Socio-cognitive mindfulness is a well-being booster: a serial mediation model to test the mindfulness reappraisal hypothesis with managers

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between mindfulness and two types of well-being, namely subjective and psychological well-being, particularly in a managerial context. The mindfulness-to-meaning theory (MMT) suggests that the practice of mindfulness might lead individuals to reevaluate and find greater meaning in their experiences, ultimately contributing to increased well-being. Accordingly, we argue that mindfulness boosts well-being because it may potentially lead managers to reappraise what surrounds them, making them experience more frequent positive affect.

Design/methodology/approach

A two-wave survey with a two-week interval was used to gather quantitative data. An overall sample of 1,260 managers with and without experience with mindfulness took part in the study.

Findings

Structural equation modeling showed that mindfulness had a direct and positive relationship with both subjective and psychological well-being. Furthermore, both processes – positive reappraisal and positive affect – mediated the path from mindfulness to both forms of well-being.

Practical implications

The findings emphasize the importance of creating training strategies that develop managers’ ability to positively reappraise daily events and occurrences, which may trigger more frequently positive affective experiences. Therefore, promoting mindfulness training at the workplace may develop mindful employees, especially by working on specific strategies, such as positive reappraisal, which may be a promising empirical-based strategy to enhance well-being.

Originality/value

This study adds knowledge about how mindfulness can contribute to well-being and contributes to expanding the mindfulness-to-meaning theory by adding positive affective experiences as an additional mechanism in the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Specifically, it demonstrates that the practice of mindfulness helps managers to positively reappraise their surroundings, which results in more frequent experiences of positive affect.

Citation

Junça Silva, A. (2024), "Socio-cognitive mindfulness is a well-being booster: a serial mediation model to test the mindfulness reappraisal hypothesis with managers", Evidence-based HRM, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-09-2023-0240

Introduction

Mindfulness has been recognized as a strategy to promote employees’ performance as well as their physical and psychological health (e.g. Choi et al., 2022); it is the awareness and full attention that individuals have on the present moment, without judgment and acceptance it as it is (Pirson et al., 2018). Recent studies have shown that mindfulness improves employees’ attention, concentration on the tasks at hand (Junça-Silva et al., 2023) and well-being (Junça-Silva et al., 2021). However, to reach this state of awareness and mindfulness, individuals have to control and regulate their emotions and accept them (Pirson et al., 2018; Tsai et al., 2024).

Emotional regulation plays an important role in the social adjustment process, as it ensures the quality of social, family, friendship and work relationships (Kobylińska and Kusev, 2019). Emotional regulation may involve more active (influencing emotions through reappraisal techniques; that is, reappraising events or situations in a manner that transforms what people may feel when experiencing such events; Junça-Silva et al., 2023) or passive strategies (hiding or faking emotions through suppression techniques) (Garland et al., 2017). Active strategies of regulating emotions have been consistently associated with increases in performance and well-being (Mehlsen et al., 2019) due to their significant effect on individuals' affective (i.e. emotions experienced) and psychological states (i.e. subjective well-being – the evaluation that individuals have about their life; Diener et al., 1985; and psychological well-being – the state of plenitude and harmony in life; Ryff, 1989).

The mindfulness-to-meaning theory (MMT) (Garland et al., 2015a, b) supports the relationship between mindfulness and well-being and proposes a central mechanism for this relationship – the mindfulness reappraisal hypothesis (MRH). The MRH argues that mindfulness training promotes well-being through positive reappraisal (of situations and events). Notwithstanding, the relevance of affect as a consequence of emotional regulation and reappraisal (i.e. the ability to influence emotions; McRae and Gross, 2020) has been disregarded as part of the MMT (Garland et al., 2017). Further, some studies have shown that individuals’ ability to regulate their own emotions not only influenced their experienced emotions but also more stable states, such as well-being (Burnham and Kocovski, 2024; He et al., 2024).

