Trait mindfulness as a buffer against intolerance of uncertainty and its effects on psychological well-being

Trait mindfulness as a buffer against intolerance of uncertainty and its effects on psychological well-being | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Trait mindfulness as a buffer against intolerance of uncertainty and its effects on psychological well-being Ye Hoon Lee This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6694073/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objectives: Based on the transactional model of stress and coping, this study conducted a study aimed at investigating the relationships among trait mindfulness, intolerance of uncertainty, and psychological well-being. Methods: A total of 307 South Korean adults (50.2% male; M age = 44.27 years [ SD = 8.46]) completed validated self-report questionnaires measuring the proposed variables. Results: Structural equation modeling analysis showed an acceptable fit and supported the proposed relationships. More specifically, high trait mindfulness was significantly related to low intolerance of uncertainty (β = -. 34, p <. 001), and intolerance of uncertainty and psychological well-being were significantly negatively correlated (β = −. 37, p <. 001). Moreover, mediation analysis revealed that intolerance of uncertainty significantly mediated the association between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being (β =. 12, p = .001). Conclusions: The findings show that highly mindful individuals demonstrate less cognitive and emotional reactivity toward uncertainty than individuals lower in trait mindfulness, which in turn leads to higher levels of psychological well-being. These results have important theoretical implications for understanding the psychological processes involved in trait mindfulness and suggest that mindfulness-based strategies specifically aimed at reducing intolerance of uncertainty may be effective in increasing psychological well-being. Humanities/Health humanities Social science/Psychology ambiguity anxiety body-mind emotion meditation ambiguity Figures Figure 1 Introduction Intolerance of uncertainty (IU) is defined as a dispositional characteristic that indicates an individual's difficulties in facing uncertainty and ambiguous circumstances (Dugas et al., 2004; Freeston et al., 1994). People with high levels of IU view a lack of predictability as undesirable, uncontrollable, and distressing, and they respond to the situation with more negative emotions and less effective ways of coping (Buhr & Dugas, 2009; Sahib et al., 2023). Notably, IU has been established as a transdiagnostic vulnerability factor for a range of psychological disorders, such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in clinical contexts (Gentes & Ruscio, 2011; Wilson et al., 2023). Additionally, IU has been found to increased psychological distress, reduced mental well-being and quality of life, and poorer health outcomes in non-clinical settings (Eraslan & Ilhan, 2023; Gibson et al., 2023; Rahimi et al., 2023). High IU is predominantly linked with one key negative consequence: decreased psychological well-being (PWB; Gibson et al., 2023; Levinthal et al., 2021; Rehman et al., 2021; Saleem et al., 2023). The psychological distress, maladaptive emotional responses, and complications in responding to uncertainty due to IU negatively impact PWB (Hancock & Mattick, 2020; Sahib et al., 2023), highlighting the need to identify the psychological factors that reduce IU among individuals (Rahman et al., 2021). Trait mindfulness, defined as maintaining a non-judgmental and accepting awareness of the present moment (Brown & Ryan, 2003), has emerged as a potential protective factor against the adverse effects of IU (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The inverse correlation between trait mindfulness and IU has been well established, with studies showing that mindfulness protects individuals from heightened emotional sensitivity and cognitive disruptions prompted by uncertainty (Arslan et al., 2021; Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2016; Nekić & Mamić, 2019; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). Mindfulness fosters adaptive emotion regulation, reduces rumination, and diminishes anxiety sensitivity; emotion dysregulation, rumination, and anxiety are known to mediate the negative impact of IU on psychological well-being (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Dutta et al., 2023; Nekić & Mamić, 2019). As a result, mindfulness has been recognized as a useful approach to reducing IU and enhancing PWB among both clinical and non-clinical samples. Given the evidence for the negative effects of IU on PWB and the potential protective role of trait mindfulness, investigating these constructs collectively could provide valuable insights for enhancing psychological health in populations vulnerable to uncertainty-related distress. Thus, this study aims to investigate the relationships between trait mindfulness, IU, and PWB among South Korean adults. Additionally, this seeks to explore the mediating role of IU in the association between trait mindfulness and PWB with the aim of identifying the mechanisms that underlie the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB. By clarifying the potential protective role of trait mindfulness in reducing the adverse effects of IU, this research contributes both theoretical and practical understandings of trait mindfulness as an important psychological factor for reducing IU-related feelings of distress and enhancing PWB. Literature Review Transactional model of stress and coping The transactional model of stress and coping, developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), serves as a valuable theoretical lens for examining and enhancing our understanding of how stressful situations are perceived, experienced, and coped with. According to the model, stress arises from an interaction between the individual and the environment, and this relationship is mediated through cognitive appraisals and coping mechanisms. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), there are two main cognitive appraisal processes. Primary appraisal represents the evaluation of whether an encounter is irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful, while secondary appraisal involves the evaluation of available coping resources and options. Within the model, IU can be framed as affecting primary and secondary cognitive appraisals. People high in IU are characterized by cognitive biases to interpret ambiguous situations as highly threatening and unmanageable, leading to heightened anxiety, worry and emotional distress (Hancock & Mattick, 2020; Rosen & Knäuper, 2009; Sahib et al., 2023). Thus, high IU individuals are more inclined to appraise uncertain situations as threatening, uncontrollable, and stressful (primary appraisal), and as a result evaluate their coping resources as inadequate or unsuccessful (secondary appraisal) (Buhr & Dugas, 2009; Dugas et al., 2004). Consequently, they are more prone to psychological distress and lower PWB due to perceived deficits in their coping strategies and capacity to regulate emotions when faced with uncertainty (Hancock & Mattick, 2020; Rehman et al., 2021; Saleem et al., 2023). Trait mindfulness may serve as a protective psychological resource within this transactional framework, buffering against the negative influence of IU on stress appraisals. Mindfulness is characterized by present-focused awareness, acceptance, and non-reactivity toward internal and external experiences, thus promoting a less reactive and more adaptive appraisal of ambiguous or uncertain situations (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2020; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). Specifically, trait mindfulness can attenuate primary appraisal by allowing individuals to perceive uncertainty as less threatening and stressful. Furthermore, mindfulness can strengthen secondary appraisal by enhancing individuals’ perceptions of their coping resources and emotional regulation capabilities in the face of uncertainty (Mantzios et al., 2015; Nekić & Mamić, 2019). Thus, from the perspective of the transactional model of stress and coping, trait mindfulness acts as an essential buffer, mitigating the detrimental impact of IU and promoting psychological well-being. IU IU is defined as a cognitive vulnerability representing an inability for an individual to tolerate ambiguity, unpredictability, and uncertainty in a variety of situations and events (Freeston et al., 1994). In particular, IU denotes a dispositional risk factor for experiencing cognitive, affective, and behavioral problems in situations characterized by uncertainty that in turn produce negative interpretations and dysfunctional behaviors (Carleton, 2012; Freeston et al., 1994). IU was first proposed as a key corollary of GAD due to its strong predictive relationship to excessive worry (Dugas et al., 2004). Research has repeatedly shown IU to be a central transdiagnostic factor related to a wide range of psychological disorders, such as GAD, OCD, depression, panic disorder, and health exhaustion symptoms (Carleton, 2012; Rosser, 2019; Shapiro et al., 2020; Gentes & Ruscio, 2011; McEvoy & Mahoney, 2012). Indeed, a meta-analysis by Gentes and Ruscio (2011) has provided evidence for strong associations between IU and symptoms of GAD, major depression, and OCD, and showed that IU has a major influence on symptom severity via mechanisms such as worry, negative problem orientation, pessimism, and anxiety about uncertain outcomes. In addition to its association with anxiety and depressive symptomatology, IU has been widely studied with respect to its more general psychological implications. High IU individuals view unfamiliar, uncertain, or ambiguous situations as dangerous, threatening, and/or intolerable (Dugas et al., 2004; Rosen & Knäuper, 2009). These cognitive biases toward ambiguity give rise to certain maladaptive responses to uncertainty such as cognitive avoidance, rumination, and overestimation of the need for reassurance (Carleton, 2012; Dugas et al., 2004; Buhr & Dugas, 2009; Liao & Wei, 2011). Moreover, IU is linked to substantial emotional distress, poor psychological resilience, and social and interpersonal dysfunction (Eraslan & Ilhan, 2023; Gibson et al., 2023; Jenkins et al., 2020; Rahimi et al., 2023; Sahib et al., 2023) Research has identified adverse effects of IU on physical health and overall psychological functioning, particularly in groups of individuals experiencing chronic diseases and stressful life conditions. For example, Gibson et al. (2023) reported that individuals high in IU experience difficulties adapting to chronic medical conditions, are less likely to adhere to their medical regimen, and report a lower quality of life. Similarly, Rahimi et al. (2023) found that IU leads to greater psychological distress and decreases quality of life in people with chronic conditions. In the field of caregiving, Eraslan and Ilhan (2023) found that higher IU is associated with greater health anxiety and lower PWB in cancer caregivers. Overall, IU is a fundamental cognitive process that is considered a transdiagnostic vulnerability factor in the development of a range of emotional and psychological pathologies (Gentes & Ruscio, 2011). Research highlights the need to target IU to enhance mental health results among various populations (McEvoy & Mahoney, 2012; Wilson et al., 2023). Trait mindfulness and its association with IU Trait mindfulness reflects a person’s chronic dispositional inclination to stay non-judgmentally aware and open to experiences in the present moment, including internal sensations, thoughts, and external situational cues (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Key components of trait mindfulness are a strong tendency attend to experiences in the present moment, not react, be open, and be curious (Bishop et al., 2004). Regularly experiencing mindfulness promotes psychological flexibility, increases emotional regulation and facilitates more effective stress-reducing coping responses, all of which support more effective stress navigation (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Shapiro et al., 2006). Indeed, trait mindfulness has been found to be a strong protective factor statistically related to less psychological distress, anxiety, obsessive passion, and depression and greater overall psychological health and well-being (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hanley et al., 2014; Lee & Cho, 2024; Mantzios et al., 2015). Trait mindfulness reduces maladaptive cognitive and emotional reactions, such as rumination and worry, and enhances an individual's capacity to manage their reactions to stressors (Kim et al., 2016; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). More precisely, those high in trait mindfulness show greater psychological well-being and lower levels of stress and anxiety than those lower in trait mindfulness (Arslan et al., 2021; Nekić & Mamić, 2019). One specific cognitive vulnerability that seems to be particularly affected by mindfulness may be IU. As noted above, IU refers to a maladaptive cognitive-emotional attitudinal style in response to ambiguous or uncertain situations (Dugas et al., 2004). Because of the properties of trait mindfulness (e.g., non-reactivity and acceptance), mindfulness could attenuate biases in cognitive processes related to IU and lead to decreased threat perception of uncertain situations (Kraemer, et al., 2020; Irak et al., 2024). Given that mindfulness promotes an accepting, non-judgmental approach toward uncertainty (Dutta et al., 2023; Atlan Atalay et al., 2024), it may be assumed to reduce anxiety and negative affect provoked by uncertainty. The negative relationship between trait mindfulness and IU is well supported by the literature. For example, Kraemer et al. (2020) reported patients with high levels of anxiety and uncertainty benefitted from the mindfulness-based intervention in reducing IU symptoms. Consistent with this trend, Nekić & Mamić (2019) detected a strong negative association between trait mindfulness and IU, where those with high scores on mindfulness consistently expressed lower levels of IU and anxiety. In sum, these findings indicate that trait mindfulness is important in reducing the cognitive and emotional burden induced by IU. By improving emotional regulation and adaptive coping and reducing detrimental negative cognitive biases towards uncertainty, mindfulness may act as a psychological buffer that can protect people against the negative influences of IU. On the basis of the literature examined and the theoretical justification provided, the following hypothesis was derived: Hypothesis 1 : There will be a negative association between trait mindfulness and IU. PWB and its association with IU PWB is defined as an individual's positive psychological functioning. It includes six dimensions, namely self-acceptance, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, autonomy, and positive relations with others (Ryff, 1989). Because PWB is a subjective assessment of experiences and life satisfaction, cognitive and emotional processes play an important role in the way people judge their PWB (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). IU has consistently been shown to be a maladaptive factor affecting PWB. High IU individuals are more likely to view uncertainty as aversive or threatening, which has been associated with higher stress levels, emotional distress, and lower levels of PWB being (Hancock & Mattick, 2019; Sahib et al., 2023; Saleem et al., 2023). This ongoing distress associated with uncertainty is highly damaging to our life satisfaction and results in poorer perceived PWB (HasanTehrani & Moharami, 2024; Rahman et al., 2021; Rahimi et al., 2023). A number of studies point to IU as an important cognitive factor negatively related to PWB in a variety of populations. For instance, Saleem et al. (2023) demonstrated a robust negative relationship between IU and PWB among college students in conflict-prone regions, highlighting its role in exacerbating stress and reducing mental health. Similarly, Rahman et al. (2021) found that higher IU predicted increased loneliness and fear, ultimately contributing to reduced mental well-being. In addition, HasanTehrani and Moharami (2024) found that IU mediated the negative relationship between neuroticism and psychological wellbeing among university students. