Self-esteem mediates the relationship between mindfulness and well ...

Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 96–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Self-esteem mediates the relationship between mindfulness and well-being Badri Bajaj a,⁎, Ragini Gupta b, Neerja Pande c a b c

Dept. of Humanities & Social Sciences, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida, A-10, Sector: 62, Noida 201307, India Jaypee Business School, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida, A-10, Sector: 62, Noida 201307, India Indian Institute of Management Lucknow, Noida Campus, B-1, Sector: 62, Noida 201307, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 21 October 2015 Received in revised form 6 January 2016 Accepted 11 January 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Mindfulness Self-esteem Mental well-being Positive affect Negative affect

a b s t r a c t The relationship between mindfulness and well-being has received considerable importance in positive psychological research. The aim of the present study was to examine whether self-esteem mediates the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. A sample of 318 Indian undergraduate university students in the age range of 18–23 years completed self-report measures of mindfulness, self-esteem, affect and mental wellbeing. Correlation results indicated that mindfulness was associated with self-esteem, affect, and mental wellbeing and self-esteem was associated with affect and mental well-being. Analysis using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) showed that self-esteem fully mediated the relationship between mindfulness and positive affect and mental well-being. Furthermore, self esteem partially mediated the relationship between mindfulness and negative affect. Moreover, a multi-group analysis showed that the mediational model was not moderated by gender. The limitations and implications of the results are discussed. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Mindfulness is commonly defined as a form of nonjudgmental and nonreactive awareness of present-moment experiences, including emotions, cognitions, and bodily sensations, as well as external stimuli such as sights, sounds, and smells (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Kabat-Zinn, 2005). Mindfulness is also conceptualized as a psychological trait that refers to the tendency to be mindful in everyday life (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Levels of mindfulness may also be enhanced through meditation or mindfulness training (Baer et al., 2008; Falkenstrom, 2010). Attempts have been made in the past ten years on the empirical examination of the concept and applications of mindfulness. Mindfulness has been identified as one of the most strongly established factors contributing to well-being (Baer et al., 2008; Brown & Ryan, 2003). It is evident from several past studies focusing on how mindfulness and well-being interact (Chambers, Gullone, & Allen, 2009; Howell, Digdon, & Buro, 2010; Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006). Mindfulness allows individuals to perceive thoughts and events the way they are and keep them away from judging it critically (Brown et al., 2007). Mindfulness helps individuals to get rid of automatic thoughts & unhealthy behavior and promote self regulated behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2001). This self regulated behavior tends to create recurring experiences of positive affect. Research studies have ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Bajaj), [email protected] (R. Gupta), [email protected] (N. Pande).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.020 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

demonstrated close association between mindfulness and well-being (Giluk, 2009; Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz, 2014; Haver, Akerjordet, Caputi, Furunes, & Magee, 2015; Schutte & Malouff, 2011; Short, Mazmanian, Oinonen, & Mushquash, 2015; Wenzel, Versen, Hirschmüller, & Kubiak, 2015). Studies have also shown that an increase in mindfulness through interventions such as meditation training results in increase of individuals' well-being (Aikens et al., 2014; Falkenstrom, 2010; Fredrickson, Cohn, Coffey, Pek, & Finkel, 2008). Originally, self-esteem was defined as a one-dimensional construct, which refers to a person's general sense of worth (Rosenberg, 1965). Self-esteem is an important construct and is related to a variety of positive psychological outcomes, including psychological adjustment, positive emotion, and prosocial behavior (Leary & MacDonald, 2003). Selfesteem can be enhanced by using well-designed interventions (Robins, Trzesniewski, & Donnellan, 2012). Randal, Pratt, and Bucci (2015) in a review of mindfulness and self-esteem, found a significant relationship between mindfulness and self-esteem. The reason for the association can be attributed to the fact that higher mindfulness makes an individual less engrossed by negative feelings and thoughts that represent low self-esteem (Pepping, O'Donovan, & Davis, 2013). Deci and Ryan (1980) suggested that attention and awareness of mind engage the individual in a behavior that is in line with their needs and interest and thus the individual is less likely to get surrounded by harsh and critical feelings. Increased awareness and describing through mindfulness may encourage people to maintain attention on present experiences, making them less likely to experience negative beliefs or critical thoughts, further enhancing self-esteem. Some preliminary