Despite the importance attributed to these constructs, there are still few studies that analyze them in an integrated model (see Garland et al., 2017). Furthermore, only recently scholars have devoted importance to the role of mindfulness in the work context (e.g. Badham and King, 2021; Glomb et al., 2011; Good et al., 2016; He et al., 2024; Junça-Silva et al., 2021; Pirson et al., 2018). Hence, this study aims to expand the knowledge on the role of mindfulness for employees’ related well-being and is focused on the process through which it occurs. Relying on the MMT, we argue that mindfulness improves employees’ well-being through a serial process that includes two mechanisms: reappraising and positive emotional states. First, mindfulness will create conditions for employees to reappraise what happens around them more positively; as a result, this positive reappraisal will make them experience more often positive emotions which, in turn, will boost their well-being (both psychological and subjective).

This study has contributions to both theory and practice. First, it aims to expand the MMT by incorporating another mechanism – positive affect - in the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Further, considering positive affective responses as a mediator that succeeds in positive reappraisal not only expands the MMT but also disentangles an additional path from which mindfulness contributes to well-being. By doing so, it may potentially clarify both scholars and practitioners about the dynamic process that underlies the path from mindfulness to well-being. Hence, it may be helpful for managers concerned with their employees' well-being and want to delineate empirical-based strategies to boost their well-being. Moreover, by understanding the mechanisms through which mindfulness works, applying it across various contexts and integrating it into broader mental health strategies, society can leverage its benefits to improve the well-being of individuals and communities alike. Second, the study can also be useful for managerial purposes. The findings can enlighten specific strategies needed to improve both positive affective experiences and well-being. For instance, managers may consider it useful to provide training or resources on mindfulness for employees to create a more inclusive and supportive workplace culture and happier employees. Plus, if mindfulness indeed positively correlates with well-being, managers who encourage mindfulness practices among their team members may contribute to enhanced employee well-being. This, in turn, can potentially lead to increased productivity and job satisfaction.

Theoretical framework and hypotheses

The relationship between mindfulness and well-being

In the past decade, mindfulness has attracted the attention of researchers and practitioners who aimed to expand empirical and practical knowledge about its potential effects in the work context (e.g. Good et al., 2016; Wasson et al., 2020). Mindfulness has been investigated from two perspectives, i.e. the Buddhist meditation perspective (Kabat-Zinn, 2005) and the socio-cognitive perspective (Langer, 2014). Despite being different, the concepts appear to be related (Pirson et al., 2012, 2018). While the first perspective is focused on mindfulness as a meditation practice, the second perspective considers it as an open and flexible mindset (Langer, 1989). In general, both argue that “Mindfulness is a total clarity and presence of mind, actively passive, wherein events come and go like reflections in a mirror, nothing is reflected except what is.” (Watts, 1989). In this study, the focus will be on socio-cognitive mindfulness as it is the construct that has received more attention in the workplace (Junça-Silva and Caetano, 2021, 2023).

Being mindful is characterized by a condition of consciousness in which individuals must have a non-judgmental and intentional focus on what happens at the moment (Kabat-Zinn, 2005; Thich Hanh, 2012) and is described by novel distinction–drawing that makes them being (1) focused on the present, (2) sensitive to their context and (3) guided by rules and routines (Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000). Socio-cognitive mindfulness has four dimensions that characterize it: (1) novelty seeking (active search of novel pieces of information), (2) novelty producing (active implementation of ideas ‘out of the box’), (3) flexibility (being adaptable and flexible) and (4) engagement (to what surrounds) (Bodner, 2000; Bodner and Langer, 2001).

The importance of mindfulness has been identified (Junça-Silva et al., 2023) because it has been negatively related to avoidance strategies (i.e. passive emotional regulation strategies), judgmental attitudes (e.g. through emotional experiences or bodily sensations) and over-identification (Brown et al., 2015). Further, empirical studies have reported that mindfulness improved both eudaimonic (i.e. psychological well-being) and hedonic levels of well-being (i.e. subjective well-being; Garland et al., 2015a, b, 2017; Hanley et al., 2014).

Subjective well-being involves a subjective process of evaluating life as a whole (i.e. life satisfaction – the cognitive dimension), as well as the frequency of positive affect and the relative absence of negative affect in everyday life (affective dimension) (Diener et al., 1985). Conversely, psychological well-being concerns the integral development of one’s abilities, self-fulfillment and purpose in life, obtained by overcoming challenges, developing human potential and the resultant level of flourishing (Ryff, 1989). Psychological well-being includes six components of psychological functioning: autonomy (sense of self-determination, independence and freedom from norms); environmental mastery (the ability to manage life and one’s surroundings), purpose in life (having life goals and a belief that one’s life is meaningful); self-acceptance (a positive attitude toward oneself and one’s past life); personal growth (being open to new experiences that contribute to continuous personal development) and positive relations with others (that is being engaged in satisfying relationships with others) (Ryff and Keyes, 1995). Considering the differences between each approach, some authors have argued that each one should be considered to give a more in-depth overview (Diener et al., 2020).