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Sahib et al. (2023) further supported the negative impact of IU, finding that individuals with higher IU consistently showed maladaptive emotional regulation strategies, resulting in decreased PWB. Moreover, Hancock and Mattick’s 2020 systematic review offer further strong evidence of a consistent negative correlation between low tolerance of ambiguity (a construct conceptually similar to IU) and PWB, such as greater stress, burnout, and mental health problems among medical students and doctors. Results indicated that people who have difficulty tolerating ambiguity report elevated psychological distress, indicating that IU-related phenomena interfere with psychological functioning within a range of professional settings. Taken together, these studies suggest that IU has far-reaching negative consequences for different aspects of PWB, that is, IU is a strong predictor of poorer emotional, psychological, and physical outcomes. Based on the literature review above, we formulated the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2 : There will be a negative association between IU and PWB. Mediating role of IU in the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB Although trait mindfulness and IU have previously been found to be significant predictors of PWB, evidence has suggested the need to investigate meditational pathways in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms and practical implications (Arslan et al., 2021; Nekić & Mamić, 2019). Such an examination may help to clarify the mediating mechanisms of the protective effects of mindfulness on psychological health outcomes. Trait mindfulness seems to endow people with cognitive and affective resources that allow them to effectively confront stress, including coping with uncertainty (Kraemer et al., 2020; Mantzios et al., 2015). Trait mindfulness may mitigate maladaptive cognitive responses to uncertainty directly through increasing psychological flexibility and reducing emotional reactivity, including worry and rumination, which are often activated in response to uncertainty (Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). As a result, mindfulness may enhance PWB through its effect on decreasing IU, a cognitive vulnerability factor that has been demonstrated to affect psychological and physical health (Dugas et al., 2004; Rahimi et al., 2023). Recent research has shown that IU acts as a mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and different mental health-related outcomes. For instance, Atlan Atalay et al. (2024) found that decreases in IU largely mediated trait mindfulness's protective effects on psychological distress in university students. In a similar vein, Nekić and Mamić (2019) found that IU accounted for the beneficial effect of mindfulness on anxiety and depressive symptoms, emphasizing IU as key in understanding the mindfulness-wellbeing relationship. Given these results, investigating IU as a mediator of the link between mindfulness and PWB may shed light on the cognitive and emotional processes underlying the effects of trait mindfulness. Thus, the following hypothesis was developed: Hypothesis 3 : IU will mediate the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB in adults, such that higher trait mindfulness will associate with lower IU, which in turn will lead to higher PWB. Method Participants A total of 307 adults, 50.2% male ( n = 154) and 49.8% female ( n = 153), participated in a survey in which their PWB, IU, and trait mindfulness as well as various demographic variables were assessed. Participants were aged between 30 and 59 years old, with a mean age of 44.27 years ( SD = 8.47). In terms of educational attainment, 68.7% had a bachelor's degree and 21.2% had a master's degree or above. Most (82.4%) were married, while 17.6% were unmarried. In terms of their self-reported economic class, the majority of the participants identified as middle-class (78.8%), followed by upper-class (11.7%) and lower-class (9.4%). In terms of perceived physical health, 69.7% reported “good” or “very good” health. As for psychological well-being, 70.4% described their status as “good” or “very good.” Descriptive demographics for participants can be found in Table 1. Measurements Trait mindfulness. Trait mindfulness was measured with the Korean version of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (K-MAAS; Kwon & Kim, 2007), which was adapted from the MAAS developed by Brown and Ryan (2003). The K-MAAS is comprised of 15 items reflecting the propensity of a person to be aware of, and to attend to, present-moment experiences in daily life. Responses were answered on a scale from 1 (almost always) to 6 (almost never). Higher scores reflect higher levels of trait mindfulness. A sample item is “I perform tasks or assignments mechanically, without conscious awareness of what I'm actually doing”. Evidence of the K-MAAS’s strong psychometric properties, including adequate internal reliability, has been found in previous studies (Cronbach’s α =. 87; Kwon & Kim, 2007). The Cronbach’s alpha for K-MAAS of the present study was also found to be good; α = .93. Intolerance of uncertainty . IU was assessed using the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 (IUS-12), which was initially constructed and validated by Freeston et al. (1994), reduced to 12 items by Carleton et al. (2007), and translated into Korean by Kim (2010). This scale consists of 12 items, which are subcategorized into two subscales, namely, “Prospective IU” and “Inhibitory IU.” Prospective IU, which comprises 7 items (items 1 to 7), is designed to assess the (in)ability to tolerate or to prevent uncertainty. “Inhibitory IU” is constituted by 5 items (items 8 to 12) measuring feelings of helplessness when facing uncertain situations. Moreover, the 12 items can be summed up to create a total IU score. This study adopted Kim’s (2010) version using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much) rather than the 4-point Likert-type scale offered by Carleton et al. (2007). Sample items are “I get very upset when unexpected things happen” for prospective IU, and “I try to avoid all uncertain situations” for inhibitory IU. Higher values indicate greater IU. The internal reliability (Cronbach’s α) of the IUS-12 was .91 in Carleton et al. ’s (2007) study and .84 in Kim’s (2010) study. In the present research, the IUS-12 had an overall Cronbach’s α of .89. Psychological well-being. The PWB of participants was measured using the World Health Organization (WHO) Well-being Index (WHO-5; WHO, 1998; Sischka et al., 2020). This scale includes five items and assesses subjective psychological well-being and positive mood over the previous 2 weeks. The items are measured on a six-point scale ranging from 0 (at no time) to 5 (all the time). Larger scores mean better PWB. Sample items are “I feel calm and relaxed”. Internal consistency and reliability for this scale were found to be good in previous research, with Cronbach's alpha ranging from .83 to .93 (Sischka et al., 2020). In the current study, Cronbach’s α was .91, demonstrating acceptable internal consistency. Procedures Participants consisted of individuals recruited through Gallup Korea, which specializes in collecting national data in South Korea. Data collection and research procedures were done in partnership with Gallup to maximize data representativeness and reliability. Gallup’s recruitment process for research it provides participants for involves developing a sampling plan to select participants based on the criteria of the study (e.g., adults from 30 to 65 years old) and to ensure representative sampling. Gallup organized sampling strategies, timing of recruitment, and how the survey was circulated and adjusted the recruitment process to fit the purpose of the study and the traits of the target population. Based on these criteria, participants were recruited and invited to participate. The questionnaire was prepared by the researchers according to the research objectives, and Gallup reviewed and refined it to ensure the questionnaire was kept clear and structurally complete. All survey responses were recorded on an anonymous basis and were collected via a secured online portal maintained by Gallup, and strict confidentiality measures were applied to protect participants' information. Gallup used anonymized data, processed it following predetermined security protocols, and delivered it to researchers for analysis. When the survey was finalized, Gallup aggregated and encoded the data in order to produce a final report on the survey process. Finally, the raw data were transferred to the researchers for data analysis. This study followed the ethical standards as laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB; HIRB20241017-002) at the fist author’s University on October 17, 2024. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement in the study, conducted from October 21, 2024, to November 1, 2024. Participants received full information about the study’s aims and procedures and assured that their participation was strictly voluntary and they could withdraw at any time without penalty. They were also guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity of their responses Data analysis Data analysis for this study was conducted in two primary phases: preliminary analyses and structural analyses. First, preliminary data screening procedures recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) were performed to ensure data accuracy and appropriateness for analysis. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among study variables were computed using IBM SPSS 25.0. Subsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate construct validity of the measurement model with IBM SPSS AMOS 25.0. CFA examined both convergent and discriminant validity. Assessments of convergent validity were based upon the examinations of factor loadings, composite reliability (ρc), and average variance extracted (AVE; Brown, 2006; Teo et al., 2009). Specifically, factor loadings higher than .40 to .50 and significant at α = .05 were deemed adequate proxies of the underlying constructs (Comrey & Lee, 1992; Hair et al., 1998; Stevens, 1996). Composite reliability values above .70 were considered acceptable, indicating good internal consistency. Additionally, AVE scores greater than .50 showed adequate variance explained by latent constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was then confirmed by comparing the AVE values for each construct with the squared correlations among constructs. Discriminant validity was determined by the AVE values being greater than the relevant squared correlations (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). After validating the measurement model, the analysis tested the hypothesized relationships between the variables using structural equation modeling (SEM). This technique allows the analysis and the interpretation of path coefficients, direct and indirect effects, and their statistical significance. Two separate tests of model fit were conducted, one confirming and the other exploratory, using several indices as suggested by Brown (2006) and Hu and Bentler (1999): the ratio of χ² / df , the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Acceptable fit was evidenced by χ² / df values of less than 3.00, CFI and TLI values greater than .90 (with values above .95 indicating good fit), and RMSEA index lower than .08 (with values below .05 representing good fit). Results Preliminary analyses Descriptive statistics, normality, and multicollinearity of the data were computed in the preliminary analyses. The Pearson correlation coefficients between all the variables were lower than the recommended cutoff value of. 85 (Kline, 2005), suggesting that there were no multicollinearity problems. Normality was assessed through skewness and kurtosis values. Skewness ranged from -. 31 to .06 and kurtosis from -.24 to -.35, which met the preferred conditions (i.e., skewness ±2, kurtosis ±7; West et al., 1995). Hence, standards for normality and absence of multicollinearity were fulfilled, thus making the data suitable for further analysis. The descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the variables in the study are shown in Table 2. Measurement model Construct validity was estimated through a concurrent CFA. The results of the CFA suggested that the fit of the measurement model to the data was acceptable: χ² = 1005.474, df = 457; χ² / df = 2.20 ( p <. 01), TLI = .89, CFI =. 90, RMSEA =. 063 (90% CI: .057 - .068), and SRMR = .069. For convergent validity, factor loadings, AVE, and ρc were assessed. All measurement items had factor loadings above .40, except for the fifth item of IU. AVE values were higher than the recommended values of .50 except for IU, with all ρc values well above .70. For assessing discriminant validity, AVE values of latent constructs were compared to their squared correlations. All AVE values were greater than the respective squared inter-construct correlations; thus, discriminant validity was established. Furthermore, all constructs had a Cronbach’s α of > .70, with acceptable internal consistency and reliability. Specifics of measurement validity, reliability, and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3. Structural model and hypothesis testing To test the study hypotheses, SEM was used. The model demonstrated acceptable fit to the data: χ² = 1005.47, df = 457; χ² / df = 2.20 ( p <. 01), TLI =. 89, CFI =. 90, RMSEA =. 063 (90% CI: .057 – 0.68), and SRMR = .069. Model fit indices did not suggest any theoretically meaningful changes, thus supporting the structural model. Specifically, as shown in Figure 1, trait mindfulness related negatively to IU (β = -. 34; p <. 001), which lends support for Hypothesis 1. IU had a significant negative relationship with PWB (β = -.37; p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 2. Moreover, the mediation analysis revealed that IU was a significant mediator between trait mindfulness and PWB (β =. 12; p = .001; 95% bias-corrected CI: .064 - .194), thus lending support to Hypothesis 3. Discussion Grounded in the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), this study was conducted in order to examine the relationships between trait mindfulness, IU, and PWB among adults in South Korea. The results provided support for the predicted relationships: trait mindfulness was negatively related to IU, IU was negatively related to PWB, and IU mediated between trait mindfulness and PWB. The present study was focused on the research question of whether trait mindfulness may lead to improvements in PWB by investigating IU as an important underlying mechanism. In this sense, our results continue to support the emerging literature demonstrating IU as a transdiagnostic risk factor for physical and psychological health (Dugas et al., 2004; Gentes & Ruscio, 2011). Most research to date has concentrated instead on the relationships between mindfulness itself and mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, obsession, and perceived stress (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Hanley et al., 2014; Lee & Cho, 2024; Mantzios et al., 2015). Nevertheless, by integrating IU into the relationship, this research extends prior mindfulness studies, providing more understanding of mindfulness as a cognitive and emotional resource that specifically mitigates the detrimental effects of uncertainty on individuals’ PWB. This section discusses the theoretical implications of our findings, as well as the mechanisms by which mindfulness could lead to lower IU and increase in PWB. The negative relationship between trait mindfulness and IU may be explained by the fundamental characteristics of mindfulness: acceptance, non-reactivity, and present moment awareness. According to previous research, mindfulness facilitates cognitive and emotional disengagement from relatively automatic reactions to uncertainty, hence reducing distress and anxiety stemming from ambiguous or unpredictable situations (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2020; Papenfuss et al., 2022). In addition, mindfulness improves emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility, causing people to find uncertain situations less threatening and more manageable (Matzios et al., 2015; Nekic & Mamic, 2019). Therefore, it can be assumed that individuals with high levels of trait mindfulness will be less likely than others to be involved in maladaptive cognitive patterns such as worrying, avoidance, or rumination that are responsible for increasing IU (Kim et al., 2016; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). The present research contributes to the literature on mindfulness by providing clear support for the protective value of mindfulness in lowering IU, a psychological vulnerability factor known to be associated with poor mental health outcomes. The negative relationship that emerged between IU and PWB is consistent with earlier empirical research which underscored IU as an important variable that has a negative impact on both psychological and physical health outcomes (Hancock & Mattick, 2020; Sahib et al., 2023; Saleem et al., 2023). High IU people suffer from mood and anxiety disorders related to negative cognitive appraisals and maladaptive coping responses to uncertainty. This heightened emotional distress not only diminishes psychological wellbeing but also impairs emotional regulation and reduces resilience, reducing overall satisfaction with life (HasanTehrani & Moharami, 2024; Rahman et al., 2021; Rahimi et al., 2023). Because PWB is based on individuals' subjective judgments regarding life satisfaction in several life domains (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), it is not surprising that higher IU was associated with poorer levels of PWB (Levinthal et al., 2021; Sahib et al., 2023). In this way, the current study provides strong empirical support for the importance of IU in PWB research, suggesting that this is an issue deserving of further attention in both clinical and public health settings (Hancock & Mattick, 2020; Rahman et al., 2021; Saleem et al., 2023). Moreover, the significant mediating role of IU in the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB sheds light on an important psychological pathway linking mindfulness and wellbeing. While prior mindfulness studies have primarily investigated direct relationships with wellbeing outcomes (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Mantzios