IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i15p9621-d880587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do You Mind? Examining the Impact of Psychoeducation Specificity on Perceptions of Mindfulness-Based Programs

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole Del Rosario

    (Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 2N2, Canada)

  • Shadi Beshai

    (Department of Psychology, University of Regina, Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada)

Abstract

Objective: Mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) cultivate the capacity for mindfulness, defined as nonjudgmental acceptance and awareness of present-moment experience. Mindfulness has been associated with a host of benefits for users, such as improved indices of mental well-being. We examined public perceptions of acceptability (i.e., how appropriate the treatment is for a given problem) and credibility (i.e., how logical and convincing a treatment seems) of MBPs as a form of mental health intervention. The main objective of this study was to examine whether higher specificity of psychoeducational content improved perceptions of the acceptability and credibility of MBPs. Methods: Participants ( n = 188; female% = 39.4) were recruited online and randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In one condition, participants received balanced and evidence-based psychoeducation specific to MBPs for mental health. In the other condition, participants received general information about psychological treatments for mental health. Acceptability and credibility perceptions were measured by questionnaires across time (pre-and post-psychoeducation) and across specificity conditions (specific vs. general psychoeducation). Results: Participants randomized to the general, but not the specific, psychoeducation-endorsed higher scores of acceptability of MBPs post-psychoeducation. Further, participants endorsed higher scores of MBP credibility post-psychoeducation, regardless of the specificity of psychoeducation provided. Conclusions: Perceptions of the acceptability of MBPs were improved following exposure to general psychoeducation, and perceptions of the credibility of MBPs were improved following psychoeducation, regardless of specificity. Examining public perceptions of MBPs is important for informing strategies to support access to and use of MBPs.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole Del Rosario & Shadi Beshai, 2022. "Do You Mind? Examining the Impact of Psychoeducation Specificity on Perceptions of Mindfulness-Based Programs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-13, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9621-:d:880587
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9621/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/15/9621/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    2. Michele Cantarella & Chiara Strozzi, 2021. "Workers in the crowd: the labor market impact of the online platform economy [An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(6), pages 1429-1458.
    3. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    4. Park, JungKun & Ahn, Jiseon & Thavisay, Toulany & Ren, Tianbao, 2019. "Examining the role of anxiety and social influence in multi-benefits of mobile payment service," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 140-149.
    5. Chunhao Wei & Han Chen & Yee Ming Lee, 2022. "COVID-19 preventive measures and restaurant customers’ intention to dine out: the role of brand trust and perceived risk," Service Business, Springer;Pan-Pacific Business Association, vol. 16(3), pages 581-600, September.
    6. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.
    7. Abel Brodeur, Nikolai M. Cook, Anthony Heyes, 2022. "We Need to Talk about Mechanical Turk: What 22,989 Hypothesis Tests Tell Us about Publication Bias and p-Hacking in Online Experiments," LCERPA Working Papers am0133, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis.
    8. Lude, Maximilian & Prügl, Reinhard, 2021. "Experimental studies in family business research," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 12(1).
    9. Mattozzi, Andrea & Snowberg, Erik, 2018. "The right type of legislator: A theory of taxation and representation," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 54-65.
    10. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    11. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    12. Jun Zhang & Joon Soo Lim, 2021. "Mitigating negative spillover effects in a product-harm crisis: strategies for market leaders versus market challengers," Journal of Brand Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 28(1), pages 77-98, January.
    13. Haas, Nicholas & Hassan, Mazen & Mansour, Sarah & Morton, Rebecca B., 2021. "Polarizing information and support for reform," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 883-901.
    14. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. O. Ashton Morgan & John C. Whitehead, 2018. "Willingness to Pay for Soccer Player Development in the United States," Journal of Sports Economics, , vol. 19(2), pages 279-296, February.
    16. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    17. Atalay, Kadir & Bakhtiar, Fayzan & Cheung, Stephen & Slonim, Robert, 2014. "Savings and prize-linked savings accounts," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 107(PA), pages 86-106.
    18. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    19. Joshua Gubler & Nathan Kalmoe & David Wood, 2015. "Them’s Fightin’ Words: The Effects of Violent Rhetoric on Ethical Decision Making in Business," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 705-716, September.
    20. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:15:p:9621-:d:880587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.