)
mixed-measures ANOVA or 28 for a 2 (group: mindfulness
meditator and non-meditator), × 2 [(compatibility: compat-
ible, incompatible) or (time course: prime, concurrent)], × 3
(emotions: neutral, happy, angry) mixed-measures ANOVA.
Participants in the study were recruited through post-
ers, e-mails, and word of mouth from a community sample
(Table1). Inclusion criteria comprised being right-handed,
having normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and reporting
no psychiatric, neurological disorders, or recent psychother-
apy treatment. Fifty individuals (22 men, Mage = 24.44years,
SD = 4.16years, age range 18–38years) participated after
giving informed consent. Based on the description of their
prior experience with meditation, the participants were split
into groups of mindfulness meditators and non-meditators.
Those individuals with no prior experience in any form of
meditation were grouped as non-meditators (nNM = 26),
while those who had previously received training from the
contemporary mindfulness perspective and were regularly
practicing for at least 1month were grouped as mindful-
ness meditators (nMM = 24, meditation experience range 1 to
60months). During the study’s advertisement, the eligibil-
ity criteria for the participants were explicitly defined. The
minimum meditation experience criterion was set based on
prior studies (Lodha & Gupta, 2023a, b; Ortner etal., 2007,
a, b). Individuals with a meditation experience of less than
a month did not attempt the study. Hence, there was no need
to categorize them into another group based on experience.
The authors performed a thorough screening based on
participants’ meditation background and experience (see the
description in the following sub-section) to ensure that the
meditation techniques described by the mindfulness medita-
tors were attention and awareness based (Kabat-Zinn, 1990).
Those who practiced mindful breathing, body scan, or both
were included. For the purpose of this study, mindful breath-
ing was described as focusing with awareness on inhala-
tion and exhalation of breath. The body scan was described
as paying attention to each body part from toe to head and
observing the arising and passing of all sensations without
judgment. Participants in the mindfulness meditator group
practicing other techniques or described them otherwise
were to be excluded, but all practitioners met the criteria, so
no exclusions were made. The mindfulness meditator group
had 20 mindful breathing practitioners, two body scan prac-
titioners, and two practitioners of both mindful breathing
and body scan.
Procedure
Each participant attempted two tasks, whose order was coun-
terbalanced among participants: half attempted Task 1 first,
followed by Task 2, while the other half attempted the tasks
in reverse order. The description of the tasks is provided in
the “Measures” sub-section. Each task was attempted with
a 4–7-day gap to neutralize the carryover effects of emotion
and reduce the practice effects. The variability in the gap
was inherent because the study was run online, and partici-
pants were given a 4–7-day window to complete each task to
Table 1 Demographic information of participants by the group in the
final sample
Characteristic Mindfulness meditator Non-meditator
n24 24
Male 15 7
Female 9 17
Mean age (SD) 24.83 (4.5) 23.88 (4.0)
Level of education
Undergraduate 11 9
Post-graduate 13 14
Others 0 1
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
minimize drop-out rates and simultaneously control for car-
ryover and practice effects. After giving informed consent,
participants received task instructions. They had to look at
the central fixation cross and respond quickly and accurately
to the target. A participant was required to indicate the direc-
tion of the middle arrow in a line of five arrows. Participants
pressed the “A” key with their left index finger to indicate a
middle arrow pointing to the left and the “L” key with their
right index finger to indicate a middle arrow pointing to the
right. They were instructed to ignore the faces and respond
quickly and as accurately as possible to the target arrow.
Before starting the main task block, participants com-
pleted a practice block of 36 trials and received feedback
on accuracy. Each participant was redirected to the prac-
tice block if he did not reach a minimum accuracy of 75%.
A maximum of three practice blocks were given to each
participant. If the desired accuracy was not reached in the
three sets, the participant could not move to the main test,
and the task ended. Participants were told that the task
block would be identical to the practice block, and only
that it would be longer and not include feedback. There
were 360 trials in the main task divided into five blocks.
The trials were randomized among participants. Neutral,
happy, and angry face distractors appeared for an equal
number of times within each block. In half of the trials,
the flanker target was compatible, with the five arrows
pointing in the same direction. In the other half, the flanker
target was incompatible, in which the middle arrow dif-
fered in the direction from the other arrows.
After completing the task, the participants were redi-
rected to the Google Forms questionnaires, which included
the self-report measures and items related to meditation
background and experience. Each task took approximately
45min to complete. Finally, the participants were debriefed
and received monetary compensation for participation.
Measures
Flanker Task
The flanker task was designed using Psychopy 3 software
(Peirce etal., 2019) on a 15.6-in. color monitor (60Hz;
resolution 1920 × 1080 pixels), and the data were collected
online using Pavlovia (Open Science Tools, Nottingham,
UK). The picture size, font size, and screen resolution were
kept constant for different monitors. The task consisted of
identifying a target arrow which was surrounded by other
arrows displayed horizontally at the symmetric periphery of
the target arrow. Task-irrelevant emotional distractors were
presented in the center of the screen display on each trial.
The emotional faces used for the study were taken from
the Karolinska Directed Emotional Faces (KDEF) database
(Lundqvist etal., 1998). Thirty-six static grayscale photo-
graphs of young adults (six male and six female identities)
were selected and presented without ears or hair. Each face
displayed the three emotions (neutral, happy, or angry),
subtending approximately 2.1° × 2.9°, and presented in an
oval shape extending about 3.6cm horizontally and 4.8cm
vertically. The stimulus display included a line of five blue
arrows, with the middle arrow pointing either in the same
direction as the others (compatible trials: > > > > >) or in
a different direction (incompatible trials: > > < > >), and
could be oriented to the left or right. The stimuli were pre-
sented against a beige backdrop.
Task 1: Each trial started with a central fixation displayed
for 500ms, followed by an emotional face appearing for
100ms and a blank screen for 50ms. The flanker target
was presented in blue for 200ms, and the participants
responded within 2000ms from the target presentation. The
subsequent trial began with a variable inter-trial interval of
800–1100ms. The trial structure is presented in Fig.1.
Fig. 1 a Example of a compat-
ible flanker trial in Task 1
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
Task 2: Each trial started with a central fixation displayed
for 500ms, followed by a blank screen for 50ms. The flanker
target was then presented in blue on the emotional face for
200ms, and the participants responded within 2000ms of
the target presentation. The subsequent trial began with a
variable inter-trial interval of 800–1100ms. The trial struc-
ture is presented in Fig.2.
Self‑report Measures
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales‑21 (DASS‑21) DASS-21
measures the emotional states of depression, anxiety, and
stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). It consists of 3 self-
report subscales with 7 items on each subscale. Each item
has a 4-point scale ranging from applied not at all to applied
most times. The scores for depression, anxiety, and stress
were calculated by adding the scores of the representative
items.
International Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
Short‑Form (I‑PANAS‑SF) The I-PANAS-SF is a 10-item
mood scale that measures positive and negative affectivity
(Thompson, 2007). It captures positive and negative moods
regardless of cultural background. Participants reported how
often they felt on each item on a scale from 1 (not at all) to
5 (extremely). A sum of scores was generated for positive
and negative effects.
Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) The MAAS
assesses trait mindfulness and consists of 15 items related to
attention and awareness in daily life (Brown & Ryan, 2003).
Participants reported how often they felt the same on a 6-point
scale ranging from 1 (almost always) to 6 (almost never). A sum
of scores on all items was calculated; higher scores reflected
greater awareness of the internal and external environment.
.
Meditation Background and Experience In order to ascertain
participants’ meditation background and experience, each
participant was questioned about their meditation technique,
years of experience, and duration of daily practice. Addi-
tionally, participants were asked if they had experienced the
following during meditation: experience of timelessness,
experience of amazement, sense that the experience cannot
be described adequately in words, gain of insightful knowl-
edge experienced at an intuitive level, feeling that you expe-
rienced eternity or infinity, experience of oneness or unity
with objects and/or persons perceived in your surroundings,
loss of your usual sense of space, feelings of tenderness and
gentleness, certainty of encounter and unity with ultimate
reality, loss of usual awareness of where you were, feelings
of peace and tranquility, sense of being at a spiritual height,
experience of pure being and pure awareness, experience
of ecstasy, experience of oneness in relation to an “inner
world” within, sense of reverence/respect, awareness of the
life or living presence in all things, and feelings of joy and
bliss.A summary of participants’ meditation background
and experience is provided in Table2.
Data Analyses
Reaction times (RT) and accuracy were the outcome meas-
ures. We report only the analyses on the RT data of the cor-
rect trials. All RT data below 200ms, above 1000ms, and 2
SDs from the mean were removed in both tasks. In Task 2,
data from one participant were excluded from the final anal-
ysis due to high error rates (more than 2 SDs above the mean
error rate; Cohen etal., 2012), and one other participant had
a high mean reaction time (overall mean correct RT above
2 SDs; Berger & Kiefer, 2021). Those specific participants
were removed from Task 2 to fit the within-group design
of the study. The two excluded participants belonged to the
non-meditator group; hence, the final analysis included 24
Fig. 2 b Example of a compat-
ible flanker trial in Task 2
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
participants in both the meditator and in the non-meditator
groups.
The mean RTs for correct responses on compatible and
incompatible trials were calculated in the three distractor
conditions. The flanker interference effect was calculated
by subtracting the mean RT for the compatible condition
from the incompatible condition (Ainsworth etal., 2013) for
neutral, happy, and angry face distractors. SPSS 26.0 was
used for all statistical analyses. Assumptions of homogeneity
of variances for t-tests and ANOVAs were checked and met.
To explore the relationship between mindfulness and conflict
resolution across the three emotions, a two-way mixed meas-
ures ANOVA was conducted. Flanker interference RTs for
each distractor condition (neutral, happy, angry) served as
the within-group factor, with group (mindfulness meditator,
non-meditator) as the between-group factor. Additionally, a
three-way mixed-measures ANOVA, incorporating accuracy
scores, was performed for each distractor condition (neutral,
happy, angry), compatibility (compatible, incompatible) as
within-group factors, and group (mindfulness meditator,
non-meditator) as a between-group factor.
The following values for mixed-measures ANOVAs for
main effects and their interactions are reported in the results
section: F (F values), MSE (mean squared error), p (p-values),
and ηp2 (partial eta-squared). Flanker interference RTs and
accuracy scores were subjected to a priori planned compari-
sons separately for each group to examine within-group differ-
ences between positive and negative emotional information.
t-tests were used when appropriate. Bonferroni corrections
were applied for planned comparisons on flanker interference
RTs and accuracy such that the threshold for the p-value was
adjusted to 0.01 (0.05/3). Independent t-tests were performed
to test between-group differences in self-report measures.
Furthermore, we examined the connection between mind-
fulness, flanker interference effects, and time course between
target and emotional distractors from Tasks 1 and 2. We cre-
ated a variable called SOA (stimulus-onset asynchrony) with
two levels: 0ms (when emotional face distractors appeared
with the task) and 150ms (when emotional face distrac-
tors appeared as primes in the task). A three-way mixed-
measures ANOVA was performed with flanker interference
RTs of each distractor condition (neutral, happy, angry) and
SOA (0, 150) as within-group factors and group (mindful-
ness meditator, non-meditator) as a between-group factor.
Results
Independent samples t-test confirmed that the groups matched
in age, t(46) = 0.79, p = 0.434, d = 0.23. A chi-square inde-
pendence test revealed no significant association between
the gender of the sample and group, χ2 (1, n = 48) = 5.37,
p = 0.205. However, the demographic data implied a gender
disparity between both groups, with more females in the non-
meditator group and more males in the mindfulness meditator
group. Hence, further statistical analysis was conducted on the
final sample in each task to check whether the gender differ-
ences affected the flanker effects. A three-way mixed-meas-
ures ANOVA was performed on flanker interference score
using distractor condition (neutral, happy, angry) as a within-
group factor and group (mindfulness meditator, non-medita-
tor) and gender (male, female) as between-group factors. The
analysis did not show a main effect of gender, and gender did
not interact with any other variable in Task 1 (p > 0.082, for
all) and Task 2 (p > 0.081, for all). The internal consistency
for each self-reportscale was calculated in the present study,
and Cronbach’s alphas are reported in Table3.No group dif-
ferences were found between the self-report measures, except
for the difference in the depression subscale (Table3).
Task 1
Reaction Time
The mean reaction times (MeanRT in ms) for the neutral,
happy, and angry face distractors of both groups under com-
patible and incompatible conditions are provided in Table4.
Accuracy
The mean accuracy scores (MeanAcc in %) for the neu-
tral, happy, and angry face distractors of both groups under
compatible and incompatible conditions are presented in
Table4. A mixed three-way ANOVA for accuracy showed
the expected main effect of compatibility, F(1,46) = 41.89,
MSE = 43.17, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.47. Accuracy was higher
for the compatible condition (M = 98.24, SD = 4.06) than
for the incompatible condition (M = 93.23, SD = 10.60). The
main effect of the group was insignificant, F (1,46) = 2.29,
MSE = 85.93, p = 0.14, ηp2 = 0.048, indicating that both
Table 2 Meditation background and experiences of the mindfulness
meditator group
Variable M (SD) Min Max
Meditationexperience (months) 15.88 (16.43) 1 60
Weekly meditation sessions 5.58 (6.62) 1 35
Duration per session (minutes) 25.08 (25.03) 5 120
Meditative experiences (five most frequent experiences; all mind-
fulness meditators marked multiple experiences from the list)
1. Feelings of peace and tranquility 61.50%
2. Experience of timelessness 57.70%
3. Feelings of joy and bliss 53.80%
4. Experience of amazement 50.00%
5. Feelings of tenderness and gentleness 46.20%
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
groups gave almost equal numbers of correct responses.
There was no significant three-way interaction effect
between compatibility, distractor condition, and group,
F(2,92) = 1.82, MSE = 8.43, p = 0.17, ηp2 = 0.038.
