Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale

Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale | 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 Research Article Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale Kanji Goda, Michio Nomura This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6257009/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 This study aimed to develop and validate a Japanese version of the Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale (IMAAS; Fernández-Campos et al., 2021) and examine its reliability, validity, and relationship with mental health. This 12-item scale consists of two factors: (1) impermanence awareness (IAW), the cognizance that all phenomena are transient, and (2) impermanence acceptance (IAC), the attitude of openness toward the transient nature of all phenomena. Methods Following a preliminary survey conducted with university students (N = 35), and exploratory factor analysis performed to improve the translation and eliminate unfit items, we conducted an online survey using a crowdsourcing service (N = 350). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability and validity assessments, and correlation analyses with related scales were conducted. Results Notably, CFA confirmed the original two-factor structure; however, the model fit indices were low. Finally, a bifactor model was adopted, which improved the model fit (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95, GFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.06, SRMR = 0.04). Correlation analyses revealed that the IMAAS demonstrated convergent validity with death acceptance, mindfulness, and well-being. Notably, IAC showed a strong negative correlation with fear of death ( r = − 0.74, p < 0.01) and a moderate positive correlation with well-being ( r = 0.37, p < 0.01). Conclusions The Japanese version of the IMAAS is proposed as a valid tool for measuring IAW and acceptance. Future research should further examine the cultural validity of this scale and explore extensively how IAW influences mental health and well-being in various cultural contexts. Impermanence awareness Impermanence acceptance Cross-cultural research Buddhist psychology Death acceptance Mindfulness Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Impermanence is one of the core concepts in Buddhism. It is included in the “Three Marks of Existence” and implies that all phenomena are transient and are subject to change and dissolution (Halifax, 2008; Nhat Hanh, 1999). Although impermanence is an indispensable concept in understanding Japanese thought, values, and culture, how it is defined determines whether it is a uniquely Japanese or universal notion (Rezaee, 2024). Impermanence becomes synonymous with death if it is interpreted as “the world is fleeting,” thereby rendering it a culturally universal concept. As demonstrated in the transition from “ Ukiyo (憂世; ‘the world should be worried about’)” to “ Ukiyo (浮世; ‘the fleeting world’),” a notion of impermanence that implies progress from a negative to a positive state exists. Thus, the concept of impermanence applies not only to living beings and inanimate objects such as rocks but also human thoughts and emotions. Recent research has examined impermanence as a psychological construct, demonstrating the various psychological benefits associated with nurturing and acquiring awareness and acceptance of impermanence (Fernández-Campos et al., 2021). The integration and anticipation of the reality that everything in life changes can alleviate shock and resistance reactions when change occurs, thus promoting adaptive behavior. Notably, awareness and acceptance of impermanence facilitate the normalization and acceptance of life changes, thereby mitigating various difficulties encountered in experiencing traumatic experiences and losses (Shonin et al., 2014). Second, awareness and acceptance of impermanence can enhance emotional regulation and alleviation when people are confronted with difficult changes and emotions. This is consistent with Bruehlman-Senecal and Ayduk (2015), who suggested that contextualizing negative life events within a broader temporal framework helps mitigate their emotional impact. Thus, although impermanence can evoke sadness, anxiety, and fear concerning the end of a positive experience, it can promote a sense of relief when illness or an injury end. Finally, the nurturing of awareness and acceptance of impermanence may enhance gratitude and the recognition of the value of positive aspects of our lives. Recognizing and accepting the fleeting nature of all moments, people, and experiences can foster extensive awareness and appreciation for life and relationships (Fernández-Campos et al., 2021). Thus, acknowledging and accepting the impermanence of all things, regardless of fortune or misfortune, may alleviate psychological burdens and enhance the appreciation of various life events and interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, as Japan experiences nationwide aging and an increasing emphasis on terminal care, impermanence, which promotes the acceptance of life’s end and reassessment of past experiences, is a crucial psychological construct that requires further examination. Beyond terminal care, elucidating the cognitive and physiological mechanisms underlying impermanence may provide significant insights into the treatment of maladaptive states such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Additionally, reassessing the meaning and value of life may contribute to the promotion of eudaimonic well-being which is one of the components of well-being. Eudaimonic well-being involves meaning-related inspiration, effortful experiences, and purpose of life, and its importance has been highlighted in World Happiness Report by the World Health Organization (Helliwell et al., 2023). This perspective offers a distinct understanding of happiness, differing from the traditionally emphasized hedonic well-being which features ‘‘happiness as pleasure, enjoyment, and absence of discomfort’’ (Huta & Waterman, 2014, p. 1427). Besides, a measurement scale for the impermanence that takes cultural differences into account is essential for implementing more effective interventions to promote eudaimonic well-being. Furthermore, the insights gained from its development are expected to provide significant implications for the field of eudaimonic well-being research. Considering this backdrop, this study aimed to create a Japanese version of the “Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale (IMAAS),” originally developed by Fernández-Campos et al. (2021), and verify its reliability and validity. The IMAAS consists of two factors: the awareness and acceptance of impermanence. As mentioned earlier, recent research has demonstrated the various psychological benefits associated with acquiring awareness and acceptance of impermanence. However, Fernández-Campos et al. (2021) emphasized that impermanence does not provide such benefits through “awareness” alone but that “acceptance” is also necessary. Mindfulness is a concept that bridges the gap between Buddhist and clinical psychology, particularly in the “pure mindfulness” paradigm, which is consistent with the understanding (awareness) and acceptance of Buddhist values (Otani, 2021). Mindfulness research has shown that increasing awareness of specific experiences without adequate acceptance may increase anxiety (Lindsay, 2019). Therefore, a measure of impermanence should assess the extent to which impermanence is recognized and accepted. Furthermore, Fernández-Campos et al. (2021) noted that when awareness and acceptance of impermanence are present, positive (e.g., gratitude and appreciation) and negative (e.g., sadness and anxiety) emotions may emerge simultaneously. This is consistent with findings on death anxiety and acceptance (Sawyer et al., 2019; Wong & Tomer, 2011) and resilience and posttraumatic growth (PTG; Calhoun & Tedeschi, 2014). Recent studies have used the IMAAS in research on the transience of SNS content and its motivational characteristics (Lew, 2024). Furthermore, it has been increasingly used in clinical fields as a psychological construct that contributes to well-being research. Additionally, research on the relationship between impermanence and the Japanese aesthetic concept of “Hakanasa (儚さ; ephemerality or evanescence)” and its correlation with subjective well-being is underway. Considering these factors, the development of a Japanese version of the IMAAS for cultural comparisons and well-being research is urgently required. This study aimed to create a Japanese version of the IMAAS and examine its practical utility through an online survey. Additionally, we assessed convergent validity by measuring three theoretically related concepts identified by Fernández-Campos