B. Bajaj et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 94 (2016) 96–100

evidence suggests that mindfulness is associated with self-esteem (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Michalak, Teismann, Heidenreich, Strohle, & Vocks, 2011; Rasmussen & Pidgeon, 2011; Thompson & Waltz, 2008). Research findings have demonstrated that people with low selfesteem, experience virtually every negative emotion more often than those with high self-esteem (Goswick & Jones, 1981; Leary, 1983; Taylor & Brown, 1988). High self-esteem acts as a cushion for people against feelings of anxiety, it enhances coping, and promotes physical and mental health (Greenberg et al., 1992; Taylor & Brown, 1988). High self-esteem enhances positive affect by promoting personal adjustment and by buffering the person against stress and other negative emotions, whereas low self-esteem is associated with depression, anxiety, and maladjustment (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995). Well-being has been found to be a correlate of self-esteem across a number of studies (Brown & Marshall, 2001; Kong, Zhao, & You, 2013; Krieger, Hermann, Zimmermann, & Grosse, 2015; Lin, 2015a, 2015b). Based on the preceding rationale and available literature showing that mindfulness contributes to self-esteem (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Rasmussen & Pidgeon, 2011; Ryan & Deci, 2001), and that self-esteem contributes to well-being (Kong et al., 2013; Lin, 2015a, 2015b), in this study, self-esteem was hypothesized to mediate the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Thus, mindfulness would predict higher levels of self-esteem, which would in turn predict enhanced well-being. This will allow clinicians and researchers to develop interventions that specifically address and target underlying processes. To our knowledge, no study has been encountered to examine the mediation effect of self-esteem on the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Besides, this study will also contribute to mindfulness literature by making an effort to explain the potential mechanism by which mindfulness influences well-being. The present study investigated the mediating effects of self-esteem on the relationship between mindfulness and well-being in a sample of Indian undergraduate students through SEM. Based on the previous studies, we proposed four possible hypotheses: (1) Mindfulness may significantly predict well-being; (2) mindfulness may significantly predict self-esteem; (3) self-esteem may significantly predict well-being and (4) self-esteem may mediate the influence of mindfulness on well-being.

97

a four point Likert type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree. It includes items such as, “I am able to do things as well as most other people.” and “I take a positive attitude toward myself.” The RSES has good levels of reliability and validity (Kong, Zhao, & You, 2012; Zhao, Kong, & Wang, 2012, 2013). 2.2.3. Positive and negative affect Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was administered to assess positive and negative affect of the participants. PANAS consists of 10 affective adjective words for positive affect and negative affect respectively. Participants were asked to indicate how they generally feel on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = very slightly or not at all to 5 = extremely. For positive affect words such as “enthusiastic”, “active”, and “alert” and for negative affect words such as “guilty”, “ashamed”, and “distressed” have been used respectively. 2.2.4. Mental well-being Mental well-being was measured with the short version of the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS; Stewart-Brown et al., 2009). This scale has 7 items that consist of positive phrases and covers positive facets of mental health and well-being (StewartBrown, 2013). Participants were asked to indicate to what extent they are feeling each experience on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = none of the time to 5 = all of the time. Sample items include, “I've been feeling relaxed” and “I've been dealing with problems well”. 2.3. Procedure The researcher instructed the participants for filling the surveys in the classroom environment. Participants completed surveys consisting of the MASS, RSES and PANAS & SWEMWBS. The researcher assured the participants of the confidentiality of their responses. A trained research assistant was also available throughout the process to respond to any queries raised by the participants. It took approximately 15 min for the students to complete the surveys. 2.4. Data analysis