Flanker Interference Effects
The mean flanker interference effect scores are presented in
Fig.3. The main effect of the distractor condition was sig-
nificant, F(2,92) = 5.24, MSE = 100.1, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.102.
Further planned comparisons indicated that compared to the
neutral face distractors (M = 63.3ms, SD = 38ms), the flanker
interference effect was significantly shorter in the presence of
happy face distractors (M = 51.6ms, SD = 43ms), t(47) = 3.05,
p < 0.01, d = 0.29. There was no significant difference between
neutral and angry face distractors (M = 69.0ms, SD = 39 ms),
t(47) = 1.23, p = 0.22, d = 0.15, and the angry and happy face dis-
tractors, t(47) = 2.35, p = 0.23, d = 0.42. The result may indicate
that happy face distractors produced less interference in con-
flict resolution than neutral face distractors, independent of the
group. Previous research has shown that happy faces consume
little attentional resources relative to angry and neutral faces
(see Gupta, 2019, for a review). Therefore, happy face distrac-
tors may have left enough resources for overriding conflict and
executing a response. The main effect of group, F(1,46) = 0.42,
MSE = 300.2, p = 0.52, ηp2 = 0.01, and the two-way interaction
effect between distractor condition and group, F(2,92) = 1.43,
MSE = 100.1, p = 0.24, ηp2 = 0.03, were insignificant. However,
a priori planned comparisons suggest that in the non-meditator
group, the flanker interference effect was the lowest for happy
Table 3 Mean scores (standard deviations in parentheses) and t-statistics for self-report measures of two groups in Task 1 and Task 2
PANAS positive and negative affect scale (+ and—refer to the positive and negative affect dimensions, respectively), DASS Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales, MAAS mindful attention awareness scale, NM non-meditator, MM mindfulness meditator
Task 1 Group Mindfulness meditator (n = 24) Non-meditator (n = 24) t (46) pHedges’ d
Self-reports α Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
I-PANAS SF
PANAS + 0.50 18.08 (4.29) 17.75 (3.04) 0.31 0.76 0.09
PANAS- 0.40 9.79 (3.30) 11.29 (3.82) 1.45 0.15 0.42
DASS-21
Depression 0.91 8.42 (7.53) 15.67 (11.66) 2.60 0.01 0.73
Anxiety 0.86 8.75 (8.80) 11.75 (10.19) 1.10 0.28 0.32
Stress 0.84 11.83 (7.67) 14.33 (9.19) 1.02 0.31 0.30
MAAS 0.87 58.33 (14.44) 60.21 (11.39) 0.50 0.62 0.14
Task 2 Group Mindfulness meditator (n = 24) Non-meditator (n = 24)
Self-reports α Mean (SD) Mean (SD)t (46) pHedges’ d
I-PANAS SF
PANAS + 0.65 17.83 (4.06) 17.83 (3.29) 0.00 1.00 0.00
PANAS- 0.63 9.79 (3.41) 11.58 (4.53) 1.55 0.13 0.44
DASS-21
Depression 0.90 7.92 (7.31) 15.75 (11.86) 2.76 0.01 0.79
Anxiety 0.89 9.17 (8.79) 13.75 (11.32) 1.57 0.12 0.45
Stress 0.87 11.08 (8.11) 14.75 (10.18) 1.40 0.17 0.39
MAAS 0.83 61.33 (14.97) 58.75 (11.56) 0.67 0.51 0.19
Table 4 Mean reaction times
(ms) and accuracy scores
(%) provided as a function of
condition and group in Task 1
Standard deviations are given in parentheses
Com compatible trials, Incom incompatible trials, NM non-meditator, MM mindfulness meditator
Condition Mindfulness meditator (n = 24) Non-meditator (n = 24)
MeanRT (SD) MeanAcc (SD) MeanRT (SD) MeanAcc (SD)
ComNeutral 454 (55) 98 (2.7) 440 (39) 99 (1.7)
ComHappy 457 (65) 98 (4.4) 449 (46) 98 (2.4)
ComAngry 453 (50) 99 (2.1) 439 (42) 98 (2.4)
IncomNeutral 520 (73) 96 (4.8) 502 (45) 92 (6.9)
IncomHappy 517 (71) 94 (4.8) 493 (44) 93 (7.5)
IncomAngry 521 (73) 94 (5.8) 509 (47) 91(9.4)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
(M = 43.3ms, SD = 34ms) compared to neutral (M = 61.2ms,
SD = 58ms), t(23) = 3.23, p < 0.01, d = 0.37, and angry face
distractors, (M = 69.9ms, SD = 37ms), t(23) = 2.6, p = 0.02,
d = 0.73. There was no significant difference between neutral and
angry face distractors in the non-meditator group, t(23) = 1.57,
p = 0.13, d = 0.16. In the meditator group, there were no signifi-
cant differences in the flanker interference effect between any
pair of face distractors (p > 0.292, for all).
Task 2
Reaction Time
Mean reaction times (MeanRT in ms) for the neutral, happy,
and angry face distractors of both groups under compatible
and incompatible conditions are provided in Table5.
Accuracy
The mean accuracy scores (MeanAcc in %) for the neu-
tral, happy, and angry face distractors of both groups under
compatible and incompatible conditions are provided in
Table5. A mixed three-way ANOVA for accuracy showed
the expected main effect of compatibility, F(1,46) = 83.74,
MSE = 20.80, p < 0.001, ηp2 = 0.65. The accuracy was higher
for the compatible condition (M = 98.24, SD = 4.06) than for
the incompatible condition (M = 93.23, SD = 10.60). The
main effect of the group was insignificant, F(1,46) = 0.41,
MSE = 71.16, p = 0.53, ηp2 = 0.01, indicating that both groups
gave almost equal numbers of correct responses. There was
no significant three-way interaction effect between com-
patibility, distractor condition, and group, F(2,92) = 1.76,
MSE = 8.31, p = 0.18, ηp2 = 0.002.
Flanker Interference Effects
The mean flanker interference effect scores are presented
in Fig.4. The main effect of the distractor condition was
significant, F(2,92) = 4.96, MSE = 100.22, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.10.