et al., 2015), this study expands on existing knowledge by clarifying the indirect route through which mindfulness may influence PWB. Specifically, trait mindfulness might foster enhanced PWB by decreasing individuals' intolerance of uncertainty, thus alleviating the psychological distress associated with uncertain situations (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2020; Nikic & Mamic, 2019). Our findings regarding this indirect pathway offer important theoretical insights into how mindfulness interventions can effectively target IU to promote better overall PWB. Given that IU has been robustly established as a detrimental factor for health and wellbeing (Dugas et al., 2004; Hancock & Mattick, 2020; Rahimi et al., 2023), this finding reinforces the notion that mindfulness is an effective resource for buffering the negative consequences of IU. Finally, although not central to the focus of the current investigation, the relationship found between mindfulness, IU, and PWB supports the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). From this theoretical perspective, processes associated with cognitive appraisal have a considerable effect on how people react to stressors and how they feel in general. Mindfulness may facilitate more adaptive cognitive appraisals by fostering acceptance, a non-judgmental attitude, and emotional regulation. As a result, people who are high in trait mindfulness are less likely than others to appraise ambiguity negatively and to use maladaptive coping strategies; hence, they experience less stress and have better PWB. Consistent with this theoretical argument, the present study's findings support the transactional model's applicability for understanding the relationship among mindfulness, IU, and PWB. Ultimately, the results of this study add to the literature on mindfulness and IU by providing evidence for the psychological processes that underpin the relations between mindfulness and PWB. This consideration of IU as a mediating factor also represents a new theoretical contribution to the literature and contributes to increased awareness of mindfulness as a psychological resource for buffering the impact of uncertainty. This understanding can inform the development and refinement of mindfulness-based strategies targeting IU, with the potential to substantially enhance individuals’ PWB. Practical implications Given the mediating role of IU in the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB, the results of this study have practical implications in improving PWB in adults, supporting the utility of applying mindfulness-based strategies directed toward IU. More specifically, mindfulness interventions, training, and workshops can effectively be used to create conditions that foster individuals’ mindfulness levels, thereby decreasing IU and enhancing PWB in general. Mindfulness has been consistently found to be trainable through formal and informal practices (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), and mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs), including mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1990), have been found to be effective for reducing the psychological distress associated with uncertainty (Kraemer et al., 2020; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). Specifically, MBSR interventions, which consist of meditation, body scans, mindful breathing, and mindful movement, help people cultivate the skills required to view their internal and external experiences with nonjudgmental acceptance and openness. In mindfulness training programs, people learn how to gain self-control over their automatic cognitive and emotional reactions to uncertainty and stressful situations, resulting in the latter being appraised as less threatening and more manageable (Rosenkranz et al., 2013). In a practical sense, health promotion organizations, public health organizations, the educational system, and community settings could offer structured MBT or a workshop focusing on IU as a cognitive vulnerability factor with regard to psychological well-being. Considering people’s time barriers, other formats of mindfulness training such as mindfulness sessions via a mobile app or internet-based mindfulness training programs can provide convenient and flexible training sources to develop mindfulness skills (Mani et al., 2015). These low-barrier strategies could be particularly useful for adult populations who are experiencing day-to-day worries and unpredictability related to their personal, professional, or social life. For example, universities, local government agencies, or community health organizations can house workshops to educate adults on mindfulness techniques, the negative effects of IU, and coping strategies for responding adaptively to IU. These workshops could involve the teaching of mindfulness skills (mindful breathing, mindful observing, cognitive flexibility, and acceptance) to reduce anxiety about uncertainty. Furthermore, public health services may include mindfulness-based training programs in their mental health promotion programs, thereby providing a mental health promotion resource (i.e., mindfulness) that constitutes a powerful tool for coping with uncertainties in daily life and improved community PWB. Limitations and future research directions The present study has made a valuable contribution to the literature by shedding light on the relationship between trait mindfulness, IU and PWB. However, several limitations should be noted and need to be addressed in future research. First, although the results indicate robust associations between the studied variables, the cross-sectional nature of the study precludes inferences regarding causal relationships. Longitudinal or experimental designs should be adopted in the future to clarify the temporal sequence of and causal relationships among trait mindfulness, IU, and PWB. For instance, researchers may consider mindfulness intervention programs to investigate whether increasing mindfulness results in the reduction of IU followed by an increase in PWB over time. Second, in this study we relied solely on self-report measures, raising the potential for common method bias and social desirability issues. Participants might have responded to the mindfulness and IU measures in socially desirable ways, which could inflate observed relationships. Future studies should mitigate such biases by incorporating alternative data collection methods, such as behavioral assessments or third-party observations. For instance, obtaining peer or family ratings of mindfulness behaviors or clinical assessments of IU could provide more objective evaluations and reduce bias. Third, this research was based only on self-report measures, which may have led to common method bias and social desirability concerns. Participants may have portrayed themselves in a pro-social manner when providing information about themselves in mindfulness and IU measures, such that relationships may be artificially inflated. As such, we recommend that future work reduces any such biases by drawing on alternative data collection techniques, such as behavioral measures or reports from third-parties. For example, if peer or family ratings of mindfulness behaviors or clinician-reported measures of IU could be obtained, it would decrease the likelihood of biased reports Lastly, the present study only examined trait mindfulness as the antecedent and IU as the mediator in the association between mindfulness and PWB. Although the protective effects of trait mindfulness against IU and its association with PWB have been shown, future studies could replicate these findings by investigating other potential mediators or moderators. For example, emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, self-compassion, and resilience might also mediate or moderate the association between mindfulness and PWB, so further work could take these variables into account to explain the psychological processes through which mindfulness is associated with positive PWB. Conclusion PWB has become an increasingly important area of research and practice, particularly in contexts characterized by growing uncertainty and psychological distress. In light of this, the aim of the current study was to further examine the way in which trait mindfulness might increase PWB through a reduction in IU, a key cognitive vulnerability in the negative experience of well-being. Results of the present study supported the view that there is a negative correlation between trait mindfulness and IU, and between IU and PWB. Notably, the mediating effect of IU indicated that trait mindfulness enhances PWB through buffering the negative effects of uncertainty. Ultimately, the findings of the current study offer improved understanding of the role of trait mindfulness in the enhancement of PWB, thereby providing guidance for crafting effective interventions targeted at diminishing IU and augmenting psychological resilience. Declarations Author contributions Y.H.L. was responsible for all aspects of this manuscript, including conceptualization, literature review, methodology design, data collection and analysis, manuscript drafting, reviewing, and final approval of the manuscript. Ethical Approval: This study was conducted following the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB; approval number: HIRB20241017-002) at the first author’s university on October 17, 2024. Informed Consent: Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Gallup conducted an online survey technique, through which participants received detailed information explaining the purpose of the study, procedures involved, potential risks, and confidentiality measures. Participants provided their consent electronically after reviewing the provided information and had the opportunity to ask questions or seek clarification through designated contact channels. Consent was collected from participants between October 21, 2024, and November 1, 2024. Confidentiality and anonymity of responses were strictly maintained throughout the study. Data availability statement The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests References Arslan, U., Yilik, M., Bakalim, O., Uyar, B., Saglikli, Z. (2021). Relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological wellbeing during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The mediating role of mindfulness. Cukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50 (1), 379-399. Atlan Atalay, A., Abdulcebbar, A., Kantarci, L., Yilmaz, E. (2024). The role of intolerance of uncertainty and mindfulness in psychological distress: a two-wave longitudinal study. Current Psychology, 43 , 25621-25628. Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11 (3), 230–241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077 Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research . New York, NY: Guilford Press. 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 Buhr, K., & Dugas, M. J. (2009). The role of fear of anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty in worry: an experimental manipulation. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47 , 215–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.12.004 Carleton, R. N. (2012). The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives. Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 12 (8), 937–947. Carleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., & Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. Journal of anxiety disorders, 21 (1), 105-117. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dugas, M. J., Buhr, K., & Ladouceur, R. (2004). The role of intolerance of uncertainty in etiology and maintenance. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk, & D. S. Mennin (Eds.), Generalized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice (pp. 143-163). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Dutta, T., Chhajer, R., Nag, S., & Dhir, S. (2023). Impact of intolerance of uncertainty on well-being during COVID-19 pandemic in India: Does practising gratitude and mindfulness help? IIMB Management Review, 35 (3), 286-297. Eraslan, G., & İlhan, T. (2023). The relationships between health anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty with quality of life in caregivers of cancer patients. Family Practice & Palliative Care, 8 (1), 10-15. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50. Freeston, M. H., Rhéaume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., & Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? Personality and Individual Differences, 17 (6), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5 Gentes, E. L., & Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of the relation of intolerance of uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive–compulsive disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 31 (6), 923–933. Gibson, J., Rosser, B., Schneider, J., & Forshaw, M. (2023). The role of uncertainty intolerance in adjusting to long-term physical health conditions: A systematic review. Plos One, 18 (6), e0286198. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hancock, J., & Mattick, K. (2020). Tolerance of ambiguity and psychological well‐being in medical training: A systematic review. Medical Education, 54 (2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14031 Hanley, A. W., Warner, A. R., & Garland, E. L. (2014). Associations between mindfulness, psychological well-being, and subjective well-being with respect to contemplative practice. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16 (6), 1423–1436. HasanTehrani, T., & Moharami, M. (2024). Predicting neuroticism traits based on various attachment styles and psychological well-being with the mediation of uncertainty intolerance in college students. Journal of Psychological Science, 23 (137), 209-227. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 , 1-55. Irak, D, Dede, B., & Demir, N. (2024). Mindfulness during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdowns: Intolerance uncertainty and psychological wellbeing among employees. Sage Open, 14 (2), 1-11. Jenkins, R., Milne, E., & Thompson, A. (2020). The relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety in autism: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Autism, 24 (8), 1933-1944. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness . Delacorte Press. Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10 (2), 144–156. Kim, S. (2010). The relationship of fear of negative and positive evaluation, intolerance of uncertainty, and social anxiety . Unpublished Thesis, Ewha Women’s University. Kim, M., Lee, K., Kim, R., Choi, T., & Lee, S. (2016). Impact of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on intolerance of uncertainty in patients with panic disorder. Psychiatry Investigation, 13 (2), 196-202. Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Kraemer, K. M., Luberto, C. M., Hall, D., Ngo, L., & Yeh, G. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions for affect intolerance/sensitivity. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 135 , 103746. Kwon, S., & Kim, K. (2007). Validation of the Korean version of mindful attention awareness scale. The Korean Journal of Health Psychology, 12 (1), 269-287. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping . New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Lee, Y. & Cho, H. (2024). The relationships among trait mindfulness, obsessive passion, and emotions in high school sport managers. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 19 (4), 1479-1489. Levinthal, A., Romutis, S. Rajalaban, A., Kumar, V., Feldman, R., Althouse, A., & Venkatesan, T. (2021). Greater intolerance to uncertainty predicts poorer quality of life in adults with cyclic vomiting syndrome. Neurogastroenterology & Motility, 33 (12), e14159. Liao, K., & Wei, M. (2011). Intolerance of uncertainty, depression, and anxiety: The moderating and mediating roles of rumination. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67 (12), 1220–1239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20846 Mani, M., Kavanagh, D. J., Hides, L., & Stoyanov, S. R. (2015). Review and evaluation of mindfulness-based iPhone apps. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3 (3), e82. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4328 Mantzios, M., Wilson, J., Linnel, M., & Morris, P. (2015). The role of negative cognition, intolerance of uncertainty, mindfulness, and self-compassion in weight regulation among male army recruits. Mindfulness, 6 , 545-552. McEvoy, P. M., & Mahoney, A. E. (2012). To be sure, to be sure: Intolerance of uncertainty mediates symptoms of various anxiety disorders and depression. Behavior Therapy, 43 (3), 533–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.02.007 Nekić, M., & Mamić, S. (2019). Intolerance of uncertainty and mindfulness as determinants of anxiety and depression in female students. Behavioral Sciences, 9 (12), 135. Papenfuss, I., Lommen, M., Grillon, C., Balderston, N., & Ostafin, B. (2021). Responding to uncertain threat: A potential mediator for the effect of mindfulness on anxiety. Journal of Anxiety Disorder, 77 , 102332. Papenfuss, I., Lommen, M., Huisman, M., & Ostafin, B. (2022). Aversive response to uncertainty as a mediator for the effect of a mindfulness intervention on symptoms of anxiety. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 179 , 30-42. Ryff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (6), 1069–1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069 Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69 (4), 719–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719 Rahimi, S., Pirmoradi, H., Lavasani, F., Farahani, H. (2023). The effectiveness of group intervention focused on intolerance of uncertainty on psychological distress and quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 12 , 29. Rehman, S., Ullah, R., Imran, M., Iqbal, K., Saleem, Z., & Khattak, S. (2021). Intolerance of uncertainty and mental well-being: Important role of longlines and fear of COVID-19: Evidence from higher educational institutions. Multicultural Education, 7 (5), 1-8. Rosen, N. O., & Knäuper, B. (2009). A little uncertainty goes a long way: State and trait differences in uncertainty interact to increase information seeking but also increase worry. Health Communication, 24 (3), 228–238. Rosenkaranz, M., Davidson, R., MacCoon, D. Sheridan, J., Kalin, N., & Lutz, A. (2013). A comparison of mindfulness-based stress reduction and an active control in modulation of neurogenic inflammation. Brain, Behavior, & Immunity, 27 , 174-184. Rosser, B. A. (2019). Intolerance of uncertainty as a transdiagnostic mechanism of psychological difficulties: A systematic review of evidence pertaining to causality and temporal precedence. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 43 (2), 438–463. Sahib, A., Chen, J., Cardenas, D., & Calear, A. (2023). Intolerance of uncertainty and emotion regulation: A meta-analytic and systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 101 , 102270. Saleem, M., Rizvi, T., & Bashir, I. (2023). The role of hope in buffering the influence of intolerance of uncertainty on student’s psychological well-being. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 29 (4), 374-384. Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62 (3), 373–386. Shapiro, M. O., Short, N. A., Morabito, D., & Schmidt, N. B. (2020). Prospective associations between intolerance of uncertainty and psychopathology. Personality and Individual Differences, 166, 110210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110210. Sischka, P., Costa, A., Steffgen, G., & Schmidt, A. (2020). The WHO-5 well-being index – validation based on item response theory and the analysis of measurement invariance across 35 countries. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 1 , 10020. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using Multivariate Statistics (6th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Inc. Teo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., & Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Computers & Education, 53 , 1000-1009. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56–75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Wilson, E. J., Abbott, M., & Norton, A. The impact of psychological treatment on intolerance of uncertainty in generalized anxiety disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 97 , 102729. World Health Organization. (1998). Well-being measures in primary health care: The DepCare project . WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen. Tables Table 1. General Characteristics of Respondents Demographic variables Frequency ( n ) Percentage (%) Gender Male 154 50.2 Female 153 49.8 Age 30-39 103 33.6 40-49 102 33.2 50-59 102 33.2 Education High school diplomat 22 7.1 College students 10 3.3 Graduated from college 223 72.6 Graduate school degree 52 16.9 Marriage status Single 102 33.2 Married 192 62.5 Divorced/Separated/Widowed 13 4.3 Perceived economic status Very bad 21 6.8 Bad 63 20.5 Moderate 176 57.3 Good 43 14.0 Very good 4 1.3 Perceived physical health Very bad 6 2.0 Bad 38 12.4 Moderate 145 47.2 Good 110 35.8 Very good 8 2.6 Perceived psychological health Very bad 9 2.9 Bad 37 12.1 Moderate 101 32.9 Good 133 43.3 Very good 27 8.8 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables 1 2 3 1. Trait mindfulness (.93) 2. IU -.27** (.89) 3. PWB .29** .-.36** (.91) M 4.39 3.20 2.18 SD 0.90 0.66 1.07 Skewness -0.31 -0.19 0.06 Kurtosis -0.24 -0.17 -0.34 Note. N = 307. IU = intolerance of uncertainty; PWB: psychological well-being; Bivariate correlations presented in the lower diagonal are based on subscale score. Cronbach alpha coefficients on the diagonal. * p < .05 ** p < .01 Table 3. Construct validity for the study constructs Variable Measure/item Λ ρ c AVE Trait mindfulness I become aware of my feelings only after quite some time has passed since experiencing them. .59 .92 .52 Sometimes, I make mistakes because I'm not paying proper attention or because I'm thinking about something else. .68 It's difficult for me to continuously pay attention to what's happening right now. .78 I tend to rush toward my goal without paying continuous attention to what's currently happening. .75 I often don't notice physical tension or discomfort until it fully captures my attention. .73 When I first hear someone's name, I almost immediately forget it. .49 I tend to perform tasks automatically without fully being aware of what I'm doing. .74 I rush through tasks without paying close attention to what I’m actually doing. .79 Sometimes I get so absorbed in my desired goals that I lose track of whether I'm doing the current task properly. .81 I perform tasks or assignments mechanically, without conscious awareness of what I'm actually doing. .79 I sometimes find myself listening with one ear to someone talking while simultaneously doing something else. .54 Occasionally, I drive somewhere without paying attention, only to be puzzled later about why I went there. .55 I sometimes become preoccupied with thoughts about the past or future. .49 At times, I do things without paying attention to them. .72 I often snack on something without being consciously aware that I'm eating. .60 IU I get very upset when unexpected things happen. .62 .89 .45 It frustrates me not having all the information I need. .61 To avoid unexpected situations, I always need to think ahead. .53 Even with thorough planning, an unexpected minor issue could ruin everything. .58 I always want to know what my future holds. .39 I cannot tolerate being placed in situations that surprise me. .68 I must be able to plan everything in advance. .50 Uncertainty sometimes prevents me from living a full life. .73 When action is required, if the situation is uncertain, I don't know what to do. .79 I cannot perform tasks well when I am unsure. .80 Even slight doubts stop me from continuing my actions. .70 I try to avoid all uncertain situations. .65 PWB I feel cheerful and in a good mood. .86 .91 .66 I feel calm and relaxed. .78 I feel active and energetic. .93 I wake up feeling refreshed and rested. .71 My daily life is full of things that interest me. .77 Note. IU = intolerance of uncertainty; PWB: psychological well-being; Λ = factor loading; AVE = average variance extracted score; Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-6694073","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":498336753,"identity":"e70fc7c6-a7f5-41b5-942b-57dff42444dc","order_by":0,"name":"Ye Hoon Lee","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hankuk University of Foreign Studies","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Ye","middleName":"Hoon","lastName":"Lee","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-05-19 01:23:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6694073/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6694073/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88877863,"identity":"f95b3112-90bd-4d4c-8ea4-002be02665b9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-12 10:33:01","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":41013,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStructural relationships among the proposed variables. Path from trait mindfulness to Psychological well-being indicates a mediation effect. * \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05, *** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6694073/v1/e09a4dda1a25484f0912345b.png"},{"id":103020246,"identity":"b6abd45b-ce8d-4c9d-a0d5-286981d0c4e8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-19 17:40:18","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":820916,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6694073/v1/591d70ec-6c82-4f1c-a94b-52822d26f861.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Trait mindfulness as a buffer against intolerance of uncertainty and its effects on psychological well-being","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIntolerance of uncertainty (IU) is defined as a dispositional characteristic that indicates an individual\u0026apos;s difficulties in facing uncertainty and ambiguous circumstances (Dugas et al., 2004; Freeston et al., 1994). People with high levels of IU view a lack of predictability as undesirable, uncontrollable, and distressing, and they respond to the situation with more negative emotions and less effective ways of coping (Buhr \u0026amp; Dugas, 2009; Sahib et al., 2023). Notably, IU has been established as a transdiagnostic vulnerability factor for a range of psychological disorders, such as generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), depression, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in clinical contexts (Gentes \u0026amp; Ruscio, 2011; Wilson et al., 2023). Additionally, IU has been found to increased psychological distress, reduced mental well-being and quality of life, and poorer health outcomes in non-clinical settings (Eraslan \u0026amp; Ilhan, 2023; Gibson et al., 2023; Rahimi et al., 2023). High IU is predominantly linked with one key negative consequence: decreased psychological well-being (PWB; Gibson et al., 2023; Levinthal et al., 2021; Rehman et al., 2021; Saleem et al., 2023). The psychological distress, maladaptive emotional responses, and complications in responding to uncertainty due to IU negatively impact PWB (Hancock \u0026amp; Mattick, 2020; Sahib et al., 2023), highlighting the need to identify the psychological factors that reduce IU among individuals (Rahman et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrait mindfulness, defined as maintaining a non-judgmental and accepting awareness of the present moment (Brown \u0026amp; Ryan, 2003), has emerged as a potential protective factor against the adverse effects of IU (Brown \u0026amp; Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). The inverse correlation between trait mindfulness and IU has been well established, with studies showing that mindfulness protects individuals from heightened emotional sensitivity and cognitive disruptions prompted by uncertainty (Arslan et al., 2021; Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2016; Nekić \u0026amp; Mamić, 2019; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). Mindfulness fosters adaptive emotion regulation, reduces rumination, and diminishes anxiety sensitivity; emotion dysregulation, rumination, and anxiety are known to mediate the negative impact of IU on psychological well-being (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024;\u0026nbsp;Dutta et al., 2023; Nekić \u0026amp; Mamić, 2019). As a result, mindfulness has been recognized as a useful approach to reducing IU and enhancing PWB among both clinical and non-clinical samples.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the evidence for the negative effects of IU on PWB and the potential protective role of trait mindfulness, investigating these constructs collectively could provide valuable insights for enhancing psychological health in populations vulnerable to uncertainty-related distress. Thus, this study aims to investigate the relationships between trait mindfulness, IU, and PWB among South Korean adults. Additionally, this seeks to explore the mediating role of\u0026ensp;IU in the association between trait mindfulness and PWB with the aim of identifying the mechanisms that underlie the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB. By clarifying the potential protective role of trait mindfulness in reducing the adverse effects of IU, this research contributes both theoretical and practical understandings of trait mindfulness as an important psychological factor for reducing IU-related feelings of distress and enhancing PWB.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTransactional model of stress and coping\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe transactional model of stress and coping, developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), serves as a valuable theoretical lens for examining\u0026ensp;and enhancing our understanding of how stressful situations are perceived, experienced, and coped with. According to the model, stress arises from an interaction between the individual and the environment, and this relationship is mediated through cognitive appraisals and coping mechanisms. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), there are two main cognitive appraisal processes. Primary appraisal represents the evaluation of whether an encounter is irrelevant, benign-positive, or stressful, while secondary appraisal involves the evaluation of available coping resources and options.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWithin the model, IU can be framed as affecting primary and secondary cognitive\u0026ensp;appraisals. People high in IU are characterized by cognitive biases to interpret ambiguous situations as highly threatening and unmanageable, leading to heightened anxiety, worry and emotional distress (Hancock \u0026amp; Mattick, 2020; Rosen \u0026amp; Kn\u0026auml;uper, 2009; Sahib et al., 2023). Thus, high IU individuals are more inclined to appraise uncertain situations as threatening, uncontrollable, and stressful (primary appraisal), and as a result evaluate their coping resources as inadequate or unsuccessful (secondary appraisal) (Buhr \u0026amp; Dugas, 2009; Dugas et al., 2004). Consequently, they are more prone to psychological distress and lower PWB due to perceived deficits in their coping strategies and capacity to regulate emotions when faced with uncertainty (Hancock \u0026amp; Mattick, 2020;\u0026nbsp;Rehman et al., 2021; Saleem et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrait mindfulness may serve as a protective psychological resource within this transactional framework, buffering against the negative influence of IU on stress appraisals. Mindfulness is characterized by present-focused awareness, acceptance, and non-reactivity toward internal and external experiences, thus promoting a less reactive and more adaptive appraisal of ambiguous or uncertain situations (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2020; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). Specifically, trait mindfulness can attenuate primary appraisal by allowing individuals to perceive uncertainty as less threatening and stressful. Furthermore, mindfulness can strengthen secondary appraisal by enhancing individuals\u0026rsquo; perceptions of their coping resources and emotional regulation capabilities in the face of uncertainty (Mantzios et al., 2015; Nekić \u0026amp; Mamić, 2019). Thus, from the perspective of the transactional model of stress and coping, trait mindfulness acts as an essential buffer, mitigating the detrimental impact of IU and promoting psychological well-being.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIU\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIU is defined as a cognitive vulnerability representing an inability for an individual to tolerate ambiguity, unpredictability, and uncertainty in a variety of situations and events (Freeston et al., 1994). In particular, IU denotes a dispositional risk factor for experiencing cognitive, affective, and behavioral problems in situations characterized by uncertainty that in turn produce\u0026ensp;negative interpretations and dysfunctional behaviors (Carleton, 2012; Freeston et al., 1994). IU was first proposed as a key corollary of GAD due to its strong predictive relationship to excessive worry (Dugas et al., 2004). Research has repeatedly shown IU to be a central transdiagnostic factor related to a wide range of psychological disorders, such as GAD, OCD, depression, panic disorder, and health exhaustion symptoms (Carleton, 2012; Rosser, 2019; Shapiro et al., 2020; Gentes \u0026amp; Ruscio, 2011; McEvoy \u0026amp; Mahoney, 2012). Indeed, a meta-analysis by Gentes and Ruscio (2011) has\u0026ensp;provided evidence for strong associations between IU and symptoms of GAD, major depression, and OCD, and showed that IU has a major influence on symptom severity via mechanisms such as worry, negative problem orientation, pessimism, and anxiety about uncertain outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to its association with anxiety and depressive symptomatology, IU has been\u0026ensp;widely studied with respect to its more general psychological implications. High IU individuals view unfamiliar, uncertain, or ambiguous situations as dangerous, threatening, and/or intolerable (Dugas et al., 2004; Rosen \u0026amp; Kn\u0026auml;uper, 2009). These cognitive biases toward ambiguity give rise to certain maladaptive responses to uncertainty such as cognitive avoidance, rumination,\u0026ensp;and overestimation of the need for reassurance (Carleton, 2012; Dugas et al., 2004; Buhr \u0026amp; Dugas, 2009; Liao \u0026amp; Wei, 2011). Moreover, IU is linked to substantial emotional distress, poor psychological resilience, and social and interpersonal dysfunction (Eraslan \u0026amp; Ilhan, 2023; Gibson et al., 2023; Jenkins et al., 2020; Rahimi et al., 2023; Sahib et al., 2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch has identified adverse effects of IU on physical health and overall psychological functioning, particularly in groups of individuals experiencing chronic diseases and stressful life conditions. For example, Gibson et al. (2023) reported that individuals high in IU experience difficulties adapting to chronic medical conditions, are less likely to adhere to their medical regimen, and report a lower quality of life. Similarly, Rahimi et al. (2023) found that IU leads to greater psychological distress and decreases quality of life in people with chronic conditions. In the field of caregiving, Eraslan and Ilhan (2023) found that higher IU is associated with greater health anxiety and lower PWB in cancer caregivers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, IU is a fundamental cognitive process that is considered a transdiagnostic vulnerability factor in the development of a range of emotional\u0026ensp;and psychological pathologies (Gentes \u0026amp; Ruscio, 2011). Research highlights the need to target IU to enhance mental health results among various populations (McEvoy \u0026amp; Mahoney, 2012; Wilson et al., 2023).