et al. (2021), namely: death acceptance (Japanese version of the Death Attitude Profile-Revised; Kumabe, 2006), mindfulness (Japanese version of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, Fujino et al., 2015), and well-being (Japanese version of the Psychological Well-Being Scale, MIDUS-II version, Sasaki et al., 2020). Method This study was conducted after ethical review by the Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University (Acceptance Number: CPE-691). Participants Altogether, 350 native Japanese speakers were recruited through crowdsourcing services (CrowdWorks; https://crowdworks.jp/ ) (198 men, 151 women, others: 2, mean age: 43.19, SD = 9.65, Range: 21–73 years, 20s: 17, 30s: 118, 40s: 134, 50s: 63, 60s–70s: 18, and bachelor’s degree holders: 63%). No specific criteria were set for age, sex, and psychiatric or neurological conditions. Compensation was provided by CrowdWorks. Based on the original IMAAS and results of a preliminary survey of university students (N = 39), the item-to-factor ratio of this scale was confirmed to be 12:2, with one item having moderate cross-loading. Communality values varied in various items, with an average communality of 0.43. Referring to MacCallum et al. (1999), a sample size of approximately 300 was considered sufficient for this study and the original version of the scale was validated with a sample size of 334. Additionally, because this study was conducted online, it was anticipated that some participants might have provided invalid responses. Therefore, the final sample size was set to 350 to account for such cases. As an attention check, items asking participants to select a particular option (e.g., “Please select ‘strongly disagree’ here”) were inserted in each scale. Data from participants who failed to answer the attention check correctly and whose response times were extremely short (less than 3 min) were excluded. Procedure The participants accessed the survey through the CrowdWorks recruitment page. After providing informed consent, the participants completed demographic data followed by various psychological scales. The order of the scales and items in each scale were randomized. Measures Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale : With permission from the original authors, the authors of this study translated the IMAAS into Japanese. We conducted a preliminary survey with university students (N = 39), eliminated one item with factor loadings below 0.3, and revised four items with factor loadings between 0.4 and 0.5. The main online survey was conducted and items were introduced by the following instruction: “The following items are regarding your thoughts on ‘change’ and ‘endings.’ Please rate how much each item applies to you on a 7-point scale from (1 = strongly disagree) to (7 = strongly agree). Please respond based on your thoughts and experiences rather than how you think you ‘should be’ or ‘want to be.’” Death Attitude Profile-Revised (DAP-R, Japanese version) : The DAP-R measures multidimensional psychological attitudes toward death (Kumabe, 2006). It comprises 27 items and four factors, namely: “Approach Acceptance,” “Fear of Death,” “Death Avoidance,” and “Escape Acceptance.” Although the original study (Fernández-Campos et al., 2021) used the “Neutral Death Acceptance” subscale, this factor was not included in the Japanese version. Considering that “Neutral Death Acceptance” assesses a calm acceptance of death, the Japanese version’s factors were considered theoretically relevant and were used in this study. However, “Approach Acceptance” was excluded due to its strong relationships with religious beliefs. The remaining 17 items were used, with “Impermanence Acceptance” (IAC) expected to correlate with “Fear of Death,” “Death Avoidance,” and “Escape Acceptance.” Responses were recorded on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS, Japanese version) The MAAS measures mindfulness traits by focusing on “awareness” and “attention” (Fujino et al., 2015). It comprises 15 items and follows a single-factor structure. Mindfulness is generally defined as “a state of increased attention and awareness of present experiences and reality” (Stuart-Edwards et al., 2023). Fernández-Campos et al. (2021) found a strong theoretical relationship between impermanent awareness and mindfulness. First, mindfulness facilitates awareness of change without resistance and promotes impermanence recognition and acceptance. For example, focusing on one’s breath increases the awareness of bodily sensations and air exchange; this is consistent with research showing that mindfulness enhances impermanence awareness (IAW), particularly among older adults (Xu, 2018). Second, nurturing IAW can enhance the motivation to be present in the moment, thereby promoting greater mindfulness, a concept positively related to PTG research. Correlations between two IMAAS factors and mindfulness were expected. Responses were recorded on a 6-point scale (1 = Almost never to 6 = Almost always). 42-item Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS-42, Japanese version) : The PWBS-42 measures well-being in six factors: “Autonomy,” “Environmental Mastery,” “Personal Growth,” “Positive Relations with Others,” “Purpose in Life,” and “Self-Acceptance” (Sasaki et al., 2020). As discussed earlier, mindfulness and IAW have similar theoretical relationships, whereas Fernández-Campos et al. (2021) reported correlations between “IAC” and mindfulness. Mindfulness is known to enhance well-being (Huynh & Torquati, 2019), suggesting that IAW is correlated with well-being. Responses were recorded on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Results After excluding seven participants who failed attention checks or completed the survey in less than three minutes, data from 343 participants (192 males, 149 females, others: 2, mean age: 43.17, SD = 9.59, bachelor’s degree holders: 64%) were analyzed. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 12-item IMAAS-J using maximum likelihood estimation revealed a two-factor structure: “IAW” (IAC, 27.2% variance explained, eigenvalue = 3.27) and “IAC” (IAW, 24.0% variance explained, eigenvalue = 2.89). The factor loadings, item means, standard deviations, and communalities are listed in Table 1. A good internal consistency was observed for each factor ( \(\:{\alpha\:}_{awa}\) = 0.83; \(\:{\alpha\:}_{accep}\) = 0.87) and the total score (α = 0.83). A t-test comparing participants aged 20–39 and 40 years and above found no significant and a significant difference in IAC ( t (341) = − 0.66, n.s. ) and IAW ( t (341) = 4.07, p < .001, 95% CI [1.13, 3.24]), respectively, with a moderate effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.45, Fig. 1 ). No significant gender differences were found for either factor ( t (339) = − 0.20, n.s. ; t (339) = − 0.31, n.s. ). Table 1 Mean (M), standard deviations (SD), factor loadings (FL_Aw and FL_Ac), communalities (Com), and item-total correlation (I-T) for the two-factor model derived from the CFA The construct validity and reliability were evaluated using AVE, MSV, CR, and MaxR, which met the recommended thresholds, confirming adequate construct validity and reliability (Table 2 ). Model fit indices indicated poor fit for the two-factor model (χ² (53) = 950.95, p < .001; CFI = 0.77; TLI = 0.74; GFI = 0.78; RMSEA = 0.10; SRMR = 0.094). Considering the need for model modifications, a bifactor model was tested that significantly improved the model fit (Table 5 ) and it was used as the final structural model (Fig. 2 ). The results of the correlation analyses between the IMAAS-J and theoretically related scales (DAP-R, MAAS, and PWBS-42) are shown in Table 6 . Notably, IAW had weak positive correlations with Escape Avoidance ( r = 0.19, p < 0.01) and Mindfulness ( r = 0.12, p < 0.05) and weak negative correlations with Death Avoidance ( r = − 0.15, p < 0.01). Regarding IAC, a strong negative correlation was found with Fear of Death ( r = − 0.74, p < 0.01), a moderate negative correlation with Death Acceptance ( r = − 0.40, p < 0.01), and a moderate positive correlation with Well-Being ( r = 0.37, p < 0.01). Additionally, weak positive and negative correlations with Mindfulness and Escape Avoidance were observed ( r = 0.25, p < 0.01; r = − 0.25, p < 0.01). Average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared variance (MSV), composite reliability (CR), and maximum reliability (MaxR) Discussion We developed a Japanese version of the IMAAS and examined its reliability and validity. Notably, CFA of data from Japanese participants confirmed a two-factor structure consistent with the original IMAAS (Fernández-Campos et al., 2021). Although the CFA results initially suggested a poor model fit, subsequent bifactor modeling significantly improved the fit indices. Moreover, reliability and