However, the paired t-tests found no significant differences
between the face distractors after using the Bonferroni cor-
rection (p > 0.021 for all). The main effect of the group
Fig. 3 Mean flanker interference effect (RT in ms) plotted by emotion
and group in Task 1. Standard errors of the mean are represented by
the error bars. NM, non-meditator; MM, mindfulness meditator
Table 5 Mean reaction times
(ms) and accuracy scores
(%) provided as a function of
condition and group in Task 2
Standard deviations are given in parentheses
Com compatible trials, Incom incompatible trials, NM non-meditator, MM mindfulness meditator
Condition Mindfulness meditator (n = 24) Non-meditator (n = 24)
MeanRT (SD) MeanAcc (SD) MeanRT (SD) MeanAcc (SD)
ComNeutral 476 (61) 98 (3.6) 474 (47) 98 (3.1)
ComHappy 481 (65) 99 (2.6) 480 (49) 97 (3.5)
ComAngry 477 (60) 98 (3.2) 467 (46) 97 (3.0)
IncomNeutral 538 (63) 94 (5.6) 537 (62) 93 (5.5)
IncomHappy 543 (65) 92 (6.1) 528 (60) 93 (4.7)
IncomAngry 543 (69) 94 (5.8) 547 (62) 92 (5.9)
Fig. 4 Mean flanker interference effect (RT in ms) plotted by emotion
and group in Task 2. Standard errors of the mean are represented by
the error bars. NM, non-meditator; MM, mindfulness meditator
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
was insignificant, F(1,46)= 0.02, MSE = 200.3, p = 0.89,
ηp2 = 0.00. The two-way interaction effect approached sig-
nificance, F(2,92) = 2.91, MSE = 100.22, p = 0.06, ηp2 = 0.03.
A priori planned comparisons suggest that in the non-medi-
tator group, the flanker interference effect was the lowest for
happy (M = 47.7ms, SD = 33ms) as compared to the neu-
tral face distractors (M = 63.3ms, SD = 24ms), t(23) = 2.71,
p = 0.01, d = 0.54, and angry face distractors (M = 80.4ms,
SD = 32ms), t(23) = 3.2, p < 0.01, d = 1.01. There was a sig-
nificant difference between neutral and angry face distrac-
tors, t(23) = 2.95, p = 0.013, d = 0.61. In the meditator group,
there was no significant difference in flanker interference
effect between any pair of face distractors (p > 0.540, for all).
Time Course
The main effect of the distractor condition was signifi-
cant, F(2,92) = 6.40, MSE = 100.92, p < 0.01, ηp2 = 0.122.
The flanker interference effect was significantly shorter in
the presence of happy (M = 53.1ms, SD = 41ms) as com-
pared to neutral face distractors (M = 62.8ms, SD = 32ms),
t(95) = 3.25, p < 0.01, d = 0.19, and angry face distractors
(M = 71.0ms, SD = 38ms), t(95) = 3.28, p < 0.01, d = 0.45.
There was a significant difference between neutral and angry
face distractors, t(95) = 3.28, p < 0.01, d = 0.23. The rest of
the main and interaction effects were insignificant (p > 0.070
for all). The results indicate that the valence of emotionally
irrelevant information modulated conflict resolution inde-
pendently of the varying intervals between the target and
emotional distractor and the group.
Discussion
The current study investigated whether mindfulness influ-
ences conflict resolution during emotional interference.
In two tasks, participants identified targets while ignoring
irrelevant emotional faces presented centrally. The emotional
faces either preceded the flanker stimuli (Task 1) or were
presented along with them (Task 2). Conflict resolution was
represented by smaller flanker interference effects. Both
tasks indicated that overall conflict resolution was compara-
ble for mindfulness meditators and non-meditators. Conflict
resolution varied with the valence of the irrelevant emotional
stimuli in non-meditators. However, irrelevant emotional
stimuli did not modulate conflict resolution in mindfulness
meditators.
The tasks showed that conflict resolution varies in non-
meditators based on the task-irrelevant emotional informa-
tion, regardless of its timing in the response conflict task. As
hypothesized, happy face distractors led to smaller response
conflict compared to neutral and angry face distractors in
non-meditators. One main line of evidence supports this
finding: Processing happy faces consumes less attentional
resources (Gupta etal., 2016), and, therefore, frees up
enough resources for target detection by suppressing irrel-
evant information, irrespective of when it appears. Addition-
ally, in non-meditators, angry face distractors generated a
larger response conflict when presented concurrently with
the target (Task 2) than when presented as primes (Task 1).
One possible explanation is that when emotional informa-
tion is primed, attentional resources are allocated in advance
of the primary task. Conversely, when irrelevant emotional
information appears with the primary task, resources are
allocated simultaneously. Since conflict resolution requires
attentional resources (Fenske & Eastwood, 2003; Schupp
etal., 2006), the concurrent appearance of emotional faces
with the conflict resolution task may use more resources,
resulting in more pronounced flanker interference effects.
Moreover, disengaging attention from a currently attended
angry face and shifting it to a different location or object
is challenging (Becker etal., 2019), potentially causing
larger response conflict compared to neutral and happy face
distractors.
Both tasks showed that conflict resolution did not vary
with the task-irrelevant emotional information in mind-
fulness meditators. Face distractors captured the atten-
tion of mindfulness meditators equally, regardless of their
timing in the response conflict task. The results suggest
that these individuals have ample attentional resources
to process emotional stimuli without impairing task per-
formance (Lodha & Gupta, 2023a, b). Meditators gave
an equal number of correct responses compared to non-
meditators, providing evidence that attentional deploy-
ment toward emotional stimuli did not influence overall
task performance. A plausible mechanism underlying this
effect may be the acceptance component of mindfulness
(Brown & Ryan, 2003; Isbel & Summers, 2017), allowing
mindfulness practitioners to engage with all experiences.
In other words, while it is crucial for practitioners to attend
to every stimulus (whether it is a sensation or a thought), it
is equally essential to avoid getting stuck in any feelings or
internal narratives aroused by that stimulus. Subsequently,
mindfulness meditation would enable individuals to reg-
ulate and control attention. This aligns with the process
model of mindful positive emotion regulation, suggesting
that mindfulness cultivates a state of meaningful content-
ment, or eudaimonic-well being, enhancing internal mood
states (Garland etal., 2015). Sustained mindfulness practice
increases the ability to experience negative emotions with-
out becoming overwhelmed (Arch & Craske, 2006; Teper
& Inzlicht, 2013) and reduces reliance on external pleasures
for happiness (Levinson etal., 2014). The observation that
negative and positive emotions did not influence response
conflict in mindfulness meditators may indicate their bal-
anced approach to all incoming experiences.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
According to the hypothesis, the time course analysis
revealed that happy face distractors generated a smaller
response conflict than neutral and angry face distractors,
regardless of the group and time course. Positive emotional
stimuli not only require fewer attentional resources for pro-
cessing but also hold greater social relevance than neutral
stimuli. Consequently, the amygdala may quickly recognize
positive emotional stimuli, allowing other brain regions
involved in emotional attention to process them rapidly (Pes-
soa etal., 2012). This swift recognition of positive emotional
stimuli frees up attentional resources for quicker conflict
resolution and facilitates target detection. Contrary to this
finding, angry face distractors generated a larger response
conflict than neutral face distractors. Relevance detectors,
such as the amygdala or nucleus accumbens, can divert
resources to process the task-irrelevant emotional stimulus,
impairing the processing of task-relevant conflict (Pessoa,
2009). When the task-relevant stimulus is negative, more
attentional resources are devoted to its processing (Gupta
etal., 2016). The activity of the anterior cingulate cortex
responsible for conflict resolution decreases under negative
emotional distractions, resulting in increased reaction times
(Hart etal., 2010). Taken together, the findings suggest that
flanker interference effects are emotion-specific rather than
group- or time-specific. Although the present study showed
no significant difference between mindfulness meditators
and non-meditators (the main effect of group and interaction
effects non-significant), the observed effects appear to be
driven by the non-meditators, as seen in Tasks 1 and 2. The
lack of effects in meditators restricts us from commenting
on the time-driven activity on emotion-related and executive
system activity for this group.