Mindfulness practices enhance well-being through several key mechanisms. Socio-cognitive mindfulness has been shown to improve both forms of well-being as it creates flexibility (Slaymaker et al., 2023) and helps individuals regulate their attention and emotions through reappraisal techniques (Turcotte et al., 2022). Furthermore, mindfulness may enhance individuals’ well-being as it improves their consciousness towards daily micro-events (daily hassles and daily uplifts) which makes them adjust their affective and behavioral reactions to the situations at hand (Junça-Silva et al., 2021); in other words, more mindful individuals can easily cope with daily hassles and appear to get the greatest benefit of daily uplifts as they can savor them in the moment of its occurrence (Junça Silva, 2022).

Moreover, mindfulness practices often involve cultivating an attitude of acceptance toward one’s thoughts and emotions without judgment (Good et al., 2016). This acceptance extends to external factors (Burnham and Kocovski, 2024), together with an improvement of a more open and non-critical perspective toward others and the surrounding environment are factors that can support individuals’ reappraisal strategies (Junça-Silva, 2022; Junça-Silva and Caetano, 2024). Moreover, mindfulness strategies improve attentional control, enabling individuals to focus more effectively on the present moment and engage fully with their current activities and experiences (Tsai et al., 2024). This heightened attention helps reduce rumination about past events and anxiety about the future, thereby lowering stress levels (Junça-Silva and Caetano, 2024). Complementarily, mindfulness fosters an attitude of non-judgmental awareness. By cultivating a stance of curiosity and acceptance toward their thoughts and feelings, individuals can observe their mental and emotional patterns without self-criticism (He et al., 2024). By making individuals acceptant of what happens to them and having a non-judgmental attitude towards others or what surrounds them makes them experience more often positive affect which is a key predictor of well-being (Hanley et al., 2014; Tsai et al., 2024). This can also lead to a more compassionate and accepting self-relationship, which is a cornerstone of psychological well-being (Good et al., 2016). Furthermore, mindfulness has been shown to enhance emotional regulation through reappraisal techniques (Wenzel et al., 2023); individuals learn to observe their emotions without becoming overwhelmed by them, allowing for greater emotional stability and resilience in the face of stressors (Wang et al., 2023). All in all, these factors contribute to an increased frequency of positive affect (i.e. positive emotions), which, in turn, is identified as a key predictor of overall well-being (Glomb et al., 2011; Ho et al., 2022).

Hence, mindfulness by helping individuals to reappraise what surrounds them, promotes positive affect more frequently and in the long run, contributes significantly to an individual’s overall well-being. As such, relying on the literature we expect the following.

H1.

Mindfulness is positively associated to subjective well-being.

H2.

Mindfulness is positively associated to psychological well-being.

Serial mediation model of positive reappraisal and positive affect

In 2014, Garland et al. proposed a theory to explain how mindfulness could enhance well-being, even in the face of adversity, uncertainty, or unexpected negative events - the mindfulness-to-meaning theory (MMT). Accordingly, the MMT argues that mindfulness makes individuals decenter from stress or negative appraisals into a metacognitive state of awareness which leads them to increased attention to novel information that shapes the way through which they reappraise life circumstances and events (Garland et al., 2014). Afterward, this reappraisal becomes richer when individuals pay attention to and savor the positive features of their socioenvironmental context, triggering positive affective experiences and values-driven behavior and ultimately generating a source of meaning in life (Garland et al., 2014).

Hence, the MMT explains how mindfulness facilitates individuals’ coping with negative events by facilitating positive reappraisal, thereby promoting fluid adaptation and reconstruction of one’s views of self and world which is a predictor of positive affect (Garland et al., 2015a, b). The MMT encompasses two key hypotheses: (1) mindfulness generates meaning by promoting reappraisal (the MRH) and (2) mindfulness generates meaning by promoting savoring (the mindful savoring hypothesis).

