This kind of illness is hard, not only for the individual but also for the people close to him or her. Abdul Razak Hussein When the news broke and the media turned its attention on him, it was obvious that he did not like being in the public eye.
Overall, our results suggest that positive psychology interventions are not just efficacious but of significant value in participants' real lives. How do people lastingly change their lives for the better? In this article, we report a one-year follow-up of a large, successful trial of LKM training to answer important questions about whether these interventions can have long-term effectiveness and appeal.
Experimental findings on PE interventions are consistent with a larger body of prospective correlational research, which has found that PEs predict many desirable short- and long-term outcomes. These outcomes include mental health Epping-Jordan et al. All these findings remain true when taking the present circumstances into account i.
The broadened awareness created by PEs may help participants recognize the value of the new behaviors presented by positive psychology interventions, and broadened thought—action repertoires may help them integrate these new behaviors into their daily lives.
We recently conducted a randomized controlled trial RCT of LKM, a meditative practice that helps individuals evoke and intensify internal feelings of love, compassion, and other PEs Fredrickson et al. This RCT is one of the few to causally link increases in PEs to improvements in mental health, physical health, and life satisfaction and the only trial to gather daily emotion data.
Although participants' training involved varied behavioral, social, and cognitive components, these daily emotion reports indicated that LKM led to improved outcomes only when it generated PEs. In this study, we contacted the participants 15 months after the final assessment, and again collected data on emotions, resources, and meditation practice.
Our follow-up study is among the longest yet performed, and was carried out with no advance warning to participants and no communication in the interim. A major purpose of this follow-up study was to determine whether any participants continued to meditate after the end of the intervention, and if so, whether meditation continued to produce PEs for them. In sharp contrast to a pattern of hedonic adaptation, we found that LKM actually increased its effectiveness over the two months of the original study, as evidenced by a tripling of the dose—response relationship between time spent on meditation and its PE yield Fredrickson et al.
We also examined the durability of the intervention's benefits. For participants who did not continue practicing the intervention skills, did their emotions and resources backslide to baseline levels? The broaden-and-build theory emphasizes that the resources built via PEs are durable.
A person who is expansive and generous during a time of joy will have social resources to draw on later, when they are struggling. One who takes time for an idle chat with neighbors might learn about an unexpected job opportunity, a great new restaurant, or a home remedy they used when their dog was sprayed by a skunk.
These resources in this case, relationships, skills, and knowledge are far more stable and long lasting than emotional experiences, and can be practiced and put to use regardless of one's current mood.
Thus, we hypothesized that individuals who had built resources during the initial intervention would maintain the same resource levels at follow-up, even if they were no longer meditating and no longer experiencing elevated PEs. This would provide evidence that PE interventions can lead to durable personal resources, and not just to transient mood effects. Finally, we investigated baseline predictors of continued practice.
Knowing what makes participants more likely to continue practicing their new skills could help us support participants in future interventions, or match them to specific interventions that are well-suited to them. Using our follow-up data, we were able to look backward: Did participants who went on to become continued meditators show any commonalities in their baseline characteristics or their experience during the original intervention period?
In the original LKM intervention study, participants were recruited, completed the final assessment, and agreed to be recontacted for follow-up research. Although waitlist participants had the opportunity to take the LKM classes approximately 3 months after the end of the study, they did so at a much lower rate than the meditation group participants Participants were predominantly White Because participants were recruited from an information technology company, educational level and socioeconomic status were high: Follow-up respondents were representatives of the original study sample.
Respondents did not differ from the original sample on group assignment, pre-intervention life satisfaction and depression, or final life satisfaction and depression. It is possible that participants were inclined to respond to the follow-up if they felt they had confirmed our expectations, meaning that we would have an overrepresentation of those who did well while receiving the intervention, or who did poorly while not receiving the intervention.
Participants from the initial meditation study who had given permission for us to recontact them received an e-mail describing the follow-up study and compensation for participating. Prior to this, they had not received any indication that a follow-up was planned. The e-mail linked to the study website, which provided informed consent information and, for those who agreed to participate, administered the first set of questionnaires described below.