2. Method 2.1. Participants 318 undergraduate students from an Indian university volunteered to take part in the study. In the sample, 232 were males and 86 were females. The mean age of the sample was 20.3 years (standard deviation = 1.3 years). 2.2. Measures 2.2.1. Mindfulness Trait mindfulness was assessed through the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003), which consists of 15 brief statements. Participants were asked to express their agreement on a six point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = almost always, to 6 = almost never. It includes items such as, “I tend to walk quickly to get where I'm going without paying attention to what I experience along the way” and “I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touch with what I'm doing right now to get there”. Excellent test–retest reliability, good internal consistency, and good convergent and discriminant validity have been found with the MAAS (Brown & Ryan, 2003).

SEM procedure was used to investigate the impact of self-esteem on the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. The two-step procedure recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) was used to analyze the mediation effects. The measurement model was first tested to assess whether each of the latent variable was represented by its indicators. If the measurement model turns out satisfactory, then the structural model was tested using the maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS 18.0 program. Three item parcels for mindfulness and two item parcels for each of the self-esteem, positive affect, negative affect and mental well-being factors were formed to control inflated measurement errors caused by multiple items for the latent factor. These parcels were created using an item-to-construct balance approach (i.e. successively assigning highest and lowest loading items across parcels (Kong, Wang, & Zhao, 2014; Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Different goodness-of-fit indices were used to investigate the adequacy of model fit to the observed data: Chi square statistics; rootmean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of. 06 or less; standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) of .08 or less; and comparative fit index (CFI), best if above .95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). 3. Results 3.1. Preliminary analysis

2.2.2. Self-esteem The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was administered to assess self-esteem of the participants (Rosenberg, 1965). The RSES consists of 10 items. The Respondents were asked to express their agreement on

Means, standard deviations, reliability estimates (Cronbach's alpha coefficients), and correlations for all measures are displayed in Table 1. All measures were significantly correlated.

98


Table 1 Mean, standard deviations (SD), reliabilities, and intercorrelations among study measures. Measure

Mean

SD

α

1

2

3

1. Mindfulness 2. Self esteem 3. Positive affect 4. Negative affect 5. Mental well-being

3.9 2.9 3.6 2

0.75 0.42 0.62 0.56

0.83 0.80 0.82 0.81

0.44⁎⁎ 0.36⁎⁎ −0.39⁎⁎

0.47⁎⁎ −0.45⁎⁎

−0.19⁎⁎

3.4

0.61

0.82

0.37⁎⁎

0.58⁎⁎

0.45⁎⁎

4

−0.23⁎⁎

Note: α: Cronbach's alpha. ⁎⁎ Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

3.2. Measurement model The measurement model comprises of five latent factors (mindfulness, self-esteem, positive affect, negative affect and mental wellbeing) and 11 observed variables. The preliminary analysis of the measurement model provided an excellent fit to the data. χ2 = 54.92; df = 34; p = .013; RMSEA = .044; SRMR = .012; and CFI = .988. Reliable factor loadings were found for the indicators on the latent variables, indicating that respective indicators are true representative of their latent factors.