The current results also support the hypothesis that emo-
tional effects on response inhibition and response conflict
differ between mindfulness meditators and non-meditators
(Lodha & Gupta, 2023a), likely because of the distinct
mechanisms underlying these functions (Friedman &
Miyake, 2004). Although more diverse samples, different
methodologies, and alternative paradigms are required to
expand on these results, the current findings offer a neces-
sary starting point for understanding the unique aspects of
these executive functions.
Along with the tasks, all the study participants were
assessed twice on the self-report scales, each with a gap of
4–7days. The mindfulness meditator group in the study had
fewer depressive symptoms than the control group on each
assessment. Given the role of the negative state in biasing
attention towards negative information and disturbing self-
regulation processes (Strauman, 2017), the current findings
indicate that mindfulness practice improves self-regulation,
which is beneficial to overall psychological health.
The findings of the current investigation differ from previ-
ous research exploring the relationship between mindfulness
and conflict resolution in emotional contexts. Methodologi-
cal differences, such as the use of emotional words in prior
studies (Ainsworth etal., 2013; O’Hare & Gemelli, 2023)
versus emotional faces in our study, may contribute to mixed
results. While earlier studies focused on negative and neu-
tral stimuli as emotional primes, our study included posi-
tive emotional information in the flanker task, allowing for
a broader comparison of emotional effects. Moreover, the
operationalization of mindfulness varied; previous studies
assessed mindfulness training with structured interventions,
while our study measured trait mindfulness with differences
in training periods and meditation types. Therefore, the
impact of mindfulness on conflict resolution in emotional
contexts may depend on task specifics and the type of mind-
fulness measured.
Limitations andFuture Research
The present study is not without its caveats and limitations.
Firstly, the study, using inherently more stimulating happy
and angry faces compared to neutral ones, did not measure or
match arousal levels for these emotional faces. For instance,
if angry faces elicit stronger emotions than happy faces, their
heightened sensory representations and attention process-
ing could impact conflict resolution. Therefore, matching
arousal levels between positive and negative stimuli is cru-
cial to ensure that valence, rather than emotional potency,
influences conflict resolution. While a recent study (Gupta
& Singh, 2021) found no arousal differences between happy
and angry faces from the same database used in the present
study (KDEF), future research should investigate stimuli
with matched arousal levels to clarify the specific impacts
of arousal and valence on the connection between mind-
fulness and conflict resolution. Secondly, unlike previous
studies (Ainsworth etal., 2013; O’Hare & Gemelli, 2023),
our study suggests that trait mindfulness improves conflict
resolution in emotionally irrelevant contexts. However,
longitudinal studies with active control groups are required
to establish the causal role of mindfulness. Additionally, a
between-group design may yield more robust effects than
a within-group design used here, and future studies could
enhance clarity by employing different participant sets to
explore the nuanced relationship between mindfulness and
conflict resolution.
Finally, the study did not find the expected group differ-
ences in mindful awareness, mood, or positive emotional
states. The lack of significant group differences could be
due to the low internal consistency of PANAS in the cur-
rent sample. Furthermore, the MAAS, designed to assess
trait mindfulness, also revealed no group differences, con-
sistent with previous studies (Chang etal., 2018; Lodha &
Gupta, 2023a). However, this interpretation has a few prob-
lems: firstly, the MAAS neither measures the acceptance
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
component of mindfulness (Sauer etal., 2013) nor does it
capture non-judgmental awareness (Baer etal., 2009). Sec-
ondly, the scale’s negatively worded items and focus on the
absence of attentional focus pose limitations. Thirdly, the
MAAS may be assessing perceived inattention (Van Dam
etal., 2010), and has been criticized for measuring the con-
struct of mindlessness and not necessarily measuring mind-
fulness (Sauer etal., 2013). To clarify, in our study, inter-
pretations and conclusions are derived specifically from the
behavioral task results related to mindful attention—refer-
ring to the cognitive and perceptual aspects of mindfulness,
such as sustained attention, awareness of thoughts and feel-
ings, and the ability to stay focused on the present task or
experience—not from the MAAS. Therefore, it is crucial to
exercise caution and avoid conflating our conclusions with
studies that utilized the MAAS to characterize findings as
(lack of) general absentmindedness. Additionally, the find-
ings need to be evaluated keeping in mind that the self-report
nature of the obtained data reduces its orthogonality and
independence, even though the study used standardized
scales to assess affect, emotional states, and mindfulness.
Future research should use robust methodologies to
examine how trait mindfulness modulates the interaction
between conflict resolution and emotions, considering
this study as a starting point. Specific recommendations
include using larger samples with more experienced prac-
titioners, conducting longitudinal studies with active con-
trol groups, and considering practice depth, quality, total
hours, and informal daily practice. Future studies should
control for variables like exercise and moral-ethical com-
ponents, while also complementing behavioral data with
objective cognitive measures, such as electroencephalog-
raphy and functional magnetic resonance imaging. These
methods can cross-validate current behavioral findings
and offer more information about specific mechanisms
behind mindfulness, conflict resolution, and executive
control in general.
The study demonstrates that emotional context plays a
crucial role in shaping the connection between mindful-
ness and conflict resolution. Instead of highlighting the
general emotional regulatory aspect of mindfulness, future
research should delve into understanding how and when
emotions are prioritized in attentional allocation. This
investigation may contribute to the theoretical understand-
ing of mindful positive emotion regulation and serve as a
reference for delineating the effects and mechanisms of
mindfulness and conflict resolution across emotional con-
texts and various analytical levels. For instance, exploring
how different mindfulness practices, like focused attention
and open monitoring (Lutz etal., 2015), influence conflict
resolution could be a valuable hypothesis. Examining these
findings critically may inform the development of more
systematic and cohesive mindfulness training programs
and therapies to enhance conflict resolution and emotional
processing, addressing psychological disturbances.
In conclusion, the current study corroborates previ-
ous findings with long-term meditators, which suggest
that mindfulness improves conflict resolution, and further
extends it to indicate that the positive effects of mindful-
ness on conflict resolution can also be seen in emotional
contexts. The effect may be accounted for by an increase
in the attentional resources in meditators, and the accept-
ance component of mindfulness might underlie this effect.
Mindfulness meditators seem adept at resolving conflicts
because of their ability to attend to emotions, regardless of
the valence of the affective experience generated by those
emotions. It is also interesting to note that the mindfulness
benefits in conflict resolution are more related to emo-
tions than their time course. The findings shed light on
the importance of the acceptance aspect of mindfulness.