convergent validity were good for both factors. Regarding the model structure supported in this study, the bifactor model varied from a simple two-factor structure in that it assumed the existence of a general factor that influenced all observed variables in addition to multiple specific factors. A two-factor structure was identified in Fernández-Campos et al. (2021) that targeted American participants and suggested that participants in the original study perceived IAW and IAC as independent concepts. In contrast, the fact that the bifactor model demonstrated a good fit in the Japanese sample suggests that although IAW and IAC are perceived as distinct concepts, they are integrated under a central factor unique to Japanese culture. This central factor can be examined from religious and cultural perspectives. As a Buddhism-influenced country in East Asia, Japan has an extensively ingrained cultural understanding of impermanence than other regions such as Europe and the United States, which are defined by different religious traditions. This suggests that a general factor representing the cultural value of impermanence may have emerged in the Japanese data that was not observed in the original version. An interesting, related aspect is that in Western societies, death is often perceived as a symbol of “the end,” leading to increased fear of death. By contrast, East Asian countries such as Japan, China, and Korea, influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism, tend to accept death as a natural course of the concept of impermanence, resulting in a relatively higher level of death acceptance (Gire, 2014). Regarding IAC, which was found to have a strong correlation with Death Acceptance in Fernández-Campos et al.’s (2021) study as well as in the present study, the mean IAC score in Fernández- Campos et al. (2021) was 4.20, whereas it was significantly higher at 5.49 in this study, thereby supporting this cultural difference. Therefore, the general factors identified through the bifactor model may reflect a value system unique to Buddhist cultures, particularly regarding death and impermanence. Psychological and attitudinal differences between Western and Japanese individuals have been widely discussed in previous research. Among the factors potentially related to impermanence are life satisfaction, tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity (Fernández-Campos et al., 2021; Hong et al., 2019). Considering these theoretical relationships, further investigation of impermanence-related factors unique to Japanese individuals is a crucial and urgent research topic. We conducted correlation analyses using the DAP-R, MAAS, and the Well-Being scales as measures that may be theoretically related to the IMAAS-J. Notably, the strong negative correlation between IAC and the Fear of Death suggests that accepting impermanence may alleviate fear of death, which is consistent with the findings of Fernández-Campos et al. (2021). However, the correlations between the IAW as well as DAP-R and Well-Being scales were considerably weaker than in the original version, indicating the possibility that Japanese individuals may have a unique attitude toward IAW. Specifically, the correlation between the IAW and Well-Being was 0.31 in the original version and 0.07 in this study. Similarly, the correlation between IAC and Well-Being was 0.45 in the original version and 0.37 in this study. These results suggest that the Japanese participants in this study tend to recognize impermanence but may not necessarily accept it. The significant age-related difference observed only in the IAW suggests that aging does not necessarily facilitate the acceptance of impermanence, thereby presenting an interesting topic for future research. This study had some limitations. The findings were based on self-reported questionnaire data, and no behavioral or physiological indicators (e.g., EDA) were used. Previous research on mindfulness and mental health has focused on interoception and neural mechanisms using methods such as heartbeat-counting tasks (Schandry, 1981) and fMRI to examine the relationship between mental health and neural mechanisms (Khalsa et al., 2018). Additionally, because this study was conducted using a crowdsourcing service, the participants were predominantly in their 30s and 40s, which may have influenced the results. Considering these factors, future research should incorporate physiological measures to adopt a more integrated perspective and explore IAW and IAC across a wide age range. Finally, the results of this study suggest that IAW and IAC are crucial in psychological adaptation and that the IMAAS-J has the potential to serve as a valuable tool for future mindfulness and well-being research. Further studies are needed to explore the detailed impact of IAW and IAC on psychological adaptation and mental health and examine how IAW and IAC can be integrated into mental health interventions. Additionally, although no such trend was observed in this study, the potential negative effects of IAW, particularly the possibility that recognizing impermanence may increase fear of death and related anxiety, require further investigation. Declarations Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants and their legal guardians included in the study. Author Contribution K.G. made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, as well as to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data and drafted the work and M.N. revised it critically for important intellectual content.K.G. and M.N. reviewed and approved the manuscript to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Acknowledgement The authors wish to thank Silvia Fernández-Campos for granting us permission to create the Japanese version of the IMAAS, Takechika Hayashi for his help with back translation, and Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing. Data Availability The dataset supporting the findings of this study is publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at the following link: https://osf.io/p67wv/?view_only=7573562a938945b69f89c36bb9b78e13 References Bruehlman-Senecal, E., & Ayduk, O. (2015). This too shall pass: Temporal distance and the regulation of emotional distress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 108(2), 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038324 Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2014). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: Research and practice . Routledge. Fernández-Campos, S., Roca, P., & Yaden, M. B. (2021). The Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale. Mindfulness , 12(6), 1542–1554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01623-7 Fujino, M., Kajimura, S., & Nomura, M. (2015). Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale using item response theory analysis. The Japanese Journal of Personality , 24(1), 61–76. Gire, J. (2014). How death imitates life: Cultural influences on conceptions of death and dying. Developmental Psychology and Culture , 6(2). Virginia Military Institute. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1120 Halifax, J. (2008). Being with dying. Cultivating compassion and fearlessness in the presence of death. Shambhala Publications . Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L. B., & Wang, S. (Eds.). (2023). World Happiness Report 2023. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://worldhappiness.report/ Hong, J. H., Charles, S. T., Lee, S., & Lachman, M. E. (2019). Perceived changes in life satisfaction from the past, present and to the future: A comparison of U.S. and Japan. Psychology and Aging . https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000345 Huta, V., & Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from Hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425–1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0 Huynh, T., & Torquati, J. C. (2019). Examining connection to nature and mindfulness at promoting psychological well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology , 66, 101370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101370 Khalsa, S. S., Adolphs, R., Cameron, O. G., Critchley, H. D., Davenport, P. W., Feinstein, J. S., Feusner, J. D., Garfinkel, S. N., Lane, R. D., Mehling, W. E., Meuret, A. E., Nemeroff, C. B., Oppenheimer, S., Petzschner, F. H., Pollatos, O., Rhudy, J. L., Schramm, L. P., Simmons, W. K., Stein, M. B., Stephan, K. E., & Zucker, N. (2018). Interoception and mental health: A roadmap. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging , 3(6), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004 Kumabe, C. (2006). Factors influencing contemporary Japanese attitudes regarding life and death. The Japanese Journal of Health Psychology , 19(1), 10–24. Lew, Z. (2024). The awareness, acceptance, and appreciation of transience in the domain of eudaimonic media experiences. New Media & Society, 24, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241284612 Lindsay, E. K. (2019). Mindfulness, acceptance, and emotion regulation: Perspectives from Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT). Current Opinion in Psychology , 28, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.004 MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99. Nhat Hanh, T. (1999). The heart of the Buddha’s teaching: Transforming suffering into peace, joy and liberation. Broadway Books . Otani, A. (2021). A history and the state of the art of mindfulness. Japanese Psychological Review , 64(3), 228–243. Rezaee, A. (2024). “Suru” to “naru” no mujokan: “Kuruān” kara yomi toku Isurāmu-kyō ni okeru mujō no arikata. Nihon Kenkyū , 69, 7–47. https://doi.org/10.15055/0002000277 Sasaki, N., Watanabe, K., Imamura, K., Nishi, D., Karasawa, M., Kan, C., Ryff, C. D., & Kawakami, N. (2020). Japanese version of the 42-item psychological well-being scale (PWBS-42): A validation study. BMC Psychology , 8, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00441-1 Sawyer, J. S., Brewster, M. E., & Ertl, M. M. (2021). Death anxiety and death acceptance in atheists and other nonbelievers. Death Studies , 45(6), 459–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1648339 Schandry, R. (1981). Heart beat perception and emotional experience. Psychophysiology, 18(4), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.tb02486.x Shimizu, K. (2018). Misuse and artifact in factor analytic research. Bulletin of the Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, 49(2), 191–211. http://hdl.handle.net/10112/13343 Shonin, E., Van Gordon, W., & Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Do mindfulness-based therapies have a role in the treatment of psychosis? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 48(2), 124–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867413512688 Stuart-Edwards, A., MacDonald, A., & Ansari, M. A. (2023). Twenty years of research on mindfulness at work: A structured literature review. Journal of Business Research, 169, 114285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114285 Wong, P. T. P., Reker, G. T., & Gesser, G. (1994). Death Attitude Profile – Revised: A multidimensional measure of attitudes toward death (DAP-R). In R. A. Neimeyer (Ed.), Death anxiety handbook: Research, instrumentation, and application (pp. 121–148). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis Wong, P. T. P., & Tomer, A. (2011). Beyond terror and denial: The positive psychology of death acceptance. Death Studies , 35, 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2011.535377 Xu, J. (2018). A tripartite function of mindfulness in adjustment to aging: Acceptance, integration, and transcendence. The Gerontologist, 58(6), 1009–1015. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx100 Tables Table 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files Tables.docx 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-6257009","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":437685450,"identity":"60f867e8-fd1e-4da6-84ec-fdbb0f2142ac","order_by":0,"name":"Kanji Goda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kyoto University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kanji","middleName":"","lastName":"Goda","suffix":""},{"id":437685451,"identity":"37529060-1382-4b96-8900-8fe5ccff0421","order_by":1,"name":"Michio Nomura","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Kyoto University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Michio","middleName":"","lastName":"Nomura","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-03-19 01:53:14","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6257009/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6257009/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":79937106,"identity":"eba7f6f0-1e23-437d-880e-5ea681d7adc3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-04 18:23:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":51696,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eViolin plot of t-test results by age group in IAW\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6257009/v1/0c12f2c2a41d68d248d83dd9.jpg"},{"id":79937107,"identity":"2bb11fbc-7d82-4aee-8820-53c595fcbfd5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-04 18:23:43","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":30823,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eSchematic representation of bifactor model for IMAASJ\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6257009/v1/4d74e24ac2946eccb883b551.jpg"},{"id":82566665,"identity":"ee6a5ed9-4a9f-4855-b65b-3525ed117629","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-05-13 03:01:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":570655,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6257009/v1/7fa2ba09-f74e-4861-91f2-df823d7e620c.pdf"},{"id":79937108,"identity":"6a2627ef-1bc0-4113-8e04-421212af9010","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-04-04 18:23:43","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":295054,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Tables.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6257009/v1/4e64fcd6fee6d57ff0375f61.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eImpermanence is one of the core concepts in Buddhism. It is included in the \u0026ldquo;Three Marks of Existence\u0026rdquo; and implies that all phenomena are transient and are subject to change and dissolution (Halifax, 2008; Nhat Hanh, 1999). Although impermanence is an indispensable concept in understanding Japanese thought, values, and culture, how it is defined determines whether it is a uniquely Japanese or universal notion (Rezaee, 2024). Impermanence becomes synonymous with death if it is interpreted as \u0026ldquo;the world is fleeting,\u0026rdquo; thereby rendering it a culturally universal concept. As demonstrated in the transition from \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eUkiyo\u003c/em\u003e (憂世; \u0026lsquo;the world should be worried about\u0026rsquo;)\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eUkiyo\u003c/em\u003e (浮世; \u0026lsquo;the fleeting world\u0026rsquo;),\u0026rdquo; a notion of impermanence that implies progress from a negative to a positive state exists. Thus, the concept of impermanence applies not only to living beings and inanimate objects such as rocks but also human thoughts and emotions. Recent research has examined impermanence as a psychological construct, demonstrating the various psychological benefits associated with nurturing and acquiring awareness and acceptance of impermanence (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe integration and anticipation of the reality that everything in life changes can alleviate shock and resistance reactions when change occurs, thus promoting adaptive behavior. Notably, awareness and acceptance of impermanence facilitate the normalization and acceptance of life changes, thereby mitigating various difficulties encountered in experiencing traumatic experiences and losses (Shonin et al., 2014). Second, awareness and acceptance of impermanence can enhance emotional regulation and alleviation when people are confronted with difficult changes and emotions. This is consistent with Bruehlman-Senecal and Ayduk (2015), who suggested that contextualizing negative life events within a broader temporal framework helps mitigate their emotional impact. Thus, although impermanence can evoke sadness, anxiety, and fear concerning the end of a positive experience, it can promote a sense of relief when illness or an injury end. Finally, the nurturing of awareness and acceptance of impermanence may enhance gratitude and the recognition of the value of positive aspects of our lives. Recognizing and accepting the fleeting nature of all moments, people, and experiences can foster extensive awareness and appreciation for life and relationships (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThus, acknowledging and accepting the impermanence of all things, regardless of fortune or misfortune, may alleviate psychological burdens and enhance the appreciation of various life events and interpersonal relationships. Furthermore, as Japan experiences nationwide aging and an increasing emphasis on terminal care, impermanence, which promotes the acceptance of life\u0026rsquo;s end and reassessment of past experiences, is a crucial psychological construct that requires further examination. Beyond terminal care, elucidating the cognitive and physiological mechanisms underlying impermanence may provide significant insights into the treatment of maladaptive states such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, reassessing the meaning and