3.3. Structural model In order to find the best model, four alternative models were assessed. The fit indices of alternative models are presented in Table 2. First, a partially mediated model (Model 1) with self-esteem as a mediator and three direct paths from mindfulness to positive affect, negative affect, and mental well-being revealed a good fit to the data: χ2 = 70.52; df = 37; p = .001; RMSEA = 0.053; PClose = .359; SRMR = .017; and CFI = .981. However, examination of parameter estimates indicated that the direct path coefficients from mindfulness to positive affect (b = .11, p = .061) and from mindfulness to mental well-being (b = .04, p = .433) were not significant. Thus, Model 2 was tested after eliminating the insignificant paths. Model 2 also fit the data well: χ2 = 74; df = 39; p = .001; RMSEA = .053; PClose = 0.365; SRMR = .019; and CFI = .980. Although there was no significant difference between Model 1 and Model 2 (Δ χ2 (2, N = 318) = 3.48, p N 0.05), Model 2 with less estimated parameters represented a more parsimonious account of the observed data. So, Model 2 was obviously better than Model 1. Next, a partially mediated model (Model 3) with positive affect, negative affect and mental well-being as mediators between mindfulness and self-esteem was tested. The fit indices of Model 3 were: χ2 = 95.034; df = 37, p = .000; RMSEA = .070; PClose = 0.028; SRMR = .030; and CFI = .966. Model 3 was inferior to Model 1 and Model 2. In addition, Model 4 with mindfulness as a mediator between selfesteem and well-being indicators was also tested. However, mindfulness did not mediate the relationship between self-esteem and positive affect and mental well-being. The 95% confidence intervals contained zero, indicating that mindfulness didn't mediate the relationship between self-esteem and positive well-being indicators. The 95% confidence interval values for mindfulness as a mediator between self-

Table 2 Fit indices among competing models.

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

χ2

df

χ2/df

RMSEA

SRMR

CFI

AIC

ECVI

70.52 74 95.034

37 39 37

1.906 1.898 2.568

0.053 0.053 0.07

0.017 0.019 0.03

0. 981 0.98 0.966

128.521 128 153.034

0.405 0.404 0.483

Note: N = 318, RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual; CFI = comparative fit index; AIC = Akaike information criterion; and ECVI = expected cross-validation index. Model 2 was the best one.

esteem and positive affect and between self-esteem and mental wellbeing were [−.009, .163] and [−.078, .109]. On the basis of the results, it could be concluded that Model 2 was the best one. Thus, self esteem fully mediated the relationship between mindfulness and positive affect, and mental well-being. However, the direct effect of mindfulness on negative affect was still significant, thus self esteem was a partial mediator between mindfulness and negative affect. Bootstrapping procedures in AMOS were used to test the significance of the mediation effects of self-esteem. In this study 5000 bootstrapping samples were generated from the original data set (N = 318) by random sampling. The indirect effect of mindfulness on positive affect, negative affect, and mental well-being mediated by self-esteem is shown in Table 3. Empirical 95% confidence intervals did not have zero, indicating that the indirect effect was statistically significant. Thus, mindfulness exerted a significant indirect effect on positive affect, negative affect, and mental well-being via self-esteem (Fig. 1). 3.4. Gender differences Multi-group analysis was conducted to identify whether the path coefficients differ significantly between females and males. The gender differences were examined by comparing the first model, which allows the structural paths to vary across sexes, with the second model, which constrains the structural paths between females and males to be equal. The results showed that the constrained model was not significantly different from the first model, Δχ2 (5, N = 318) = 4.05, p N .05, suggesting no significant gender differences. Inspection of each path coefficient further confirmed that all the associations were similar in magnitude for male and female groups. These results provide a preliminary support for the robustness of the final meditational model. 4. Discussions The present study was conducted to examine the role of self-esteem as a mediator between mindfulness and well-being in a sample of students in Indian context. Consistent with prior studies (Schutte & Malouff, 2011; Wenzel et al., 2015) mindfulness was found to correlate significantly with well-being. Although some previous research has examined role of mediators in mindfulness and well-being, there is little research that has investigated the mediating role of self-esteem between mindfulness and well-being. The present study found that self-esteem did significantly mediate between mindfulness and higher positive affect, higher mental well-being, and lower negative affect. The results have supported the study predictions. These results are consistent with earlier studies on the association between self-esteem and well-being (Kong et al., 2013; Lin, 2015a, 2015b). Self-esteem fully mediated the relationship between mindfulness and positive affect and mental well-being. However, the direct effect of mindfulness on negative affect was still significant thus self-esteem was a partial mediator between mindfulness and negative affect. These findings imply that self-esteem might be a key factor in enhancing positive well-being indicators and reducing negative affect. This will allow clinicians and researchers to develop interventions that specifically address and target underlying processes. The theoretical underpinning for this hypothesis Table 3 Bootstrapping indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the meditational model.