The final page informed participants that we were interested in collecting daily reports from them on behavior and emotions, for additional compensation. They could opt to receive daily reminder e-mails, to participate without reminders, or to end their participation. They then provided contact information for receiving payment, and were debriefed and thanked.
The daily questionnaire was accessible to each participant for 7 days beginning the day after they submitted the follow-up questionnaires. It was a single-page form with questions about that day's emotional experience, whether they had meditated, and if so, the form and duration of the meditation. The resources discussed here were measured on three occasions: The baseline assessment from the original LKM intervention study T1 , the final assessment, 2 months later T2 , and the current follow-up, 15 months after the final assessment T3.
Note that T2 occurred after LKM training for the experimental group, but before training for the waitlist control group. Participants completed measures on a subset of the social and psychological resources that were measured before and after the original intervention.
Table 1 shows a more detailed listing of each construct and the associated measures. After completing the questionnaires, participants answered questions about whether they had a current meditation practice and the extent to which they had participated in the LKM workshop when it was offered this was our only source of information on workshop attendance among waitlist participants.
Participants responded to these questions every day for 1 week following the T3 assessment. The PEs subscale consisted of amusement, awe, contentment, gratitude, hope, joy, interest, love, and pride; the negative emotions subscale consisted of anger, contempt, disgust, embarrassment, guilt, sadness, shame, and fear. Two additional emotions, surprise and compassion, were assessed but did not group with positive or negative emotions, either theoretically or in factor analysis, so they were not analyzed.
Only participants who responded on at least 3 of the 7 days were given aggregate scores on this measure. They were asked to describe the meditative activity they had engaged in and its approximate duration in minutes.
Their daily questionnaire responses corroborated these reports: Prior to the intervention, eight of the original participants 3. In the follow-up sample, 33 of the 95 participants Because continuing meditators might have been more likely to respond to the follow-up, we analyzed the results based on a worst-case scenario: Our conservative analysis rules out the possibility that this conclusion results from response bias.
We hypothesized that the resources participants built through meditation would remain available, even if meditation ceased. Because the waitlist group did not complete an immediate post-training assessment, only participants from the original meditation condition could be used to test this hypothesis.
We calculated the difference scores for each resource between T1 and T2 and between T2 and T3, and then tested regression models in which T2—T3 difference is predicted by T1—T2 difference, continued meditation, and the interaction between the two.
The construction of the change variables causes them to correlate negatively, but a positive interaction coefficient would indicate that the relationship is more negative for participants who stopped meditating — that is, those who built resources tended to lose them after meditation ceased.
The interaction coefficients were small and non-significant: Further examination of the data suggested that resource levels of the non-continuers may not have dropped primarily because they never rose in the first place — participants who would, later on, not continue to meditate showed noticeably smaller gains in resources than those who would. Post - hoc tests of this relationship are non-significant for most resources, but nearly all trend in the same direction: Even if this difference occurred by chance, it limits the potential for the dataset to demonstrate resource backsliding among non-continuers.
In sum, the data are clearly consistent with our hypothesis that resources gained during the intervention would persist with or without continued practice.
However, they do not offer strong empirical grounds for rejecting the alternative hypothesis that non-continuers would lose resources. Our hypothesis that T1 resources would predict continued meditation was unsupported.
Because these were embedded among 10 non-significant results, they could easily reflect alpha inflation. Waitlist group participants did not provide any emotion data during or after their meditation training, so analyses of pre- to post-training PEs must be restricted to the original meditation group.
However, inspection of the data suggested that non-continuers only began to show elevated PE during the last 3 weeks of the intervention Figure 1. Those who would continue meditating experienced increased PEs immediately, whereas those who would cease meditating did not experience increases in PEs until week 6. Although we did not find the predicted effect of PE reactivity on continued meditation, the data strongly suggest that early reactivity does predict continuation.