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrait mindfulness and its association with IU\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrait mindfulness reflects a person\u0026rsquo;s chronic dispositional inclination to stay non-judgmentally aware and open to experiences in the present moment, including internal sensations, thoughts, and external situational cues (Brown\u0026ensp;\u0026amp; Ryan, 2003; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Key components of trait mindfulness are a strong tendency attend to experiences in the present moment, not react, be open, and be curious (Bishop et al., 2004). Regularly experiencing mindfulness promotes psychological flexibility, increases emotional regulation and facilitates more effective stress-reducing coping responses, all of which support more effective stress navigation (Brown \u0026amp; Ryan, 2003; Shapiro et al., 2006). Indeed, trait mindfulness has been found to be a strong protective factor statistically related to less psychological distress, anxiety, obsessive passion, and depression and greater overall psychological health and well-being (Brown \u0026amp; Ryan, 2003; Hanley et al., 2014; Lee \u0026amp; Cho, 2024; Mantzios et al., 2015). Trait mindfulness reduces maladaptive cognitive and emotional reactions, such as rumination and worry, and enhances an individual\u0026apos;s capacity to manage their reactions to stressors (Kim et al., 2016; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). More precisely, those high in trait mindfulness show greater psychological well-being and lower levels of stress and anxiety than those lower in trait mindfulness (Arslan et al., 2021; Nekić \u0026amp; Mamić, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne specific cognitive vulnerability that seems to be particularly affected by mindfulness may be IU. As noted above, IU refers to a maladaptive cognitive-emotional attitudinal style in response to ambiguous or uncertain situations (Dugas et al., 2004). Because of the properties of trait mindfulness (e.g., non-reactivity and acceptance), mindfulness could attenuate biases in cognitive processes related to IU and lead to decreased threat perception of uncertain situations (Kraemer, et al., 2020; Irak et al., 2024). Given that mindfulness promotes an accepting, non-judgmental approach toward uncertainty (Dutta et al., 2023; Atlan Atalay et al., 2024), it may be assumed to reduce anxiety and negative affect provoked by uncertainty.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe negative relationship between trait mindfulness and IU is well supported by the literature. For example, Kraemer et al. (2020) reported patients with high levels of anxiety and uncertainty benefitted from the mindfulness-based intervention in reducing IU symptoms. Consistent with this\u0026ensp;trend, Nekić \u0026amp; Mamić (2019) detected a strong negative association between trait mindfulness and IU, where those with high scores on mindfulness consistently expressed lower levels of IU and anxiety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn sum, these findings indicate that trait mindfulness is important in reducing the cognitive and emotional burden induced by IU. By improving emotional regulation and adaptive coping and reducing detrimental negative cognitive biases towards uncertainty, mindfulness may act as a psychological buffer that can\u0026ensp;protect people against the negative influences of IU. On the basis of the literature examined\u0026ensp;and the theoretical justification provided, the following hypothesis was derived:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 1\u003c/em\u003e: There will\u0026ensp;be a negative association between trait mindfulness and IU.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePWB and its association with IU\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePWB is defined as an individual\u0026apos;s positive psychological functioning. It includes six dimensions, namely self-acceptance, environmental mastery, personal growth, purpose in life, autonomy, and positive\u0026ensp;relations with others (Ryff, 1989). Because PWB is a subjective assessment of experiences and life satisfaction, cognitive and emotional processes play an important role in the way people judge their PWB (Ryff \u0026amp; Keyes, 1995).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIU has consistently been shown to be a maladaptive factor affecting PWB. High IU individuals are more likely to view uncertainty as aversive or threatening, which has been associated with higher stress levels, emotional distress, and lower levels of PWB being (Hancock \u0026amp; Mattick, 2019; Sahib et al., 2023; Saleem et al., 2023). This ongoing distress associated\u0026ensp;with uncertainty is highly damaging to our life satisfaction and results in poorer perceived PWB (HasanTehrani \u0026amp; Moharami, 2024; Rahman et al., 2021; Rahimi et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA number of studies point to IU as an important cognitive factor negatively related to PWB in a variety of populations. For instance, Saleem et al. (2023) demonstrated a robust negative relationship between IU and PWB among college students in conflict-prone regions, highlighting its role in exacerbating stress and reducing mental health. Similarly, Rahman et al. (2021) found that higher IU predicted increased loneliness and fear, ultimately contributing to reduced mental well-being. In addition, HasanTehrani and Moharami (2024) found that IU mediated the negative relationship between neuroticism and psychological wellbeing among university students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a systematic review and meta-analysis, Sahib et al. (2023) further supported the negative impact of IU, finding that individuals with higher IU consistently showed maladaptive emotional regulation strategies, resulting in decreased PWB. Moreover, Hancock and Mattick\u0026rsquo;s 2020 systematic review offer further strong evidence of a consistent negative correlation between low tolerance of ambiguity (a construct conceptually similar to IU) and PWB, such as greater stress, burnout, and mental health problems among medical students and doctors. Results indicated that people who have difficulty tolerating ambiguity report elevated psychological distress, indicating that\u0026ensp;IU-related phenomena interfere with psychological functioning within a range of professional settings.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTaken together, these studies suggest that IU has far-reaching negative consequences for different aspects of PWB, that is, IU is a strong predictor of poorer emotional, psychological, and physical\u0026ensp;outcomes. Based on the literature review above, we formulated the following\u0026ensp;hypothesis:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 2\u003c/em\u003e: There will be a negative association between IU and PWB.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMediating role of IU in the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlthough trait mindfulness and IU have previously been found to be significant predictors of\u0026ensp;PWB, evidence has suggested the need to investigate meditational pathways in order to better understand the underlying mechanisms and practical implications (Arslan et al., 2021; Nekić \u0026amp; Mamić, 2019). Such an examination may help to clarify the mediating mechanisms of the protective effects of mindfulness on psychological health outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrait mindfulness seems to endow people with cognitive and affective resources that allow them to effectively confront stress, including coping with uncertainty (Kraemer et al., 2020; Mantzios et al., 2015). Trait mindfulness may mitigate maladaptive cognitive responses to uncertainty directly through increasing psychological flexibility and reducing emotional reactivity, including worry and rumination, which are often activated in response to uncertainty (Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). As a result, mindfulness may enhance PWB through its effect on decreasing IU, a cognitive vulnerability factor that has been\u0026ensp;demonstrated to affect psychological and physical health (Dugas et al., 2004; Rahimi et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent research has shown that IU acts as a mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and different mental health-related outcomes. For instance, Atlan Atalay et al. (2024) found that decreases in IU largely mediated trait\u0026ensp;mindfulness\u0026apos;s protective effects on psychological distress in university students. In a similar vein, Nekić and Mamić (2019) found that IU accounted for the beneficial effect of mindfulness on anxiety and depressive symptoms, emphasizing IU as key in understanding the mindfulness-wellbeing relationship. Given these results, investigating IU as a mediator of the link between mindfulness and PWB may shed light on the cognitive and emotional processes underlying the effects of trait mindfulness. Thus, the following hypothesis was developed:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHypothesis 3\u003c/em\u003e: IU will mediate the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB in adults, such that higher trait mindfulness will associate with lower IU, which in turn will lead to higher PWB.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 307 adults, 50.2% male (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 154) and 49.8% female (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 153), participated in a survey in which their PWB, IU, and trait mindfulness as well as various demographic variables were assessed. Participants were aged between 30 and 59 years old, with a mean age of\u0026ensp;44.27 years (\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 8.47). In terms of educational attainment, 68.7% had a bachelor\u0026apos;s degree and 21.2% had a master\u0026apos;s degree or above. Most (82.4%) were married, while 17.6% were unmarried. In terms of their self-reported economic class, the majority of the participants identified as middle-class (78.8%), followed by upper-class (11.7%) and lower-class (9.4%). In terms of perceived physical health,\u0026ensp;69.7% reported \u0026ldquo;good\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;very good\u0026rdquo; health. As for psychological well-being, 70.4% described their status as \u0026ldquo;good\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;very good.\u0026rdquo; Descriptive demographics for participants can be found in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMeasurements\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrait mindfulness.\u003c/em\u003e Trait mindfulness was measured with the Korean version of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (K-MAAS; Kwon \u0026amp; Kim, 2007), which was adapted from the MAAS developed by Brown and Ryan (2003). The K-MAAS is comprised of 15 items reflecting the propensity of a person to be aware of, and to attend\u0026ensp;to, present-moment experiences in daily life. Responses were answered on a scale from 1 (almost always) to 6 (almost never). Higher scores reflect higher levels of trait mindfulness. A sample item is \u0026ldquo;I perform tasks or assignments mechanically, without conscious awareness of what I\u0026apos;m actually doing\u0026rdquo;. Evidence of the K-MAAS\u0026rsquo;s\u0026ensp;strong psychometric properties, including adequate internal reliability, has been found in previous studies (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; =. 87; Kwon \u0026amp; Kim, 2007). The Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha for K-MAAS of the present study was also found to be good; \u0026alpha; = .93.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntolerance of uncertainty\u003c/em\u003e. IU was assessed using the\u0026ensp;Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 (IUS-12), which was initially constructed and validated by Freeston et al. (1994), reduced to\u0026ensp;12 items by Carleton et al. (2007), and translated into Korean by Kim (2010). This scale consists of 12 items, which\u0026ensp;are subcategorized into two subscales, namely, \u0026ldquo;Prospective IU\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Inhibitory IU.\u0026rdquo; Prospective IU, which comprises 7 items (items 1 to 7), is designed to assess the (in)ability to tolerate or to prevent uncertainty. \u0026ldquo;Inhibitory IU\u0026rdquo; is constituted by 5 items (items 8 to 12) measuring feelings\u0026ensp;of helplessness when facing uncertain situations. Moreover, the 12 items can be summed up to create a total IU score. This study adopted Kim\u0026rsquo;s (2010) version using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = Not at all to 5 = Very much) rather than the 4-point Likert-type scale offered by Carleton et al. (2007). Sample items are \u0026ldquo;I get very upset when unexpected things happen\u0026rdquo; for\u0026ensp;prospective IU, and \u0026ldquo;I try to avoid all uncertain situations\u0026rdquo; for inhibitory IU. Higher values indicate greater IU. The internal reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha;) of the\u0026ensp;IUS-12 was .91 in Carleton et al. \u0026rsquo;s (2007) study and .84 in Kim\u0026rsquo;s (2010) study. In the present research, the IUS-12 had an overall Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; of .89.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePsychological well-being.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThe PWB of participants was measured using the World Health Organization (WHO) Well-being Index (WHO-5; WHO, 1998; Sischka et al., 2020). This scale includes five items and assesses subjective psychological well-being and positive mood over the previous 2 weeks. The items are measured on a six-point scale ranging from 0 (at no time) to 5\u0026ensp;(all the time). Larger scores mean better PWB. Sample items are \u0026ldquo;I feel calm and relaxed\u0026rdquo;. Internal consistency and reliability for this scale were found to be good in previous research, with Cronbach\u0026apos;s alpha ranging from .83 to .93 (Sischka et al., 2020). In the current study, Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; was .91, demonstrating acceptable internal consistency.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eProcedures\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants consisted of individuals recruited through Gallup Korea, which specializes in collecting national data in South Korea. Data collection and research procedures were done in partnership with Gallup to maximize data representativeness and reliability. Gallup\u0026rsquo;s recruitment process for research it provides participants for involves developing a sampling plan to select participants based on the criteria of the study (e.g., adults from 30 to 65 years old) and to ensure representative sampling. Gallup organized sampling strategies, timing of recruitment, and how the survey was circulated and adjusted the recruitment process to fit the purpose of the study and the traits of the target\u0026ensp;population. Based on these criteria, participants were recruited and invited to participate. The questionnaire was prepared by the researchers according to the research objectives, and Gallup reviewed and refined it to ensure the questionnaire was kept clear and structurally complete. All survey responses were recorded on an anonymous basis and were\u0026ensp;collected via a secured online portal maintained by Gallup, and strict confidentiality measures were applied to protect participants\u0026apos; information. Gallup used anonymized data, processed it following predetermined security protocols, and delivered\u0026ensp;it to researchers for analysis. When the survey was finalized, Gallup aggregated and encoded the data in order to produce a final report on the survey process. Finally, the raw data were transferred to the researchers for data analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study followed the ethical standards as laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB;\u0026ensp;HIRB20241017-002) at the fist author\u0026rsquo;s University on October 17, 2024. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants before their involvement in the study, conducted from October 21, 2024, to November 1, 2024. Participants received full information about the study\u0026rsquo;s aims and procedures and assured that their participation was strictly voluntary and they could withdraw at any time without penalty. They were also guaranteed confidentiality and anonymity of their responses\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData analysis\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eData analysis for this study was conducted in two primary phases: preliminary analyses and structural analyses. First, preliminary data screening procedures recommended by Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) were performed to ensure data accuracy and appropriateness for analysis. Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations among study variables were computed using IBM SPSS 25.0.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to evaluate construct validity of the measurement model with IBM SPSS\u0026ensp;AMOS 25.0. CFA\u0026ensp;examined both convergent and discriminant validity. Assessments of\u0026ensp;convergent validity were based upon the examinations of factor loadings, composite reliability (\u0026rho;c), and average variance extracted (AVE; Brown, 2006; Teo et al., 2009). Specifically, factor loadings higher than .40 to .50 and significant at \u0026alpha; = .05 were deemed adequate proxies of the underlying constructs (Comrey \u0026amp; Lee, 1992; Hair et al., 1998; Stevens, 1996). Composite reliability values above .70 were considered acceptable, indicating good internal consistency. Additionally, AVE scores greater than .50 showed adequate variance\u0026ensp;explained by latent constructs (Fornell \u0026amp; Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was then confirmed by comparing\u0026ensp;the AVE values for each construct with the squared correlations among constructs. Discriminant validity was determined by the AVE values being greater than the relevant squared correlations (Tabachnick \u0026amp; Fidell, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter validating the measurement\u0026ensp;model, the analysis tested the hypothesized relationships between the variables using structural equation modeling (SEM). This technique allows the analysis and the interpretation of path coefficients, direct and indirect effects, and their\u0026ensp;statistical significance. Two separate tests of model fit were conducted, one confirming and the other exploratory, using several indices as suggested by Brown (2006) and Hu and Bentler (1999): the ratio of \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e, the comparative fit\u0026ensp;index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Acceptable fit was evidenced by \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e values of less\u0026ensp;than 3.00, CFI and TLI values greater than .90 (with values above .95 indicating good fit), and RMSEA index lower than .08 (with values below .05 representing good fit).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePreliminary analyses\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics, normality, and multicollinearity of the data were computed in the preliminary analyses. The Pearson correlation coefficients between all the variables were lower than the recommended cutoff value of. 85 (Kline, 2005), suggesting that there were\u0026ensp;no multicollinearity problems. Normality was assessed through skewness and\u0026ensp;kurtosis values. Skewness ranged from -. 31 to .06 and kurtosis from -.24 to -.35, which met the preferred conditions (i.e., skewness \u0026plusmn;2, kurtosis \u0026plusmn;7; West et al., 1995). Hence, standards for normality and absence of multicollinearity were fulfilled,\u0026ensp;thus making the data suitable for further analysis. The descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the variables in the study are shown in\u0026ensp;Table 2.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasurement model\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConstruct validity was estimated through a concurrent CFA. The results of the CFA suggested that the fit of the measurement model to the data was acceptable: \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 1005.474, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u0026ensp;= 457; \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 2.20 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;. 01), TLI = .89, CFI =. 90, RMSEA =. 063 (90% CI: .057 - .068), and SRMR = .069. For convergent validity, factor loadings, AVE, and \u0026rho;c were assessed. All measurement items had factor loadings above .40, except for the fifth item of IU. AVE values were higher than the recommended values of .50 except for IU, with all \u0026rho;c values well above .70.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor assessing discriminant validity, AVE values of latent constructs were compared to their squared correlations. All AVE values were greater than the respective squared inter-construct correlations; thus, discriminant validity was established. Furthermore, all constructs had\u0026ensp;a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; of \u0026gt; .70, with acceptable internal consistency and reliability. Specifics of measurement validity, reliability, and descriptive statistics are shown in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStructural model and hypothesis testing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo test the study hypotheses, SEM was used. The model demonstrated acceptable fit to the data:\u0026ensp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e = 1005.47, \u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 457;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u003c/em\u003e/\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e = 2.20 (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;. 01), TLI =. 89, CFI =. 90, RMSEA =. 063 (90% CI: .057 \u0026ndash; 0.68), and SRMR = .069. Model fit indices did not suggest any theoretically meaningful changes, thus supporting the structural model. Specifically, as shown in Figure 1, trait mindfulness related negatively to IU (\u0026beta;\u0026ensp;= -. 34; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;. 001), which lends support for Hypothesis 1. IU had a significant negative relationship with PWB (\u0026beta; = -.37; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), supporting Hypothesis 2. Moreover, the mediation analysis revealed that IU was a significant mediator between trait mindfulness and PWB (\u0026beta; =. 12; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001; 95% bias-corrected CI: .064 - .194), thus lending support to Hypothesis 3.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eGrounded in the transactional model of stress and coping (Lazarus \u0026amp; Folkman, 1984), this study was conducted in order to examine the relationships between trait mindfulness, IU, and PWB among adults in South Korea. The results provided support for the predicted relationships: trait mindfulness was negatively related to IU, IU was negatively related to PWB, and IU mediated between trait mindfulness and PWB.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study was focused on the research question of whether trait mindfulness may lead to improvements in PWB by investigating IU as an important underlying mechanism. In this sense, our results continue to support the emerging literature demonstrating IU as a transdiagnostic risk factor for physical and psychological health (Dugas et al., 2004; Gentes\u0026ensp;\u0026amp; Ruscio, 2011). Most research to date has concentrated instead on the relationships between mindfulness itself and mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, obsession, and perceived stress (Brown \u0026amp; Ryan, 2003; Hanley et al., 2014; Lee \u0026amp; Cho, 2024; Mantzios et al., 2015). Nevertheless, by integrating IU into the relationship, this research extends prior mindfulness studies, providing more understanding of mindfulness as a cognitive and emotional resource that specifically mitigates the detrimental effects of uncertainty on individuals\u0026rsquo; PWB. This section discusses the theoretical implications of our findings, as well as the mechanisms by which mindfulness could lead to lower IU and increase in PWB.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe negative relationship between trait mindfulness and IU may be explained by the fundamental characteristics of mindfulness: acceptance, non-reactivity, and present moment awareness. According to previous research, mindfulness facilitates cognitive and emotional disengagement from relatively automatic reactions to uncertainty, hence reducing distress and anxiety stemming from\u0026ensp;ambiguous or unpredictable situations (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2020; Papenfuss et al., 2022). In addition, mindfulness improves emotional regulation and cognitive flexibility, causing people to find uncertain situations less threatening and more manageable (Matzios et al., 2015; Nekic \u0026amp; Mamic, 2019). Therefore, it can be assumed that individuals with high levels of trait mindfulness will be less likely than others to be involved in maladaptive cognitive patterns such as worrying, avoidance, or rumination that are responsible for increasing IU (Kim et al., 2016; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). The present research contributes to the literature on mindfulness by providing clear support for the protective value of mindfulness in lowering IU, a psychological vulnerability factor known to be associated with poor mental health outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe negative relationship that emerged between IU and PWB is consistent with earlier empirical research which underscored IU as an important variable that has a negative impact on both psychological and\u0026ensp;physical health outcomes (Hancock \u0026amp; Mattick, 2020; Sahib et al., 2023; Saleem et al., 2023). High IU people suffer from mood and anxiety disorders related to negative\u0026ensp;cognitive appraisals and maladaptive coping responses to uncertainty. This heightened emotional distress not only diminishes psychological wellbeing but also impairs emotional regulation and reduces resilience, reducing overall satisfaction with life (HasanTehrani \u0026amp; Moharami, 2024; Rahman et al., 2021; Rahimi et al., 2023). Because PWB is based on individuals\u0026apos; subjective judgments regarding life satisfaction in several life domains (Ryff \u0026amp; Keyes, 1995), it is not surprising that higher IU was associated with poorer levels of PWB (Levinthal et al., 2021; Sahib et al., 2023). In this way, the current study provides strong empirical support for the importance of IU in PWB research, suggesting that this is an issue deserving of further attention in both clinical\u0026ensp;and public health settings (Hancock \u0026amp; Mattick, 2020; Rahman et al., 2021; Saleem et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoreover, the significant mediating role of IU in the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB sheds light on an important psychological pathway linking mindfulness and wellbeing. While prior mindfulness studies have primarily investigated direct relationships with wellbeing outcomes (Brown \u0026amp; Ryan, 2003; Mantzios et al., 2015), this study expands on existing knowledge by clarifying the indirect route through which mindfulness may influence PWB. Specifically, trait mindfulness might foster enhanced PWB by decreasing individuals\u0026apos; intolerance of uncertainty, thus alleviating the psychological distress associated with uncertain situations (Atlan Atalay et al., 2024; Kraemer et al., 2020; Nikic \u0026amp; Mamic, 2019). Our findings regarding this indirect pathway offer important theoretical insights into how mindfulness interventions can effectively target IU to promote better overall PWB. Given that IU has been robustly established as a detrimental factor for health and wellbeing (Dugas et al., 2004; Hancock \u0026amp; Mattick, 2020; Rahimi et al., 2023), this finding reinforces the notion that mindfulness is an effective resource for buffering the negative consequences of IU.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, although not central to the focus of the current investigation, the relationship found between mindfulness, IU, and PWB supports the transactional model of stress\u0026ensp;and coping (Lazarus \u0026amp; Folkman, 1984). From this\u0026ensp;theoretical perspective, processes associated with cognitive appraisal have a considerable effect on how people react to stressors and how they feel in general. Mindfulness may facilitate more adaptive cognitive appraisals by fostering acceptance, a non-judgmental attitude, and emotional regulation. As a result, people who are high in trait mindfulness are less likely than others to appraise ambiguity negatively and to use maladaptive coping strategies; hence, they experience less stress and have better PWB. Consistent with this theoretical argument, the\u0026ensp;present study\u0026apos;s findings support the transactional model\u0026apos;s applicability for understanding the relationship among mindfulness, IU, and PWB.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUltimately, the results of this study add to the literature on mindfulness and IU by providing evidence for the psychological processes that underpin the\u0026ensp;relations between mindfulness and PWB. This consideration of IU as a mediating factor also represents a new theoretical contribution to the literature and contributes to increased awareness of mindfulness as a psychological resource for buffering the impact of uncertainty. This understanding can inform the development and refinement of mindfulness-based strategies targeting IU, with the potential to substantially enhance individuals\u0026rsquo; PWB.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePractical implications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the mediating role of IU in the relationship between trait mindfulness and PWB, the results of this study have practical implications in improving PWB in adults, supporting the utility of applying mindfulness-based strategies directed toward IU. More specifically, mindfulness interventions, training, and workshops can effectively be used to create conditions that foster individuals\u0026rsquo; mindfulness levels, thereby decreasing IU and enhancing PWB in general.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMindfulness has been consistently found to be trainable through formal and informal practices (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), and mindfulness-based\u0026ensp;interventions (MBIs), including mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1990), have been found to be effective for reducing the psychological distress associated with uncertainty (Kraemer et al., 2020; Papenfuss et al., 2021, 2022). Specifically, MBSR interventions, which consist of meditation, body scans, mindful breathing, and mindful movement, help people cultivate\u0026ensp;the skills required to view their internal and external experiences with nonjudgmental acceptance and openness. In mindfulness training programs, people learn how to gain self-control over their automatic cognitive and emotional reactions to uncertainty and stressful situations, resulting\u0026ensp;in the latter being appraised as less threatening and more manageable (Rosenkranz et al., 2013).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a\u0026ensp;practical sense, health promotion organizations, public health organizations, the educational system, and community settings could offer structured MBT or a workshop focusing on IU as a cognitive vulnerability factor with regard to psychological well-being. Considering people\u0026rsquo;s time barriers, other formats of mindfulness training such as mindfulness sessions via a mobile app or internet-based mindfulness training programs can provide convenient and flexible training sources to develop mindfulness skills (Mani et al., 2015). These low-barrier strategies could be particularly useful for adult populations who are experiencing day-to-day worries and unpredictability related to their personal, professional, or social life. For example, universities, local government agencies, or community health organizations can house workshops to educate adults on mindfulness techniques, the negative effects of IU,\u0026ensp;and coping strategies for responding adaptively to IU. These workshops could involve the teaching of mindfulness skills (mindful breathing, mindful observing, cognitive flexibility, and acceptance) to reduce anxiety about\u0026ensp;uncertainty. Furthermore, public health services may include mindfulness-based training\u0026ensp;programs in their mental health promotion programs, thereby providing a mental health promotion resource (i.e., mindfulness) that constitutes a powerful tool for coping with uncertainties in daily life and improved community PWB.