Model pathways

Point estimates

Mindfulness → self esteem → positive affect Mindfulness → self esteem → negative affect Mindfulness → self esteem → mental well-being

.34 −.20 .42

95% CI Lower

Upper

.25 −31. .32

.43 −.11 .51


99

Fig. 1. The Structural Equation Model regarding the mediating effect of self-esteem on the relation between mindfulness and positive affect, negative affect, and mental well-being. Note: Factor loadings are standardized. M1–M3 = three parcels of mindfulness; SE1–SE2 = two parcels of self-esteem; PA1–PA2 = two parcels of positive affect; NA1–NA2 = two parcels of negative affect; MW1–MW2 = two parcels of mental well-being.

is that the higher mindfulness makes an individual less engrossed by negative feelings and thoughts, further enhancing self-esteem, and the enhanced self-esteem acts as a cushion for people against feelings of anxiety, it enhances coping, and promotes physical and mental health (Greenberg et al., 1992; Pepping et al., 2013; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Mindfulness encourages individual to identify thoughts as mental processes rather than facts. This distinction allows people to notice selfcritical thoughts and identify them as thoughts rather than truth, and acts as a buffer for low self-esteem. Moreover mindfulness facilitates self regulated behavior by engaging individuals in activities that are consistent with their values, needs and interests and therefore promoting their well-being. Further, mindfulness approach encourages individuals with low self-esteem not to be critical with their thoughts, feelings and stimuli. The mindfulness based interventions can directly influence self-esteem and thus enhance well-being. These results highlight the importance of self-esteem in the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. The findings provide evidence of a connection between mindfulness, self-esteem and well-being. The results provide information regarding one possible process through which mindfulness exerts its beneficial effects. The findings contribute to the enrichment of the field of mindfulness. There are some limitations in the current study that should be acknowledged. First, this study had a cross-sectional design which makes it difficult to draw any causal relationship among the variables. In the future, researchers may conduct longitudinal or experimental studies to examine the mediation model. Second, self-report scales were used to collect data in this study. Future studies may use multiple assessment methods to further strengthen the validity of the findings. Future research should explore important underlying mechanisms by which mindfulness enhances self-esteem. Apart from these limitations the current study is the first attempt to investigate self-esteem as a mediator that underlines the mechanism of relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Gathering data from a sample of Indian participants offers meaningful evidence for external validity for mindfulness as the predictor of self-esteem and wellbeing. The findings of this mechanism can provide useful suggestions to design effective psychological interventions that can have a positive impact on students' well-being by greater mindfulness and self-esteem. References Aikens, K. A., Astin, J., Pelletier, K. R., Levanovich, K., Baase, C. M., Park, Y. Y., & Bodnar, C. M. (2014). Mindfulness goes to work: Impact of an online workplace intervention. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 56(7), 721–731.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423. Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., & Sauer, S. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and non-meditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342. Brown, J. D., & Marshall, M. A. (2001). Self-esteem and emotion: Some thoughts about feelings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 575–584. 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. Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237. Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion regulation: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6), 560–572. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1(1), 33–43. Falkenstrom, F. (2010). Studying mindfulness in experienced meditators: A quasi-experimental approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(3), 305–310. Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A, Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045–1062. Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 805–811. Goswick, R. A., & Jones, W. H. (1981). Loneliness, self-concept, and adjustment. Journal of Psychology, 107(2), 237–240. Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, X., Rosenblatt, A., Burling, J., Lyon, D., ... Pinel, E. (1992). Why do people need self-esteem? Converging evidence that self-esteem serves an anxiety buffering function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(6), 913–922. Harrington, R., Loffredo, D. A., & Perz, C. A. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness as a positive predictor of psychological well-being and the role of the private self-consciousness insight factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 15–18. Haver, A., Akerjordet, K., Caputi, P., Furunes, T., & Magee, C. (2015). Measuring mental well-being: A validation of the Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale in Norwegian and Swedish. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 43(7), 721–727. Howell, A. J., Digdon, N. L., & Buro, K. (2010). Mindfulness predicts sleep-related selfregulation and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 419–424. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2005). Coming to our senses: Healing ourselves and the world through mindfulness. New York, NY: Hyperion. Kong, F., Zhao, J., & You, X. (2012). Emotional intelligence and life satisfaction in Chinese university students: The mediating role of self-esteem and social support. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(8), 1039–1043. Kong, F., Wang, X., & Zhao, J. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness and life satisfaction: The role of core self-evaluations. Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 165–169. Kong, F., Zhao, J., & You, X. (2013). Self-esteem as mediator and moderator of the relationship between social support and subjective well-being among Chinese university students. Social Indicators Research, 112(1), 151–161. Krieger, T., Hermann, H., Zimmermann, J., & Grosse Holtforth, M. (2015). Associations of self-compassion and global self-esteem with positive and negative affect and stress reactivity in daily life: Findings from a smart phone study. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 288–292. Leary, M. R. (1983). Understanding social anxiety: Social, personality and clinical perspectives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