While the MMT has been mainly focused on meditative mindfulness, we argue that socio-cognitive mindfulness can also be framed in the MMT. First, socio-cognitive mindfulness includes a set of cognitive processes that stimulate attention, awareness, self-acceptance and positive reappraisal strategies (Carson and Langer, 2006). Second, by making individuals reappraise what happens to them, it will make them feel more often positive affect – the set of positive emotions (e.g. enthusiasm, joy) which in turn will improve adaptability to the environment. Positive reappraisal, a central concept to theories of emotion regulation (see Lazarus and Folkman, 1984), is a cognitive strategy that transforms affective experiences (Gross and Thompson, 2007); that is, it enables flexibility and adaptability through a process of cognitive reconstruction of events creating a meaningful perspective (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). For that, positive reappraisal includes strategies that broaden the scope of appraisal in such a way that makes individuals appreciate and savor what surrounds them, even if daily hassles occur to them (Garland et al., 2015a, b). If an event, even a negative one, is appraised to be controllable, it will make individuals experience positive affect and will likely improve well-being (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984). This means that individuals who engage in positive reappraisal may experience positive emotions such as joy, gratitude, or contentment as a result of their cognitive reframing. Further, individuals practicing positive reappraisal seek to find positive or constructive meanings in challenging circumstances.

Hence, positive reappraisal has the potential not only to create positive affective experiences but also to improve personal development and growth – a relevant indicator for psychological well-being; Ryff (1989) and reduce maladaptive behaviors (Garland et al., 2015a, b). Thereby, positive reappraisal is natural rewarding processing (Garland et al., 2010) as it may create not only positive affective experiences but ultimately may cultivate eudaimonia and enhance hedonic adaptation to the environment (Gross, 2015). These concepts are interconnected and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the potential benefits of cognitive processes like positive reappraisal on well-being. As such, relying on the MMT and the extensive empirical research, we expect that reappraisal and positive affect can potentially be useful means to support individuals hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Based on that, the following hypotheses were defined.

H3.

The relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being is mediated by (a) positive reappraisal and (b) positive affect.

H4.

The relationship between mindfulness and psychological well-being is mediated by (a) positive reappraisal and (b) positive affect.

H5.

The relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being is sequentially mediated by positive reappraisal and positive affect.

H6.

The relationship between mindfulness and psychological well-being is sequentially mediated by positive reappraisal and positive affect (see Figure 1).

Method

Procedure and participants

Data were collected in Portugal with an online survey sent to full-time employees with managerial functions in the financial sector between January and May 2023. To reduce the potential common method bias that may occur with one-time data collection (Podsakoff et al., 2003), we opted for a two-phase survey. An email to employees with managerial functions was sent to individuals from the researcher’s professional network. This email described the research’s aims and the data collection procedure and ensured data confidentiality and anonymity. Participants who answered this email signed the informed consent online. After participants signed the informed consent, they received an email asking them to answer the first-phase survey. This assessed participants’ demographic information (i.e. gender, tenure and age) and measured the predictor (i.e. mindfulness) and the criterion variables (i.e. psychological and subjective well-being). The Research Ethics Committee of the researchers’ university approved this study.

We received 1,489 complete responses after the first-phase survey. After fifteen days, we emailed these respondents and asked them to participate in the second phase survey; this assessed the mediators (i.e. reappraisal and positive affect). At this stage, participants provided 1,260 valid responses (response rate: 84.6%). Overall, 60% were female, the mean age was 43.73 years (standard deviation (SD) = 5.67), and the mean tenure was 7.03 years (SD = 7.34). Overall, 31.3% were frequent mindfulness meditators, and the remaining were non-meditators (68.7%).

Measures

Mindfulness

We used the Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS-14; Pirson et al., 2018) to measure socio-cognitive mindfulness. It included 14 items that assessed three mindfulness dimensions: novelty seeking (five items, e.g. “I like to investigate things.”), novelty producing (five items, e.g. “I am very creative.”) and engagement (four items, e.g. “I am rarely aware of changes”). Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree; 5 – strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98.

Reappraisal

We used the reappraisal subscale of the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) (Gross and John, 2003). It includes six items (e.g. “I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in”.) rated on a five-point Likert scale from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (5). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.96.