This difference in response profiles was not caused by differential effort or participation. Continuers and non-continuers did not differ on class attendance or time spent practicing, even during the final week when formal training had ended and meditation practice was self-governed. This suggests that week 5 PE is a good predictor of whether an individual will continue to meditate, but change from weeks 5 to 8 contributes very little. The overall predictive power of early PE is quite large.
Many participants in our LKM intervention continued to meditate, to experience enhanced PEs, and to maintain increased personal resources, even more than one year after the end of training.
This is powerful evidence that skills-based positive psychology interventions can remain enjoyable and effective long after formal training has ended. Just as importantly, individuals who completed the intervention but did not continue to practice LKM maintained any resources they had built. This indicates that positive psychology interventions can be a valuable investment for many participants, not just the subset that continues to practice.
This finding is also consistent with the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, which proposes that PEs are adaptive in part because they help build enduring resources. We note, however, that this dataset was not ideal for testing this hypothesis, and future research is needed before it can be considered strongly supported. Finally, we discovered a potential marker for long-term intervention adherence: Participants who showed a rapid increase in PEs after starting the intervention were more likely to continue meditating a year later.
Other participants practiced just as diligently, even during the week after the end of formal training, and by the end of the study were also experiencing increased PEs. Nonetheless, they were less likely to continue meditating the following year.
One year after the end of the meditation intervention, the number of participants who practiced meditation remained significantly elevated.
Over half of these meditators had adopted another form of meditation, commonly prayer or personal reflection, in place of or alongside LKM. This heterogeneity reduces our ability to draw focused conclusions about the effects of continued LKM practice, but it indicates that the LKM intervention as a whole is adaptable to personal needs and preferences and has robust, lasting effects.
This kind of adaptability may be an important common factor in effective positive psychology interventions, which often encourage participants to choose from among a variety of techniques e. Different individuals may need different practices, depending on culture, circumstances, and personal preference. As positive psychology intervention research matures, we may be able to characterize individuals who do not respond to typical interventions, and pursue development of interventions that make use of their preferred modalities, emotions, or individual strengths.
The ultimate goal would be to combine our current one-size-fits-all interventions into a repertoire of targeted techniques that, together, can provide coverage for a broad range of preferences and needs. A few of the prominent distinctions are between reflection and overt behavior, between self-focus and other-focus, and among different PEs. For example, a count your blessings intervention is reflective, relatively self-focused, and likely to be associated largely with gratitude, contentment, or both.
The gratitude letter intervention is very similar, but because participants actually write and may even deliver a letter to a specific person, it becomes more behavioral and highly other-focused. The imagine your best possible self exercise is similar to count your blessings , but involves emotions, such as pride and interest rather than gratitude; an act of kindness intervention resembles the more behavioral, other-focused gratitude letter , but involves emotions, such as compassion, love, and trust.
To the extent that each of these interventions is a means of self-generating PEs, we suggest that they would each broaden people's awareness and build their resources, including resources that would support long-term behavioral maintenance.
The data were consistent with the hypothesis that increased resources endure even for those who cease meditating. Subscribe to your favorite pornstars, channels, and collections. Please send any copyright reports to: Only one flag request every ten seconds is allowed. Please try again later. Show More Amateur Swallow. Ads by Traffic Junky. Autoplay Next Video On Off. This video is part of the following collections:.
Please enter a comment. Please enter your name. Sorry, could not submit your comment. Blue For non-natives and learners only. Pick a flair according to your level. Make sure to edit your flair so it also contains some info about your region natives or your native language learners.
When reporting a submission or comment, please message the moderators with a short explanation of the reasons for the report. What is the difference between "feststellen" and "festlegen"? Feststellen is mostly "to find out". Things already are what they are, and you just stell fest that they are. Festlegen is mostly "to define". You leg fest what things should be like.
WendellSchadenfreude is pretty spot on. I wouldn't translate it as "determine" though because it's a little bit misleading in that context. You mostly use "feststellen" when you observe a situation and draw a conclusion from it in your thoughts.