100


Leary, M. R., & MacDonald, G. (2003). Individual differences in self-esteem: A review and theoretical integration. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 401–418). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 518–530. Lin, C. C. (2015a). Self-esteem mediates the relationship between dispositional gratitude and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 145–148. Lin, C. C. (2015b). Gratitude and depression in young adults: The mediating role of selfesteem and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 87, 30–34. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 151–173. Michalak, J., Teismann, T., Heidenreich, T., Strohle, G., & Vocks, S. (2011). Buffering low self-esteem: The effect of mindful acceptance on the relationship between selfesteem and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(5), 751–754. Pepping, C. A., O’Donovan, A., & Davis, P. J. (2013). The positive effects of mindfulness on self-esteem. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 8(5), 376–386. Randal, C., Pratt, D., & Bucci, S. (2015). Mindfulness and self-esteem: A systematic review. Mindfulness, 6(6), 1366–1378. Rasmussen, M. K., & Pidgeon, A. M. (2011). The direct and indirect benefits of dispositional mindfulness on self-esteem and social anxiety. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 24(2), 227–233. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Donnellan, M. B. (2012). A brief primer on selfesteem. Prevention Researcher, 19(2), 3–7. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudemonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. Schutte, N. S., & Malouff, J. M. (2011). Emotional intelligence mediates the relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 1116–1119.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373–386. Short, M. M., Mazmanian, D., Oinonen, K., & Mushquash, C. J. (2015). Executive function and self-regulation mediate dispositional mindfulness and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences (in press). Stewart-Brown, S. (2013). The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale (WEMWBS): Performance in different cultural and geographical groups. In C. L. M. Keyes (Ed.), International contributions to the study of positive mental health (pp. 133–153). London: Springer. Stewart-Brown, S., Tennant, A., Tennant, R., Platt, S., Parkinson, J., & Weich, S. (2009). Internal construct validity of the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): A Rasch analysis using data from the Scottish Health Education Population Survey. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(1), 15–22. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 193–210. Thompson, B. L., & Waltz, J. A. (2008). Mindfulness, self-esteem, and unconditional selfacceptance. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 26(2), 119–126. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. Wenzel, M., Versen, C. V., Hirschmüller, S., & Kubiak, T. (2015). Curb your neuroticism — Mindfulness mediates the link between neuroticism and subjective well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 68–75. Zhao, J., Kong, F., & Wang, Y. (2012). Self-esteem and humor style as mediators of the effects of shyness on loneliness among Chinese college students. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(6), 686–690. Zhao, J., Kong, F., & Wang, Y. (2013). The role of social support and self-esteem on the relationship between shyness and loneliness. Personality and Individual Differences, 54(5), 577–581.