Emotional context may be an essential variable for future
research to explore the relationship between mindfulness
and executive control in greater depth. While the present
findings suggest that individuals not practicing mindful-
ness meditation show smaller response conflict to happy
emotional distractors, future research is needed to replicate
the findings and confirm the effects using other paradigms
like the Stroop or Simon.
Acknowledgements We thank Miss Khushi Priya for her help with
the experiment design and Miss Jenna Lyn for proofreading the
manuscript.
Author Contribution Surabhi Lodha: conceptualization, resources,
software, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, meth-
odology, writing–original draft, writing–review and editing. Rashmi
Gupta: conceptualization, resources, formal analysis, funding acquisi-
tion, supervision, methodology, writing–review and editing.
Funding This research was supported by the University Grants Com-
mission contingency fund (378/(NET-NOV2017)) to Ms. Surabhi
Lodha, and IRCC, IITB seed grant (RD/0518 IRCCSH0-013) to Prof.
Gupta.
Data Availability All data can be downloaded using the below link:
https:// docs. google. com/ file/d/ 1Osy0 L3t50 y96zN jzW5K 19hfj
2NXBg iRq/ edit? usp= docsl ist_ api& filet ype= msexc el.
Declarations
Ethics Approval The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of
the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (India). It was carried out at
the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay as per the 1964 Declaration
of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed Consent Online consent was obtained from all individual
participants in the study.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests.
Use of Artificial Intelligence AI was used for editing the manuscript to
improve English language.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
References
Ainsworth, B., Eddershaw, R., Meron, D., Baldwin, D. S., & Garner,
M. (2013). The effect of focused attention and open monitoring
meditation on attention network function in healthy volunteers.
Psychiatry Research, 210(3), 1226–1231. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. psych res. 2013. 09. 002
Andreu, C. I., Moënne-Loccoz, C., López, V., Slagter, H. A., Franken,
I. H., & Cosmelli, D. (2017). Behavioral and electrophysiologi-
cal evidence of enhanced performance monitoring in medita-
tors. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1603–1614. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12671- 017- 0732-z
Arch, J. J., & Craske, M. G. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness: Emo-
tion regulation following a focused breathing induction. Behav-
iour Research and Therapy, 44(12), 1849–1858. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. brat. 2005. 12. 007
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A
conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practice, 10(2), 125–143. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ clipsy.
bpg015
Baer, R. A., Walsh, E., & Lykins, E. L. B. (2009). Assessment of
mindfulness. In F. Didonna (Ed.), Clinical handbook of mindful-
ness (pp. 153–168). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-0- 387-
09593-6_ 10
Baijal, S., & Gupta, R. (2008). Meditation-based training: A possible
intervention for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychia-
try, 5(4), 48–55.
Basso, J. C., McHale, A., Ende, V., Oberlin, D. J., & Suzuki, W. A.
(2019). Brief, daily meditation enhances attention, memory,
mood, and emotional regulation in non-experienced meditators.
Behavioural Brain Research, 356, 208–220. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. bbr. 2018. 08. 023
Becker, D., Rheem, H., Pick, C. M., Ko, A., & Lafko, S. R. (2019).
Angry faces hold attention: Evidence of attentional adhesion in
two paradigms. Progress in Brain Research, 247, 89–110. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/ bs. pbr. 2019. 03. 033
Berger, A., & Kiefer, M. (2021). Comparison of different response time
outlier exclusion methods: A simulation study. Frontiers in Psy-
chology, 12, 675558. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 675558
Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S., & Cohen,
J. D. (2001). Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psycho-
logical Review, 108(3), 624–652. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033-
295X. 108.3. 624
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 84.4. 822
Chan, D., & Woollacott, M. (2007). Effects of level of meditation
experience on attentional focus: Is the efficiency of executive or
orientation networks improved? Journal of Alternative and Com-
plementary Medicine, 13(6), 651–657. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/
acm. 2007. 7022
Chang, J. H., Kuo, C. Y., Huang, C. L., & Lin, Y. C. (2018). The flex-
ible effect of mindfulness on cognitive control. Mindfulness, 9(3),
792–800. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 017- 0816-9
Chiesa, A., Calati, R., & Serretti, A. (2011). Does mindfulness training
improve cognitive abilities? A systematic review of neuropsycho-
logical findings. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 449–464. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2010. 11. 003
Chiesa, A., Serretti, A., & Jakobsen, J. C. (2013). Mindfulness: Top-
down or bottom-up emotion regulation strategy? Clinical Psychol-
ogy Review, 33(1), 82–96. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2012. 10.
006
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
Cohen, N., Henik, A., & Moyal, N. (2012). Executive control attenuates
emotional effects—for high reappraisers only? Emotion, 12(5),
970–979. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0026 890
Cohen, N., Moyal, N., Lichtenstein-Vidne, L., & Henik, A. (2016).
Explicit vs. implicit emotional processing: The interaction
between processing type and executive control. Cognition and
Emotion, 30(2), 325–339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02699 931. 2014.
10008 30
Corbetta, M., & Shulman, G. L. (2002). Control of goal-directed and
stimulus-driven attention in the brain. Nature Reviews Neurosci-
ence, 3(3), 201–215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ nrn755
Creswell, J. D. (2017). Mindfulness interventions. Annual Review
of Psychology, 68, 491–516. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur
ev- psych- 042716- 051139
Dreisbach, G., & Goschke, T. (2004). How positive affect modulates
cognitive control: Reduced perseveration at the cost of increased
distractibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 343–353. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0278- 7393. 30.2. 343
Dreisbach, G., Reindl, A. L., & Fischer, R. (2018). Conflict and disflu-
ency as aversive signals: Context-specific processing adjustments
are modulated by affective location associations. Psychological
Research Psychologische Forschung, 82(2), 324–336. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s00426- 016- 0822-x
Eastwood, J. D., Smilek, D., & Merikle, P. M. (2001). Differential
attentional guidance by unattended faces expressing positive and
negative emotion. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(6), 1004–
1013. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ BF031 94519
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon
the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Percep-
tion & Psychophysics, 16(1), 143–149. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/
BF032 03267
Etkin, A., Egner, T., Peraza, D. M., Kandel, E. R., & Hirsch, J. (2006).
Resolving emotional conflict: A role for the rostral anterior cingu-
late cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron, 51(6),
871–882. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. neuron. 2006. 07. 029
Farb, N. A. S., Anderson, A. K., Irving, J. A., & Segal, Z. V. (2014).
Mindfulness interventions and emotion regulation. In J. J. Gross
(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 548–567). The Guil-
ford Press.
Fenske, M. J., & Eastwood, J. D. (2003). Modulation of focused atten-
tion by faces expressing emotion: Evidence from flanker tasks.
Emotion, 3(4), 327–343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 1528- 3542.3. 4.
327
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). The relations among inhibi-
tion and interference control functions: A latent-variable analysis.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 101–135.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0096- 3445. 133.1. 101
Gallant, S. (2016). Mindfulness meditation practice and executive func-
tioning: Breaking down the benefit. Consciousness and Cognition,
40, 116–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. concog. 2016. 01. 00
Garland, E. L., Farb, N. A., Goldin, P. R., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2015).