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and future research directions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study has made a valuable contribution to the literature by shedding light on the relationship between trait mindfulness, IU and PWB. However, several limitations should be noted and need to be addressed in future research. First, although the results indicate robust associations between the studied variables, the cross-sectional nature of the study precludes inferences regarding causal relationships. Longitudinal or experimental designs should be adopted in the future to clarify the temporal sequence of and causal relationships among trait mindfulness, IU, and PWB. For instance, researchers may consider mindfulness intervention programs to investigate whether increasing mindfulness results in the reduction of IU followed by an increase in PWB over time.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSecond, in this study we relied solely on self-report measures, raising the potential for common method bias and social desirability issues. Participants might have responded to the mindfulness and IU measures in socially desirable ways, which could inflate observed relationships. Future studies should mitigate such biases by incorporating alternative data collection methods, such as behavioral assessments or third-party observations. For instance, obtaining peer or family ratings of mindfulness behaviors or clinical assessments of IU could provide more objective evaluations and reduce bias.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThird, this research was based only on self-report measures,\u0026ensp;which may have led to common method bias and social desirability concerns. Participants may have portrayed themselves in a pro-social\u0026ensp;manner when providing information about themselves in mindfulness and IU measures, such that relationships may be artificially inflated. As such, we recommend that future work reduces any such biases by drawing on alternative data collection techniques, such as behavioral measures or\u0026ensp;reports from third-parties. For example, if peer or family ratings of mindfulness behaviors or clinician-reported measures of IU could be obtained, it\u0026ensp;would decrease the likelihood of biased reports\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLastly, the present study only examined trait mindfulness as the antecedent and IU\u0026ensp;as the mediator in the association between mindfulness and PWB. Although the protective effects of trait mindfulness against IU and its association with PWB have been shown, future studies could replicate these findings by investigating other potential mediators or moderators. For example, emotional regulation, cognitive flexibility, self-compassion, and resilience might also mediate or moderate\u0026ensp;the association between mindfulness and PWB, so further work could take these variables into account to explain the psychological processes through which mindfulness is associated with positive PWB.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003ePWB has become an increasingly important area of research and practice, particularly in contexts characterized by growing uncertainty and psychological distress. In light of this, the aim of the current study was to further examine the way in which trait mindfulness might increase PWB through a reduction in IU, a key cognitive vulnerability in the negative experience\u0026ensp;of well-being. Results of the present study supported the view that there\u0026ensp;is a negative correlation between trait mindfulness and IU, and between IU and PWB. Notably, the mediating effect of IU indicated that trait mindfulness enhances PWB through buffering\u0026ensp;the negative effects of uncertainty. Ultimately, the findings of the current study offer improved understanding of the role of trait mindfulness in the enhancement of PWB, thereby providing guidance for crafting effective interventions targeted at diminishing IU and augmenting psychological resilience.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eY.H.L. was responsible for all aspects of this manuscript, including conceptualization, literature review, methodology design, data collection and analysis, manuscript drafting, reviewing, and final approval of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study was conducted following the ethical standards outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB; approval number: HIRB20241017-002) at the first author\u0026rsquo;s university on October 17, 2024.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInformed Consent:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWritten informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to their participation in the study. Gallup conducted an online survey technique, through which participants received detailed information explaining the purpose of the study, procedures involved, potential risks, and confidentiality measures. Participants provided their consent electronically after reviewing the provided information and had the opportunity to ask questions or seek clarification through designated contact channels. Consent was collected from participants between October 21, 2024, and November 1, 2024. Confidentiality and anonymity of responses were strictly maintained throughout the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArslan, U., Yilik, M., Bakalim, O., Uyar, B., Saglikli, Z. (2021). Relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and psychological wellbeing during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The mediating role of mindfulness. \u003cem\u003eCukurova University Faculty of Education Journal, 50\u003c/em\u003e(1), 379-399.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAtlan Atalay, A., Abdulcebbar, A., Kantarci, L., Yilmaz, E. (2024). The role of intolerance of uncertainty and mindfulness in psychological distress: a two-wave longitudinal study. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology, 43\u003c/em\u003e, 25621-25628. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... \u0026amp; Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11\u003c/em\u003e(3), 230\u0026ndash;241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, T. (2006). \u003cem\u003eConfirmatory factor analysis for applied research\u003c/em\u003e. New York, NY: Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, K. W., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84\u003c/em\u003e(4), 822\u0026ndash;848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBuhr, K., \u0026amp; Dugas, M. J. (2009). The role of fear of anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty in worry: an experimental manipulation. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy, 47\u003c/em\u003e, 215\u0026ndash;223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2008.12.004\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarleton, R. N. (2012). The intolerance of uncertainty construct in the context of anxiety disorders: Theoretical and practical perspectives. \u003cem\u003eExpert Review of Neurotherapeutics, 12\u003c/em\u003e(8), 937\u0026ndash;947.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCarleton, R. N., Norton, M. P. J., \u0026amp; Asmundson, G. J. (2007). Fearing the unknown: A short version of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale. \u003cem\u003eJournal of anxiety disorders, 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 105-117.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eComrey, A. L., \u0026amp; Lee, H. B. (1992). \u003cem\u003eA first course in factor analysis\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDugas, M. J., Buhr, K., \u0026amp; Ladouceur, R. (2004). The role of intolerance of uncertainty in etiology and maintenance. In R. G. Heimberg, C. L. Turk, \u0026amp; D. S. Mennin (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eGeneralized anxiety disorder: Advances in research and practice\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 143-163). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDutta, T., Chhajer, R., Nag, S., \u0026amp; Dhir, S. (2023). Impact of intolerance of uncertainty on well-being during COVID-19 pandemic in India: Does practising gratitude and mindfulness help? \u003cem\u003eIIMB Management Review, 35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 286-297. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEraslan, G., \u0026amp; İlhan, T. (2023). The relationships between health anxiety and intolerance of uncertainty with quality of life in caregivers of cancer patients. \u003cem\u003eFamily Practice \u0026amp; Palliative Care, 8\u003c/em\u003e(1), 10-15. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFornell, C., \u0026amp; Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Research, 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 39\u0026ndash;50.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeston, M. H., Rh\u0026eacute;aume, J., Letarte, H., Dugas, M. J., \u0026amp; Ladouceur, R. (1994). Why do people worry? \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences, 17\u003c/em\u003e(6), 791\u0026ndash;802. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(94)90048-5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGentes, E. L., \u0026amp; Ruscio, A. M. (2011). A meta-analysis of the relation of intolerance of uncertainty to symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and obsessive\u0026ndash;compulsive disorder. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review, 31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 923\u0026ndash;933. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGibson, J., Rosser, B., Schneider, J., \u0026amp; Forshaw, M. (2023). The role of uncertainty intolerance in adjusting to long-term physical health conditions: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003ePlos One, 18\u003c/em\u003e(6), e0286198. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., \u0026amp; Black, W. C. (1998). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate data analysis\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHancock, J., \u0026amp; Mattick, K. (2020). Tolerance of ambiguity and psychological well‐being in medical training: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eMedical Education, 54\u003c/em\u003e(2), 125\u0026ndash;137. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14031\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHanley, A. W., Warner, A. R., \u0026amp; Garland, E. L. (2014). Associations between mindfulness, psychological well-being, and subjective well-being with respect to contemplative practice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Happiness Studies, 16\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1423\u0026ndash;1436. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHasanTehrani, T., \u0026amp; Moharami, M. (2024). Predicting neuroticism traits based on various attachment styles and psychological well-being with the mediation of uncertainty intolerance in college students. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Psychological Science, 23\u003c/em\u003e(137), 209-227. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, L., \u0026amp; Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling, \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e6\u003c/em\u003e, 1-55.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eIrak, D, Dede, B., \u0026amp; Demir, N. (2024). Mindfulness during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdowns: Intolerance uncertainty and psychological wellbeing among employees. \u003cem\u003eSage Open, 14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 1-11. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJenkins, R., Milne, E., \u0026amp; Thompson, A. (2020). The relationship between intolerance of uncertainty and anxiety in autism: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eAutism, 24\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1933-1944.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKabat-Zinn, J. (1990). \u003cem\u003eFull catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness\u003c/em\u003e. Delacorte Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 144\u0026ndash;156.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, S. (2010). \u003cem\u003eThe relationship of fear of negative and positive evaluation, intolerance of uncertainty, and social anxiety\u003c/em\u003e. Unpublished Thesis, Ewha Women\u0026rsquo;s University. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKim, M., Lee, K., Kim, R., Choi, T., \u0026amp; Lee, S. (2016). Impact of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on intolerance of uncertainty in patients with panic disorder. \u003cem\u003ePsychiatry Investigation, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 196-202. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKline, R. (2011). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples and practice of structural equation modeling \u003c/em\u003e(3rd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKraemer, K. M., Luberto, C. M., Hall, D., Ngo, L., \u0026amp; Yeh, G. (2020). A systematic review and meta-analysis of mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions for affect intolerance/sensitivity. \u003cem\u003eBehaviour Research and Therapy, 135\u003c/em\u003e, 103746. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKwon, S., \u0026amp; Kim, K. (2007). Validation of the Korean version of mindful attention awareness scale. \u003cem\u003eThe Korean Journal of Health Psychology, 12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 269-287. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLazarus, R. S., \u0026amp; Folkman, S. (1984). \u003cem\u003eStress, appraisal, and coping\u003c/em\u003e. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLee, Y. \u0026amp; Cho, H. (2024). The relationships among trait mindfulness, obsessive passion, and emotions in high school sport managers. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 19\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1479-1489.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLevinthal, A., Romutis, S. Rajalaban, A., Kumar, V., Feldman, R., Althouse, A., \u0026amp; Venkatesan, T. (2021). Greater intolerance to uncertainty predicts poorer quality of life in adults with cyclic vomiting syndrome. \u003cem\u003eNeurogastroenterology \u0026amp; Motility, 33\u003c/em\u003e(12), e14159. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLiao, K., \u0026amp; Wei, M. (2011). Intolerance of uncertainty, depression, and anxiety: The moderating and mediating roles of rumination. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical Psychology, 67\u003c/em\u003e(12), 1220\u0026ndash;1239. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20846\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMani, M., Kavanagh, D. J., Hides, L., \u0026amp; Stoyanov, S. R. (2015). Review and evaluation of mindfulness-based iPhone apps. \u003cem\u003eJMIR mHealth and uHealth, 3\u003c/em\u003e(3), e82. https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.4328\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMantzios, M., Wilson, J., Linnel, M., \u0026amp; Morris, P. (2015). The role of negative cognition, intolerance of uncertainty, mindfulness, and self-compassion in weight regulation among male army recruits. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness, 6\u003c/em\u003e, 545-552. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcEvoy, P. M., \u0026amp; Mahoney, A. E. (2012). To be sure, to be sure: Intolerance of uncertainty mediates symptoms of various anxiety disorders and depression. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Therapy, 43\u003c/em\u003e(3), 533\u0026ndash;545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2011.02.007\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNekić, M., \u0026amp; Mamić, S. (2019). Intolerance of uncertainty and mindfulness as determinants of anxiety and depression in female students. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences, 9\u003c/em\u003e(12), 135. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePapenfuss, I., Lommen, M., Grillon, C., Balderston, N., \u0026amp; Ostafin, B. (2021). Responding to uncertain threat: A potential mediator for the effect of mindfulness on anxiety. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Anxiety Disorder, 77\u003c/em\u003e, 102332. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePapenfuss, I., Lommen, M., Huisman, M., \u0026amp; Ostafin, B. (2022). Aversive response to uncertainty as a mediator for the effect of a mindfulness intervention on symptoms of anxiety. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychophysiology, 179\u003c/em\u003e, 30-42. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyff, C. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1069\u0026ndash;1081. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.6.1069\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyff, C., \u0026amp; Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69\u003c/em\u003e(4), 719\u0026ndash;727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.4.719\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRahimi, S., Pirmoradi, H., Lavasani, F., Farahani, H. (2023). The effectiveness of group intervention focused on intolerance of uncertainty on psychological distress and quality of life in multiple sclerosis patients. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Education and Health Promotion, 12\u003c/em\u003e, 29. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRehman, S., Ullah, R., Imran, M., Iqbal, K., Saleem, Z., \u0026amp; Khattak, S. (2021). Intolerance of uncertainty and mental well-being: Important role of longlines and fear of COVID-19: Evidence from higher educational institutions. \u003cem\u003eMulticultural Education, 7\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1-8. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosen, N. O., \u0026amp; Kn\u0026auml;uper, B. (2009). A little uncertainty goes a long way: State and trait differences in uncertainty interact to increase information seeking but also increase worry. \u003cem\u003eHealth Communication, 24\u003c/em\u003e(3), 228\u0026ndash;238. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosenkaranz, M., Davidson, R., MacCoon, D. Sheridan, J., Kalin, N., \u0026amp; Lutz, A. (2013). A comparison of mindfulness-based stress reduction and an active control in modulation of neurogenic inflammation. \u003cem\u003eBrain, Behavior, \u0026amp; Immunity, 27\u003c/em\u003e, 174-184. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRosser, B. A. (2019). Intolerance of uncertainty as a transdiagnostic mechanism of psychological difficulties: A systematic review of evidence pertaining to causality and temporal precedence. \u003cem\u003eCognitive Therapy and Research, 43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 438\u0026ndash;463.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSahib, A., Chen, J., Cardenas, D., \u0026amp; Calear, A. (2023). Intolerance of uncertainty and emotion regulation: A meta-analytic and systematic review. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review, 101\u003c/em\u003e, 102270.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSaleem, M., Rizvi, T., \u0026amp; Bashir, I. (2023). The role of hope in buffering the influence of intolerance of uncertainty on student\u0026rsquo;s psychological well-being. \u003cem\u003ePeace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 29\u003c/em\u003e(4), 374-384.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., \u0026amp; Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Clinical Psychology, 62\u003c/em\u003e(3), 373\u0026ndash;386. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShapiro, M. O., Short, N. A., Morabito, D., \u0026amp; Schmidt, N. B. (2020). Prospective associations between intolerance of uncertainty and psychopathology. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences, 166, \u003c/em\u003e110210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110210.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSischka, P., Costa, A., Steffgen, G., \u0026amp; Schmidt, A. (2020). The WHO-5 well-being index \u0026ndash; validation based on item response theory and the analysis of measurement invariance across 35 countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders Reports, 1\u003c/em\u003e, 10020. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eStevens, J. (1996). \u003cem\u003eApplied multivariate statistics for the social sciences \u003c/em\u003e(3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick, B., \u0026amp; Fidell, L. (2013). \u003cem\u003eUsing Multivariate Statistics \u003c/em\u003e(6th ed). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTeo, T., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., \u0026amp; Wong, S. L. (2009). Assessing the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers in Singapore and Malaysia: A multigroup invariance analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). \u003cem\u003eComputers \u0026amp; Education, 53\u003c/em\u003e, 1000-1009. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWest, S. G., Finch, J. F., \u0026amp; Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eStructural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications \u003c/em\u003e(pp. 56\u0026ndash;75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, E. J., Abbott, M., \u0026amp; Norton, A. The impact of psychological treatment on intolerance of uncertainty in generalized anxiety disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Affective Disorders, 97\u003c/em\u003e, 102729. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorld Health Organization. (1998). \u003cem\u003eWell-being measures in primary health care: The DepCare project\u003c/em\u003e. WHO Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeneral Characteristics of Respondents\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDemographic variables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFrequency (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePercentage (%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Male\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e154\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Female\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e153\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e49.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;30-39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e103\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;40-49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;50-59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEducation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;High school diplomat\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;College students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Graduated from college\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e223\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e72.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Graduate school degree\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarriage status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Single\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e102\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Married\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e192\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e62.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Divorced/Separated/Widowed\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived economic status\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Very bad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Bad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Moderate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e176\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e57.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Very good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived physical health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Very bad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Bad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Moderate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e145\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e47.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e110\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Very good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePerceived psychological health\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Very bad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Bad\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Moderate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e101\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e133\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e43.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 282px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Very good\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 160px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Correlations among Study Variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Trait mindfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.93)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. IU\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.27**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.89)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. PWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.-.36**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(.91)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eM\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 156px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e = 307. IU = intolerance of uncertainty; PWB: psychological well-being; Bivariate correlations presented in the lower diagonal are based on subscale score. Cronbach alpha coefficients on the diagonal.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e* \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05 ** \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConstruct validity for the study constructs\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"860\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMeasure/item\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026Lambda;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026rho;\u003csub\u003ec\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"15\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrait mindfulness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI become aware of my feelings only after quite some time has passed since experiencing them.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"15\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"15\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.52\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSometimes, I make mistakes because I\u0026apos;m not paying proper attention or because I\u0026apos;m \u0026nbsp;thinking about something else.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt\u0026apos;s difficult for me to continuously pay attention to what\u0026apos;s happening right now.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI tend to rush toward my goal without paying continuous attention to what\u0026apos;s currently happening.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI often don\u0026apos;t notice physical tension or discomfort until it fully captures my attention.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen I first hear someone\u0026apos;s name, I almost immediately forget it.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI tend to perform tasks automatically without fully being aware of what I\u0026apos;m doing.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI rush through tasks without paying close attention to what I\u0026rsquo;m actually doing.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSometimes I get so absorbed in my desired goals that I lose track of whether I\u0026apos;m doing the current task properly.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.81\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI perform tasks or assignments mechanically, without conscious awareness of what \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;I\u0026apos;m actually doing.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI sometimes find myself listening with one ear to someone talking while simultaneously doing something else.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.54\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOccasionally, I drive somewhere without paying attention, only to be puzzled later \u0026nbsp; about why I went there.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI sometimes become preoccupied with thoughts about the past or future.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAt times, I do things without paying attention to them.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI often snack on something without being consciously aware that I\u0026apos;m eating.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"12\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIU\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI get very upset when unexpected things happen.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"12\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.89\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"12\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.45\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIt frustrates me not having all the information I need.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.61\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTo avoid unexpected situations, I always need to think ahead.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.53\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEven with thorough planning, an unexpected minor issue could ruin everything.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI always want to know what my future holds.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI cannot tolerate being placed in situations that surprise me.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.68\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI must be able to plan everything in advance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.50\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUncertainty sometimes prevents me from living a full life.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.73\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhen action is required, if the situation is uncertain, I don\u0026apos;t know what to do.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI cannot perform tasks well when I am unsure.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEven slight doubts stop me from continuing my actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.70\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI try to avoid all uncertain situations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 113px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePWB\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI feel cheerful and in a good mood.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"5\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI feel calm and relaxed.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI feel active and energetic.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.93\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eI wake up feeling refreshed and rested.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.71\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 614px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMy daily life is full of things that interest me.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e IU = intolerance of uncertainty; PWB: psychological well-being; \u0026Lambda; = factor loading; AVE = average variance extracted score;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"ambiguity, anxiety, body-mind, emotion, meditation, ambiguity ","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6694073/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6694073/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjectives:\u003c/strong\u003e Based on the transactional model of stress and coping, this study conducted a study aimed at investigating the relationships among trait mindfulness, intolerance of uncertainty, and psychological well-being.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e A total of 307 South Korean adults (50.2% male; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 44.27 years [\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 8.46]) completed validated self-report questionnaires measuring the proposed variables.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e Structural equation modeling analysis showed an acceptable fit and supported the proposed relationships. More specifically, high trait mindfulness was significantly related to low intolerance of uncertainty (β = -. 34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;. 001), and intolerance of uncertainty and psychological well-being were significantly negatively correlated (β = −. 37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt;. 001). Moreover, mediation analysis revealed that intolerance of uncertainty significantly mediated the association between trait mindfulness and psychological well-being (β =. 12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusions:\u003c/strong\u003e The findings show that highly mindful individuals demonstrate less cognitive and emotional reactivity toward uncertainty than individuals lower in trait mindfulness, which in turn leads to higher levels of psychological well-being. These results have important theoretical implications for understanding the psychological processes involved in trait mindfulness and suggest that mindfulness-based strategies specifically aimed at reducing intolerance of uncertainty may be effective in increasing psychological well-being.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Trait mindfulness as a buffer against intolerance of uncertainty and its effects on psychological well-being","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-12 10:32:56","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6694073/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"031c83f1-0f4b-49a8-855f-d4ecf7acc539","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 12th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":52930933,"name":"Humanities/Health humanities"},{"id":52930934,"name":"Social science/Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-19T17:39:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-12 10:32:56","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6694073","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6694073","identity":"rs-6694073","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}