value of life may contribute to the promotion of eudaimonic well-being which is one of the components of well-being. Eudaimonic well-being involves meaning-related inspiration, effortful experiences, and purpose of life, and its importance has been highlighted in World Happiness Report by the World Health Organization (Helliwell et al., 2023). This perspective offers a distinct understanding of happiness, differing from the traditionally emphasized hedonic well-being which features \u0026lsquo;\u0026lsquo;happiness as pleasure, enjoyment, and absence of discomfort\u0026rsquo;\u0026rsquo; (Huta \u0026amp; Waterman, 2014, p. 1427). Besides, a measurement scale for the impermanence that takes cultural differences into account is essential for implementing more effective interventions to promote eudaimonic well-being. Furthermore, the insights gained from its development are expected to provide significant implications for the field of eudaimonic well-being research. Considering this backdrop, this study aimed to create a Japanese version of the \u0026ldquo;Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale (IMAAS),\u0026rdquo; originally developed by Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021), and verify its reliability and validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe IMAAS consists of two factors: the awareness and acceptance of impermanence. As mentioned earlier, recent research has demonstrated the various psychological benefits associated with acquiring awareness and acceptance of impermanence. However, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021) emphasized that impermanence does not provide such benefits through \u0026ldquo;awareness\u0026rdquo; alone but that \u0026ldquo;acceptance\u0026rdquo; is also necessary.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMindfulness is a concept that bridges the gap between Buddhist and clinical psychology, particularly in the \u0026ldquo;pure mindfulness\u0026rdquo; paradigm, which is consistent with the understanding (awareness) and acceptance of Buddhist values (Otani, 2021). Mindfulness research has shown that increasing awareness of specific experiences without adequate acceptance may increase anxiety (Lindsay, 2019). Therefore, a measure of impermanence should assess the extent to which impermanence is recognized and accepted. Furthermore, Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021) noted that when awareness and acceptance of impermanence are present, positive (e.g., gratitude and appreciation) and negative (e.g., sadness and anxiety) emotions may emerge simultaneously. This is consistent with findings on death anxiety and acceptance (Sawyer et al., 2019; Wong \u0026amp; Tomer, 2011) and resilience and posttraumatic growth (PTG; Calhoun \u0026amp; Tedeschi, 2014).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent studies have used the IMAAS in research on the transience of SNS content and its motivational characteristics (Lew, 2024). Furthermore, it has been increasingly used in clinical fields as a psychological construct that contributes to well-being research. Additionally, research on the relationship between impermanence and the Japanese aesthetic concept of \u0026ldquo;Hakanasa (儚さ; ephemerality or evanescence)\u0026rdquo; and its correlation with subjective well-being is underway. Considering these factors, the development of a Japanese version of the IMAAS for cultural comparisons and well-being research is urgently required.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to create a Japanese version of the IMAAS and examine its practical utility through an online survey. Additionally, we assessed convergent validity by measuring three theoretically related concepts identified by Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021), namely: death acceptance (Japanese version of the Death Attitude Profile-Revised; Kumabe, 2006), mindfulness (Japanese version of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, Fujino et al., 2015), and well-being (Japanese version of the Psychological Well-Being Scale, MIDUS-II version, Sasaki et al., 2020).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e This study was conducted after ethical review by the Graduate School of Education, Kyoto University (Acceptance Number: CPE-691).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAltogether, 350 native Japanese speakers were recruited through crowdsourcing services (CrowdWorks; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://crowdworks.jp/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://crowdworks.jp/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e) (198 men, 151 women, others: 2, mean age: 43.19, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.65, Range: 21\u0026ndash;73 years, 20s: 17, 30s: 118, 40s: 134, 50s: 63, 60s\u0026ndash;70s: 18, and bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree holders: 63%). No specific criteria were set for age, sex, and psychiatric or neurological conditions. Compensation was provided by CrowdWorks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the original IMAAS and results of a preliminary survey of university students (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39), the item-to-factor ratio of this scale was confirmed to be 12:2, with one item having moderate cross-loading. Communality values varied in various items, with an average communality of 0.43. Referring to MacCallum et al. (1999), a sample size of approximately 300 was considered sufficient for this study and the original version of the scale was validated with a sample size of 334. Additionally, because this study was conducted online, it was anticipated that some participants might have provided invalid responses. Therefore, the final sample size was set to 350 to account for such cases.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs an attention check, items asking participants to select a particular option (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Please select \u0026lsquo;strongly disagree\u0026rsquo; here\u0026rdquo;) were inserted in each scale. Data from participants who failed to answer the attention check correctly and whose response times were extremely short (less than 3 min) were excluded.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eProcedure\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe participants accessed the survey through the CrowdWorks recruitment page. After providing informed consent, the participants completed demographic data followed by various psychological scales. The order of the scales and items in each scale were randomized.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eImpermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale\u003c/b\u003e: With permission from the original authors, the authors of this study translated the IMAAS into Japanese. We conducted a preliminary survey with university students (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;39), eliminated one item with factor loadings below 0.3, and revised four items with factor loadings between 0.4 and 0.5. The main online survey was conducted and items were introduced by the following instruction: \u0026ldquo;The following items are regarding your thoughts on \u0026lsquo;change\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;endings.\u0026rsquo; Please rate how much each item applies to you on a 7-point scale from (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree) to (7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). Please respond based on your thoughts and experiences rather than how you think you \u0026lsquo;should be\u0026rsquo; or \u0026lsquo;want to be.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDeath Attitude Profile-Revised (DAP-R, Japanese version)\u003c/b\u003e: The DAP-R measures multidimensional psychological attitudes toward death (Kumabe, 2006). It comprises 27 items and four factors, namely: \u0026ldquo;Approach Acceptance,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Fear of Death,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Death Avoidance,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Escape Acceptance.\u0026rdquo; Although the original study (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al., 2021) used the \u0026ldquo;Neutral Death Acceptance\u0026rdquo; subscale, this factor was not included in the Japanese version. Considering that \u0026ldquo;Neutral Death Acceptance\u0026rdquo; assesses a calm acceptance of death, the Japanese version\u0026rsquo;s factors were considered theoretically relevant and were used in this study. However, \u0026ldquo;Approach Acceptance\u0026rdquo; was excluded due to its strong relationships with religious beliefs. The remaining 17 items were used, with \u0026ldquo;Impermanence Acceptance\u0026rdquo; (IAC) expected to correlate with \u0026ldquo;Fear of Death,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Death Avoidance,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Escape Acceptance.