Positive affect

We used the 8-item Multi-Affect Indicator (Warr et al., 2014), to assess the frequency of daily positive affect (e.g. “enthusiasm”). Participants answered on a 5-point scale (1–never; 5–always). The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97.

Subjective well-being

To measure subjective well-being, the 5-item satisfaction with life scale (SWLS) was used (Diener et al., 1985). Participants rated their answers using a 5-point scale (ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree). A sample item is “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal.”. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.98.

Psychological well-being

We used the brief version of Ryff’s psychological well-being scale. It included 14 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ((1) strongly disagree; (5) strongly agree). A sample item is “Most people see me as loving and affectionate.”. The Cronbach’s alpha was 0.96.

Control variables

We used participants' gender and age and also negative affectivity as controls. We used gender as a control because some studies have shown that women tend to be more emotionally expressive than men (Tamres et al., 2002); hence, gender differences could influence both mediators and the criterion variables. Furthermore, age could also account for influences on positive affect and both forms of well-being, as there have been identified differences in the way older and younger experience affect and their subsequent levels of subjective and psychological well-being (Livingstone and Isaacowitz, 2018). Lastly, because negative affectivity tendencies could account for influences on both criterion variables, we used it as a control. To do so, we measured trait negative affect using eight items (e.g. “sad”) from the Multi-Affect Indicator (Warr et al., 2014).

Data analyses

In our serial mediator model (Model 6) (Hayes, 2018), there were three types of variables: (1) predictor (mindfulness); (2) two criterion variables (i.e. psychological and subjective well-being); and (3) two serial mediator variables (reappraisal and positive affect). SPSS 28.0 and the software JASP (version 0.14.1) were used to test the proposed research models. First, the multivariable normality test was done. Second, descriptive analysis was conducted to calculate the mean and standard deviation for each variable. Third, correlational analyses were performed to examine whether mindfulness was associated with the mediators and the criterion variables. Fourth, the measurement model’s goodness of fit was evaluated. In this regard, we found that the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < 0.08, standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) < 0.08, comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90 and Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) > 0.90 evidenced a good fit (Kline, 2015).

Results

Common method bias and multicollinearity issues

Although we have followed some recommended procedures to reduce the potential common method bias - i.e. resorting to a two-wave survey, using closed-ended questions mixed in both surveys (e.g. “I like ice-creams” and the use of validated surveys to assess the variables under study - it cannot be completely avoided (Podsakoff et al., 2003)). Hence, to understand its presence in the study we followed some recommendations (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

First, we performed Harman’s single-factor test to check for common method bias. The findings showed that the first factor only accounted for 30.14% of the total explained variance; hence, the common method bias was not a serious issue.

Second, as Kock suggested (2015), we also performed a full collinearity evaluation test to check for the potential common method bias. The results demonstrated that all the variance inflation factor values ranged from 1.79 to 2.69; because the values were less than the cut-off point of 3.33, multicollinearity concern was not a severe issue in this study.

At last, we performed four confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to confirm the independence of the variables under study. To assess the adequacy of the model and compare it with other reasonable alternative models, we analyzed diverse fit indices (Hair et al., 2014), namely CFI, TLI, SRMR and RMSEA. Model 1 was the hypothesized five-factor model comprising separate scales for mindfulness, reappraisal, positive affect and subjective and psychological well-being. Model 2 was a three-factor model where positive affect and both forms of well-being were combined into a unique factor. Model 3 was a two-factor model where mindfulness and reappraisal were combined into a single factor. Model 4 was a one-factor solution in which all items were loaded onto a single factor. Table 1 shows that the five-factor model (Model 1) provided a good fit for the data (CFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.90, SRMR = 0.03 and RMSEA = 0.08), and all other alternative models evidenced a poorer fit. These results together with the Cronbach alpha reliability scores across all the measurement scales evidenced the discriminant and convergent validity of the study; hence, we proceeded with the hypotheses testing.

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 shows the correlations between the variables as well as their mean and standard deviation values. The results indicated that all the variables were significantly and positively correlated with each other.

Hypotheses testing

The structural equation model fitted the data well: χ²₍₁₂₀₇₎ = 165.543, df = 4, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.11, 90% confidence interval (CI) [0.09; 0.16]), SRMR = 0.05. The standardized path coefficients among the variables are presented in Figure 2.