Mindfulness broadens awareness and builds eudaimonic meaning:
A process model of mindful positive emotion regulation. Psy-
chological Inquiry, 26(4), 293–314. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10478
40X. 2015. 10642 94
Goschke, T. (2014). Dysfunctions of decision-making and cogni-
tive control as transdiagnostic mechanisms of mental disorders:
Advances, gaps, and needs in current research. International Jour-
nal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23(S1), 41–57. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1002/ mpr. 1410
Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other
name…: Trials and tribulations of sati in Western psychology and
science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 219–239. https:// doi. org/
10. 1080/ 14639 947. 2011. 564841
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
Grützmann, R., Riesel, A., Kaufmann, C., Kathmann, N., & Heinzel,
S. (2019). Emotional interference under low versus high execu-
tive control. Psychophysiology, 56(8), e13380. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1111/ psyp. 13380
Gupta, R. (2007). Metacognitive rehabilitation of autobiographical
overgeneral memory. The Journal of Cognitive Rehabilitation,
25(2), 4–8.
Gupta, R. (2011). Attentional, visual, and emotional mechanisms of
face processing in Williams syndrome. Frontiers in Behavioral
Neuroscience, 5, 18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fnbeh. 2011. 00018
Gupta, R. (2012). Distinct neural systems for men and women during
emotional processing: A possible role of attention and evaluation.
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 6, 86. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3389/ fnbeh. 2012. 00086
Gupta, R. (2016). Neural control of vascular reactions: Impact of emo-
tion and attention. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1613. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2016. 01613
Gupta, R. (2019). Positive emotions have a unique capacity to capture
attention. Progress in Brain Research, 247, 23–46. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/ bs. pbr. 2019. 02. 001
Gupta, R., & Kar, B. R. (2010). Specific cognitive deficits in ADHD:
A diagnostic concern in differential diagnosis. Journal of Child
and Family Studies, 19, 778–786. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10826- 010- 9369-4
Gupta, R., & Kar, B. R. (2012). Attention and memory biases as stable
abnormalities among currently depressed and currently remitted
individuals with unipolar depression. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 3,
99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyt. 2012. 00099
Gupta, R., & Singh, J. P. (2021). Only irrelevant angry, but not happy,
expressions facilitate the response inhibition. Attention, Percep-
tion, and Psychophysics, 83(1), 114–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/
s13414- 020- 02186-w
Gupta, R., Kar, B. R., & Thapa, K. (2006). Specific cognitive dysfunc-
tion in ADHD: An overview. In J. Mukherjee & V. Prakash (Eds.),
Recent developments in psychology (pp. 153–170). Delhi.
Gupta, R., Kar, B. R., & Srinivasan, N. (2011). Cognitive-motivational
deficits in ADHD: Development of a classification system. Child
Neuropsychology, 17(1), 67–81. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09297
049. 2010. 524152
Gupta, R., Hur, Y. J., & Lavie, N. (2016). Distracted by pleasure: Effects
of positive versus negative valence on emotional capture under load.
Emotion, 16(3), 328–337. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ emo00 00112
Gupta, R., Raymond, J. E., & Vuilleumier, P. (2019). Priming by
motivationally salient distractors produces hemispheric asym-
metries in visual processing. Psychological Research Psycholo-
gische Forschung, 83(8), 1798–1807. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s00426- 018- 1028-1
Hart, S. J., Green, S. R., Casp, M., & Belger, A. (2010). Emotional prim-
ing effects during Stroop task performance. NeuroImage, 49(3),
2662–2670. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. neuro image. 2009. 10. 076
Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R.,
& Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Pro-
posing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural per-
spective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(6), 537–559.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91611 419671
Isbel, B., & Summers, M. J. (2017). Distinguishing the cognitive pro-
cesses of mindfulness: Developing a standardized mindfulness
technique for use in longitudinal randomized control trials. Con-
sciousness and Cognition, 52, 75–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
concog. 2017. 04. 019
Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness train-
ing modifies subsystems of attention. Cognitive, Affective, &
Behavioral Neuroscience, 7(2), 109–119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/
CABN.7. 2. 109
Jo, H. G., Malinowski, P., & Schmidt, S. (2017). Frontal theta dynam-
ics during response conflict in long-term mindfulness meditators.
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11, 299. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3389/ fnhum. 2017. 00299
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: The program of the stress
reduction clinic. University of Massachusetts Medical Center.
Kanske, P. (2012). On the influence of emotion on conflict processing.
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 6, 42. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3389/ fnint. 2012. 00042
Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2010). Modulation of early conflict pro-
cessing: N200 responses to emotional words in a flanker task.
Neuropsychologia, 48(12), 3661–3664. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
neuro psych ologia. 2010. 07. 021
Kanske, P., & Kotz, S. A. (2011). Conflict processing is modulated
by positive emotion: ERP data from a flanker task. Behavioural
Brain Research, 219(2), 382–386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. bbr.
2011. 01. 043
Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mind-
fulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies.
Clinical Psychology Review, 31(6), 1041–1056. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. cpr. 2011. 04. 006
Kozasa, E. H., Sato, J. R., Lacerda, S. S., Barreiros, M. A., Radvany,
J., Russell, T. A., Sanches, L. G., Mello, L. E., & Amaro, E., Jr.
(2012). Meditation training increases brain efficiency in an atten-
tion task. NeuroImage, 59(1), 745–749. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
neuro image. 2011. 06. 088
Kramer, R. S. S., Weger, U. W., & Sharma, D. (2013). The effect of mind-
fulness meditation on time perception. Consciousness and Cogni-
tion, 22(3), 846–852. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. concog. 2013. 05. 008
Larson, M. J., Steffen, P. R., & Primosch, M. (2013). The impact of
a brief mindfulness meditation intervention on cognitive control
and error-related performance monitoring. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 7, 308. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fnhum. 2013. 00308
Levinson, D. B., Stoll, E. L., Kindy, S. D., Merry, H. L., & Davidson,
R. J. (2014). A mind you can count on: Validating breath counting
as a behavioral measure of mindfulness. Frontiers in Psychology,
5, 1202. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2014. 01202
Lichtenstein-Vidne, L., Henik, A., & Safadi, Z. (2012). Task relevance mod-
ulates processing of distracting emotional stimuli. Cognition and Emo-
tion, 26(1), 42–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02699 931. 2011. 567055
Lin, Y., Tang, R., & Braver, T. S. (2022). Investigating mindfulness
influences on cognitive function: On the promise and potential of
converging research strategies. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review,
29(4), 1198–1222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/ s13423- 021- 02008-6
Lodha, S., & Gupta, R. (2023a). Irrelevant angry, but not happy, faces
facilitate response inhibition in mindfulness meditators. Current
Psychology, 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12144- 023- 04384-9
Lodha, S., & Gupta, R. (2022). Mindfulness, attentional networks, and
executive functioning: A review of interventions and long-term
meditation practice. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement, 6(4),
531–548. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s41465- 022- 00254-7
Lodha, S., & Gupta, R. (2023b). Are you distracted by pleasure? Prac-
tice mindfulness meditation. Journal of Cognitive Enhancement,
7, 61–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s41465- 023- 00257-y
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of nega-
tive emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety
Inventories. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0005- 7967(94) 00075-U
Lundqvist, D., Flykt, A., & Öhman, A. (1998). The Karolinska
Directed Emotional Faces (KDEF). CD ROM from Department
of Clinical Neuroscience, Psychology section, Karolinska Insti-
tutet, 91(630), 2–2. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ t27732- 000
Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008).
Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 163–169. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
tics. 2008. 01. 005
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Mindfulness
1 3
Lutz, A., Jha, A. P., Dunne, J. D., & Saron, C. D. (2015). Investigat-
ing the phenomenological matrix of mindfulness-related prac-
tices from a neurocognitive perspective. American Psychologist,
70(7), 632–658. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0039 585
Magalhaes, A. A., Oliveira, L., Pereira, M. G., & Menezes, C. B.
(2018). Does meditation alter brain responses to negative stim-
uli? A systematic review. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 12,
448. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fnhum. 2018. 00448
Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness and
cognitive flexibility. Consciousness and Cognition, 18(1), 176–
186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. concog. 2008. 12. 008
Moore, A. W., Gruber, T., Derose, J., & Malinowski, P. (2012). Regu-
lar, brief mindfulness meditation practice improves electrophysi-
ological markers of attentional control. Frontiers in Human Neu-
roscience, 6, 18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fnhum. 2012. 00018
Norris, C. J., Creem, D., Hendler, R., & Kober, H. (2018). Brief mind-
fulness meditation improves attention in novices: Evidence from
ERPs and moderation by neuroticism. Frontiers in Human Neu-
roscience, 12, 315. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fnhum. 2018. 00315
O’Hare, A. J., & Gemelli, Z. T. (2023). The effects of short interven-
tions of focused-attention vs. self-compassion mindfulness med-
itation on undergraduate students: Evidence from self-report,
classroom performance, and ERPs. PLoS One, 18(1), e0278826.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02788 26
Oken, B. S., Wahbeh, H., Goodrich, E., Klee, D., Memmott, T.,
Miller, M., & Fu, R. (2017). Meditation in stressed older
adults: Improvements in self-rated mental health not paral-
leled by improvements in cognitive function or physiological
measures. Mindfulness, 8(3), 627–638. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12671- 016- 0640-7
Ortner, C. N. M., Kilner, S. J., & Zelazo, P. D. (2007). Mindfulness
meditation and reduced emotional interference on a cognitive
task. Motivation and Emotion, 31(4), 271–283. https:// doi. org/
10. 1007/ s11031- 007- 9076-7
Pandey, S., & Gupta, R. (2022a). Irrelevant positive emotional infor-
mation facilitates response inhibition only under a high per-
ceptual load. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1038/ s41598- 022- 17736-5
Pandey, S., & Gupta, R. (2022b). Irrelevant angry faces impair
response inhibition, and the go and stop processes share atten-
tional resources. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 1–12. https:// doi. org/
10. 1038/ s41598- 022- 19116-5
Pandey, S., & Gupta, R. (2023). Implicit angry faces interfere with
response inhibition and response adjustment. Cognition and Emotion,
37(2), 303–319. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02699 931. 2022. 21620 04
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchen-
berger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019).
PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior
Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/
s13428- 018- 01193-y
Pessoa, L. (2009). How do emotion and motivation direct executive
control? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(4), 160–166. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. tics. 2009. 01. 006
Pessoa, L., Padmala, S., Kenzer, A., & Bauer, A. (2012). Interac-
tions between cognition and emotion during response inhibition.
Emotion, 12(1), 192–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0024 109
Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S.,
Büssing, A., & Kohls, N. (2013). Assessment of mindfulness:
Review on state of the art. Mindfulness, 4(1), 3–17. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 012- 0122-5
Schindler, S., & Bublatzky, F. (2020). Attention and emotion: An
integrative review of emotional face processing as a function
of attention. Cortex, 130, 362–386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
cortex. 2020. 06. 010
Schupp, H. T., Flaisch, T., Stockburger, J., & Junghöfer, M. (2006).
Emotion and attention: Event-related brain potential studies.
Progress in Brain Research, 156, 31–51. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/ S0079- 6123(06) 56002-9
Srinivasan, N., & Gupta, R. (2011). Global-local processing affects
recognition of distractor emotional faces. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 64(3), 425–433.
Srivastava, C. K., & Gupta, R. (2021). Good morning, I love you:
Mindfulness and self-compassion practices to rewire your brain
for calm, clarity, and joy. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 691673.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 691673
Strauman, T. J. (2017). Self-regulation and psychopathology: Toward
an integrative translational research paradigm. Annual Review
of Clinical Psychology, 13, 497–523. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/
annur ev- clinp sy- 032816- 045012
Sumantry, D., & Stewart, K. E. (2021). Meditation, mindfulness,
and attention: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 12(6), 1332–1349.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12671- 021- 01593-w
Teper, R., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Meditation, mindfulness and execu-
tive control: The importance of emotional acceptance and brain-
based performance monitoring. Social Cognitive and Affective
Neuroscience, 8(1), 85–92. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ scan/ nss045
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an interna-
tionally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,
38(2), 227–242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00220 22106 297301
Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Borders, A. (2010). Measuring
mindfulness? An item response theory analysis of the Mindful
Attention Awareness Scale. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 49(7), 805–810. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2010.
07. 020
Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron,
C. D., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Gor-
chov, J., Fox, K. C. R., Field, B. A., Britton, W. B., Brefczynski-
Lewis, J. A., & Meyer, D. E. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical
evaluation and prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness
and meditation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(1),
36–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91617 709589
van den Hurk, P. A., Giommi, F., Gielen, S. C., Speckens, A. E.,
& Barendregt, H. P. (2010). Greater efficiency in attentional
processing related to mindfulness meditation. The Quarterly
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63(6), 1168–1180. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17470 21090 32493 65
van Veen, V., & Carter, C. S. (2002). The anterior cingulate as a conflict
monitor: FMRI and ERP studies. Physiology & Behavior, 77(4–5),
477–482. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0031- 9384(02) 00930-7
Wadlinger, H. A., & Isaacowitz, D. M. (2011). Fixing our focus:
Training attention to regulate emotion. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 15(1), 75–102. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
10888 68310 365565
Zeidan, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., David, Z., & Goolkasian,
P. (2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: Evi-
dence of brief mental training. Consciousness and Cognition,
19(2), 597–605. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. concog. 2010. 03. 01
Zinchenko, A., Obermeier, C., Kanske, P., Schröger, E., & Kotz,
S. A. (2017). Positive emotion impedes emotional but not
cognitive conflict processing. Cognitive, Affective, & Behav-
ioral Neuroscience, 17, 665–677. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3758/
s13415- 017- 0504-1
Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Mindfulness
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