\u0026rdquo; Responses were recorded on a 5-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree to 5\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eMindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS, Japanese version)\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe MAAS measures mindfulness traits by focusing on \u0026ldquo;awareness\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;attention\u0026rdquo; (Fujino et al., 2015). It comprises 15 items and follows a single-factor structure. Mindfulness is generally defined as \u0026ldquo;a state of increased attention and awareness of present experiences and reality\u0026rdquo; (Stuart-Edwards et al., 2023). Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021) found a strong theoretical relationship between impermanent awareness and mindfulness. First, mindfulness facilitates awareness of change without resistance and promotes impermanence recognition and acceptance. For example, focusing on one\u0026rsquo;s breath increases the awareness of bodily sensations and air exchange; this is consistent with research showing that mindfulness enhances impermanence awareness (IAW), particularly among older adults (Xu, 2018). Second, nurturing IAW can enhance the motivation to be present in the moment, thereby promoting greater mindfulness, a concept positively related to PTG research. Correlations between two IMAAS factors and mindfulness were expected. Responses were recorded on a 6-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Almost never to 6\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Almost always).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003e42-item Psychological Well-Being Scale (PWBS-42, Japanese version)\u003c/b\u003e: The PWBS-42 measures well-being in six factors: \u0026ldquo;Autonomy,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Environmental Mastery,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Personal Growth,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Positive Relations with Others,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;Purpose in Life,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Self-Acceptance\u0026rdquo; (Sasaki et al., 2020). As discussed earlier, mindfulness and IAW have similar theoretical relationships, whereas Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021) reported correlations between \u0026ldquo;IAC\u0026rdquo; and mindfulness. Mindfulness is known to enhance well-being (Huynh \u0026amp; Torquati, 2019), suggesting that IAW is correlated with well-being. Responses were recorded on a 7-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree to 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAfter excluding seven participants who failed attention checks or completed the survey in less than three minutes, data from 343 participants (192 males, 149 females, others: 2, mean age: 43.17, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.59, bachelor\u0026rsquo;s degree holders: 64%) were analyzed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 12-item IMAAS-J using maximum likelihood estimation revealed a two-factor structure: \u0026ldquo;IAW\u0026rdquo; (IAC, 27.2% variance explained, eigenvalue\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.27) and \u0026ldquo;IAC\u0026rdquo; (IAW, 24.0% variance explained, eigenvalue\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.89). The factor loadings, item means, standard deviations, and communalities are listed in Table\u0026nbsp;1. A good internal consistency was observed for each factor (\u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\alpha\\:}_{awa}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e= 0.83; \u003cspan class=\"InlineEquation\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"mathinline\"\u003e\\(\\:{\\alpha\\:}_{accep}\\)\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e= 0.87) and the total score (\u0026alpha;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.83).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA t-test comparing participants aged 20\u0026ndash;39 and 40 years and above found no significant and a significant difference in IAC (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (341)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.66, \u003cem\u003en.s.\u003c/em\u003e) and IAW (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (341)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, 95% \u003cem\u003eCI\u003c/em\u003e [1.13, 3.24]), respectively, with a moderate effect size (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.45, Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). No significant gender differences were found for either factor (\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (339)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.20, \u003cem\u003en.s.\u003c/em\u003e; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e (339)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.31, \u003cem\u003en.s.\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable 1 Mean (M), standard deviations (SD), factor loadings (FL_Aw and FL_Ac), communalities (Com), and item-total correlation (I-T) for the two-factor model derived from the CFA\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe construct validity and reliability were evaluated using AVE, MSV, CR, and MaxR, which met the recommended thresholds, confirming adequate construct validity and reliability (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eModel fit indices indicated poor fit for the two-factor model (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; (53)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;950.95, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001; CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.77; TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.74; GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.78; RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10; SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.094). Considering the need for model modifications, a bifactor model was tested that significantly improved the model fit (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e) and it was used as the final structural model (Fig. \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the correlation analyses between the IMAAS-J and theoretically related scales (DAP-R, MAAS, and PWBS-42) are shown in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e. Notably, IAW had weak positive correlations with Escape Avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and Mindfulness (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.12, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) and weak negative correlations with Death Avoidance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Regarding IAC, a strong negative correlation was found with Fear of Death (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), a moderate negative correlation with Death Acceptance (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.40, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01), and a moderate positive correlation with Well-Being (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01). Additionally, weak positive and negative correlations with Mindfulness and Escape Avoidance were observed (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01; \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAverage variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared variance (MSV), composite reliability (CR), and maximum reliability (MaxR)\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe developed a Japanese version of the IMAAS and examined its reliability and validity. Notably, CFA of data from Japanese participants confirmed a two-factor structure consistent with the original IMAAS (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al., 2021). Although the CFA results initially suggested a poor model fit, subsequent bifactor modeling significantly improved the fit indices. Moreover, reliability and convergent validity were good for both factors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegarding the model structure supported in this study, the bifactor model varied from a simple two-factor structure in that it assumed the existence of a general factor that influenced all observed variables in addition to multiple specific factors. A two-factor structure was identified in Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021) that targeted American participants and suggested that participants in the original study perceived IAW and IAC as independent concepts. In contrast, the fact that the bifactor model demonstrated a good fit in the Japanese sample suggests that although IAW and IAC are perceived as distinct concepts, they are integrated under a central factor unique to Japanese culture. This central factor can be examined from religious and cultural perspectives. As a Buddhism-influenced country in East Asia, Japan has an extensively ingrained cultural understanding of impermanence than other regions such as Europe and the United States, which are defined by different religious traditions. This suggests that a general factor representing the cultural value of impermanence may have emerged in the Japanese data that was not observed in the original version.