First, the path coefficients between mindfulness and subjective well-being (β = 0.21; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.16; 0.26]) and mindfulness and psychological well-being (β = 0.09; p < 0.001; 95% CI [0.05; 0.13]) were significant, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2.

Second, the results evidenced a significant indirect effect from mindfulness to subjective well-being through both (1) positive reappraisal (β = 0.46; p < 0.001; 95%CI [0.33; 0.56]) and (2) positive affect (β = 0.25; p < 0.001; 95%CI [0.18; 0.32]). Hence Hypotheses 3a And B received support. The same pattern of results was found for the single indirect effect of mindfulness on psychological well-being through both (1) positive reappraisal (β = 0.56; p < 0.001; 95%CI [0.42; 0.69]) and (2) positive affect (β = 0.33; p < 0.001; 95%CI [0.18; 0.50]). Hence Hypotheses 4a and b also were supported.

Third, the tests of indirect effects indicated that reappraisal and positive affect significantly serially mediated the relationships between mindfulness and subjective well-being (β = 0.28; p < 0.001; 95%CI [0.19; 0.42]) and between mindfulness and psychological well-being (β = 0.38; p < 0.001, 95%CI [0.28; 0.45]). Thus, Hypothesis 5 (reappraisal and positive affect would serially mediate the relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being) and Hypothesis 6 (reappraisal and positive affect would serially mediate the relationship between mindfulness and psychological well-being) were supported. Besides, mindfulness was positively associated with reappraisal, which, in turn, was positively related to positive affect. Finally, positive affect was positively related to subjective and psychological well-being.

Discussion

This study expands previous knowledge on MMT, particularly regarding the MRH. The findings demonstrate that two mechanisms connect mindfulness to improved levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Furthermore, this study expands the MMT not only because it highlights the role of both reappraisal and positive affect in mediating the path from mindfulness to well-being but also because it demonstrates that this occurs for socio-cognitive mindfulness and is not limited to the meditative phenomenon of mindfulness (Garland et al., 2014).

Theoretical implications

There is consensual evidence that mindfulness boosts well-being (e.g. Hanley et al., 2014). This evidence is applied to both mindfulness perspectives – the meditative and the socio-cognitive one (Badham and King, 2021). The findings of this study are also consistent with the empirical demonstrations that have shown the positive relationship between mindfulness and hedonic and eudaimonic well-being (e.g. Slaymaker et al., 2023). The MMT (Garland et al., 2014) developed a background to demonstrate how mindfulness could improve well-being. Accordingly, the MRH states that mindfulness helps individuals to positively reappraise what occurs in the present moment; thus, well-being is improved (Garland et al., 2015a, b).

The result of this study expands the MRH because demonstrates that (1) mindfulness helps individuals to positively reappraise what happens to them and, as a result, makes them feel more positive affective reactions; (2) in turn, these mechanisms improve their life satisfaction and experienced pleasure (hedonic well-being) and (3) contributes for personal growth and self-acceptance (eudaimonic well-being).

Moreover, this is applied to socio-cognitive mindfulness – the flexible mindset that creates focus and concentration on what is surrounding (Pirson et al., 2018). Socio-cognitive mindfulness is “a flexible state of mind in which we are actively engaged in the present, noticing new things and sensitive to context. Being mindful leads us to greater sensitivity to context and perspective, and ultimately to greater control over our lives” (Langer, 2000, p. 220). Despite the absence of meditation, socio-cognitive mindfulness appears to have similar mechanisms that help it to be connected to individuals’ well-being. Hence, despite the differences between meditative and socio-cognitive mindfulness, both constructs are interrelated (Pirson et al., 2012) and may lead to similar outcomes, such as increased well-being (Junça-Silva et al., 2021). This means that mindful workers may easily apply their socio-cognitive flexibility and ability to use more information (Moafian et al., 2019) to effectively reappraise what surrounds them, making them feel better even in the face of adversity. Socio-cognitive mindfulness emphasizes the relevance of process and understanding of the environment (Carson, 2014) which contributes to individuals’ daily pleasures, creates a sense of connectedness with the world around and improves their personal growth (Langer and Moldoveanu, 2000; Pirson et al., 2018). Hence, cultivating a flexible mindset sets the stage for a chain of positive psychological processes. This includes the ability to positively reappraise situations, leading to more frequent positive affective experiences. Ultimately, this positive psychological framework contributes to enhanced levels of well-being, encompassing both subjective and psychological dimensions. The interconnected nature of these elements highlights the importance of mental flexibility and positive cognitive processes in promoting individual well-being.