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn interesting, related aspect is that in Western societies, death is often perceived as a symbol of \u0026ldquo;the end,\u0026rdquo; leading to increased fear of death. By contrast, East Asian countries such as Japan, China, and Korea, influenced by Buddhism and Confucianism, tend to accept death as a natural course of the concept of impermanence, resulting in a relatively higher level of death acceptance (Gire, 2014). Regarding IAC, which was found to have a strong correlation with Death Acceptance in Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2021) study as well as in the present study, the mean IAC score in Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCampos et al. (2021) was 4.20, whereas it was significantly higher at 5.49 in this study, thereby supporting this cultural difference.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the general factors identified through the bifactor model may reflect a value system unique to Buddhist cultures, particularly regarding death and impermanence. Psychological and attitudinal differences between Western and Japanese individuals have been widely discussed in previous research. Among the factors potentially related to impermanence are life satisfaction, tolerance of uncertainty and ambiguity (Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al., 2021; Hong et al., 2019). Considering these theoretical relationships, further investigation of impermanence-related factors unique to Japanese individuals is a crucial and urgent research topic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe conducted correlation analyses using the DAP-R, MAAS, and the Well-Being scales as measures that may be theoretically related to the IMAAS-J. Notably, the strong negative correlation between IAC and the Fear of Death suggests that accepting impermanence may alleviate fear of death, which is consistent with the findings of Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al. (2021). However, the correlations between the IAW as well as DAP-R and Well-Being scales were considerably weaker than in the original version, indicating the possibility that Japanese individuals may have a unique attitude toward IAW. Specifically, the correlation between the IAW and Well-Being was 0.31 in the original version and 0.07 in this study. Similarly, the correlation between IAC and Well-Being was 0.45 in the original version and 0.37 in this study. These results suggest that the Japanese participants in this study tend to recognize impermanence but may not necessarily accept it. The significant age-related difference observed only in the IAW suggests that aging does not necessarily facilitate the acceptance of impermanence, thereby presenting an interesting topic for future research.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study had some limitations. The findings were based on self-reported questionnaire data, and no behavioral or physiological indicators (e.g., EDA) were used. Previous research on mindfulness and mental health has focused on interoception and neural mechanisms using methods such as heartbeat-counting tasks (Schandry, 1981) and fMRI to examine the relationship between mental health and neural mechanisms (Khalsa et al., 2018). Additionally, because this study was conducted using a crowdsourcing service, the participants were predominantly in their 30s and 40s, which may have influenced the results. Considering these factors, future research should incorporate physiological measures to adopt a more integrated perspective and explore IAW and IAC across a wide age range.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the results of this study suggest that IAW and IAC are crucial in psychological adaptation and that the IMAAS-J has the potential to serve as a valuable tool for future mindfulness and well-being research. Further studies are needed to explore the detailed impact of IAW and IAC on psychological adaptation and mental health and examine how IAW and IAC can be integrated into mental health interventions. Additionally, although no such trend was observed in this study, the potential negative effects of IAW, particularly the possibility that recognizing impermanence may increase fear of death and related anxiety, require further investigation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e \u003ch2\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003e Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants and their legal guardians included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eK.G. made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, as well as to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data and drafted the work and M.N. revised it critically for important intellectual content.K.G. and M.N. reviewed and approved the manuscript to be published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors wish to thank Silvia Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos for granting us permission to create the Japanese version of the IMAAS, Takechika Hayashi for his help with back translation, and Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Availability\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe dataset supporting the findings of this study is publicly available on the Open Science Framework (OSF) at the following link: https://osf.io/p67wv/?view_only=7573562a938945b69f89c36bb9b78e13\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBruehlman-Senecal, E., \u0026amp; Ayduk, O. (2015). This too shall pass: Temporal distance and the regulation of emotional distress. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 108(2), 356\u0026ndash;375. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038324\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCalhoun, L. G., \u0026amp; Tedeschi, R. G. (2014). Handbook of posttraumatic growth: \u003cem\u003eResearch and practice\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos, S., Roca, P., \u0026amp; Yaden, M. B. (2021). The Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale. \u003cem\u003eMindfulness\u003c/em\u003e, 12(6), 1542\u0026ndash;1554.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-021-01623-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFujino, M., Kajimura, S., \u0026amp; Nomura, M. (2015). Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale using item response theory analysis. \u003cem\u003eThe Japanese Journal of Personality\u003c/em\u003e, 24(1), 61\u0026ndash;76.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGire, J. (2014). How death imitates life: Cultural influences on conceptions of death and dying. \u003cem\u003eDevelopmental Psychology and Culture\u003c/em\u003e, 6(2). Virginia Military Institute. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1120\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHalifax, J. (2008). Being with dying. Cultivating compassion and fearlessness in the presence of death. \u003cem\u003eShambhala Publications\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHelliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. D., De Neve, J.-E., Aknin, L. B., \u0026amp; Wang, S. (Eds.). (2023). World Happiness Report 2023. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. https://worldhappiness.report/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHong, J. H., Charles, S. T., Lee, S., \u0026amp; Lachman, M. E. (2019). Perceived changes in life satisfaction from the past, present and to the future: A comparison of U.S. and Japan. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and Aging\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000345\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuta, V., \u0026amp; Waterman, A. S. (2014). Eudaimonia and its distinction from Hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(6), 1425\u0026ndash;1456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9485-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHuynh, T., \u0026amp; Torquati, J. C. (2019). Examining connection to nature and mindfulness at promoting psychological well-being. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 66, 101370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101370\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhalsa, S. S., Adolphs, R., Cameron, O. G., Critchley, H. D., Davenport, P. W., Feinstein, J. S., Feusner, J. D., Garfinkel, S. N., Lane, R. D., Mehling, W. E., Meuret, A. E., Nemeroff, C. B., Oppenheimer, S., Petzschner, F. H., Pollatos, O., Rhudy, J. L., Schramm, L. P., Simmons, W. K., Stein, M. B., Stephan, K. E., \u0026amp; Zucker, N. (2018). Interoception and mental health: A roadmap. \u003cem\u003eBiological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging\u003c/em\u003e, 3(6), 501\u0026ndash;513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKumabe, C. (2006). Factors influencing contemporary Japanese attitudes regarding life and death. \u003cem\u003eThe Japanese Journal of Health Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 19(1), 10\u0026ndash;24.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLew, Z. (2024). The awareness, acceptance, and appreciation of transience in the domain of eudaimonic media experiences. New Media \u0026amp; Society, 24, 1\u0026ndash;25. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241284612\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLindsay, E. K. (2019). Mindfulness, acceptance, and emotion regulation: Perspectives from Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT). \u003cem\u003eCurrent Opinion in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 28, 120\u0026ndash;125.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.004\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., \u0026amp; Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84\u0026ndash;99.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNhat Hanh, T. (1999). The heart of the Buddha\u0026rsquo;s teaching: Transforming suffering into peace, joy and liberation. \u003cem\u003eBroadway Books\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eOtani, A. (2021). A history and the state of the art of mindfulness. \u003cem\u003eJapanese Psychological Review\u003c/em\u003e, 64(3), 228\u0026ndash;243.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRezaee, A. (2024). \u0026ldquo;Suru\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;naru\u0026rdquo; no mujokan: \u0026ldquo;Kuruān\u0026rdquo; kara yomi toku Isurāmu-kyō ni okeru mujō no arikata. \u003cem\u003eNihon Kenkyū\u003c/em\u003e, 69, 7\u0026ndash;47. https://doi.org/10.15055/0002000277\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSasaki, N., Watanabe, K., Imamura, K., Nishi, D., Karasawa, M., Kan, C., Ryff, C. D., \u0026amp; Kawakami, N. (2020). Japanese version of the 42-item psychological well-being scale (PWBS-42): A validation study. \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 8, 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-00441-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSawyer, J. S., Brewster, M. E., \u0026amp; Ertl, M. M. (2021). Death anxiety and death acceptance in atheists and other nonbelievers. \u003cem\u003eDeath Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 45(6), 459\u0026ndash;468. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2019.1648339\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchandry, R. (1981). Heart beat perception and emotional experience. Psychophysiology, 18(4), 483\u0026ndash;488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1981.tb02486.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShimizu, K. (2018). Misuse and artifact in factor analytic research. Bulletin of the Faculty of Sociology, Kansai University, 49(2), 191\u0026ndash;211. http://hdl.handle.net/10112/13343\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShonin, E., Van Gordon, W., \u0026amp; Griffiths, M. D. (2014). Do mindfulness-based therapies have a role in the treatment of psychosis? \u003cem\u003eAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 48(2), 124\u0026ndash;127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867413512688\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eStuart-Edwards, A., MacDonald, A., \u0026amp; Ansari, M. A. (2023). Twenty years of research on mindfulness at work: A structured literature review. Journal of Business Research, 169, 114285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114285\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWong, P. T. P., Reker, G. T., \u0026amp; Gesser, G. (1994). Death Attitude Profile \u0026ndash; Revised: A multidimensional measure of attitudes toward death (DAP-R). In R. A. Neimeyer (Ed.), \u003cem\u003eDeath anxiety handbook: Research, instrumentation, and application\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 121\u0026ndash;148). Washington, DC: Taylor \u0026amp; Francis\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWong, P. T. P., \u0026amp; Tomer, A. (2011). Beyond terror and denial: The positive psychology of death acceptance. \u003cem\u003eDeath Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 35, 99\u0026ndash;106. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2011.535377\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eXu, J. (2018). A tripartite function of mindfulness in adjustment to aging: Acceptance, integration, and transcendence. The Gerontologist, 58(6), 1009\u0026ndash;1015. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx100\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable 1 to 6 are available in the Supplementary Files section.\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":"Impermanence awareness, Impermanence acceptance, Cross-cultural research, Buddhist psychology, Death acceptance, Mindfulness","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6257009/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6257009/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjectives\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to develop and validate a Japanese version of the Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale (IMAAS; Fern\u0026aacute;ndez-Campos et al., 2021) and examine its reliability, validity, and relationship with mental health. This 12-item scale consists of two factors: (1) impermanence awareness (IAW), the cognizance that all phenomena are transient, and (2) impermanence acceptance (IAC), the attitude of openness toward the transient nature of all phenomena.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFollowing a preliminary survey conducted with university students (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35), and exploratory factor analysis performed to improve the translation and eliminate unfit items, we conducted an online survey using a crowdsourcing service (N\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;350). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), reliability and validity assessments, and correlation analyses with related scales were conducted.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eNotably, CFA confirmed the original two-factor structure; however, the model fit indices were low. Finally, a bifactor model was adopted, which improved the model fit (CFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.97, TLI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.95, GFI\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.96, RMSEA\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, SRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04). Correlation analyses revealed that the IMAAS demonstrated convergent validity with death acceptance, mindfulness, and well-being. Notably, IAC showed a strong negative correlation with fear of death (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.74, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01) and a moderate positive correlation with well-being (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.37, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Japanese version of the IMAAS is proposed as a valid tool for measuring IAW and acceptance. Future research should further examine the cultural validity of this scale and explore extensively how IAW influences mental health and well-being in various cultural contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Impermanence Awareness and Acceptance Scale","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-04-04 18:23:39","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6257009/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":"13ee1008-2fe0-4473-9cd1-3e3400d327b3","owner":[],"postedDate":"April 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-05-13T02:53:47+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-04-04 18:23:39","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-6257009","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-6257009","identity":"rs-6257009","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}