To sum up, having a flexible mindset that helps the individual to be open and sensitive to the context (Langer, 1989) facilitates positive reappraisal and positive affective experiences which, in turn, leads to improved levels of well-being (subjective and psychological).

Practical contributions

The findings have remarkable implications for practice. First, the current study highlights the role of socio-cognitive mindfulness for both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Hence, managers can use the findings of this study in their managerial practice by incorporating mindfulness programs as part of employee well-being initiatives. Indeed, mindfulness may be a suitable strategy for employees to boost their well-being (e.g. Slaymaker et al., 2023). For instance, organizations should implement regular training (e.g. workshops or training sessions) on socio-cognitive mindfulness, aiming to improve employees’ cognitive flexibility and sensitivity to the context. When context sensitivity increases, managers would consider a further step, that is, training their employees to positively reappraise what surrounds them. Lastly, because savoring is also a mechanism that follows positive reappraisal, teaching employees how to savor positive and enjoyable moments could also be a suitable strategy to boost well-being.

Further, the promotion of positive reappraisal techniques and the education of managers on the benefits of encouraging employees to reframe challenges in a positive light. This can enhance resilience and coping mechanisms, contributing to a more positive work environment. Managers can lead by example by incorporating mindfulness and positive reappraisal into their own work practices. When leaders exhibit these behaviors, it sets a positive tone for the entire organization and encourages employees to adopt similar approaches. Lastly, organizations should include well-being in their organizational policies. For instance, promoting practices that support a positive work environment, such as flexible scheduling or designated mindfulness spaces.

Limitations and future directions

Despite the positive features, there are also some limitations to bear in mind.

First, although we have adopted a two-wave approach, we may not exclude the potential common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Furthermore, we may not exclude the possibility that the proposed cause-effect relationships were explained by parasite variables (Hill et al., 2021). Hence, future research should develop experimental studies to overcome this potential bias.

Additionally, we used self-reported measures which may also create some potential bias. As such, to smooth over this limitation, future studies should consider other methods to collect data. Lastly, despite the two-wave study, other studies should consider a more dynamic approach, for instance, adopting daily diary studies or longitudinal approaches to capture the within-person fluctuations over time.

Conclusion

The findings highlight the role of socio-cognitive mindfulness for both well-being approaches – hedonic and eudaimonic. Moreover, mindfulness has a boosting effect on well-being because it facilitates positive reappraisal and as a result, increases positive affective experiences. The boosting effect of mindfulness on subjective and psychological well-being underscores its value as a tool for enhancing mental health in the workplace. By understanding the mechanisms through which mindfulness works, applying it across various contexts, as is the working one and integrating it into broader mental health strategies, managers can leverage its benefits to improve the well-being of individuals and other stakeholders.

Figures

Figure 1

Serial mediation model

Figure 2

Structural equation model – path diagrams with standardized regression weights

Table 1

Goodness-of-fit indices for the measurement models

Model		χ2 (df)	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR	Comparison	Δχ2	Δdf	p
M1	5 latent factors	2772.084 (109)	0.08	0.91	0.90	0.03	–	–	–	–
M2	3 latent factors	3273.143 (116)	0.12	0.88	0.85	0.03	M2-M1	501.059	7	<0.001
M3	2 latent factors	3318.965 (118)	0.13	0.87	0.85	0.04	M3-M1	546.881	9	<0.001
M4	1 latent factor	3333.367 (119)	0.14	0.87	0.85	0.04	M4-M1	561.283	10	<0.001

Note(s): N = 1,260. RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker–Lewis’s index; SRMR: standardized root mean square residual

Best-fitting model in italics

M1: Mindfulness, reappraisal, positive affect, and subjective and psychological well-being fit load onto five separate latent factors

M2: Mindfulness and reappraisal were loaded onto two separate factors plus positive affect, and subjective and psychological well-being were loaded onto one latent factor

M3: Mindfulness and reappraisal loaded onto one factor plus positive affect, and subjective and psychological well-being loaded onto another factor

M4: All the variables (mindfulness, reappraisal, positive affect, and subjective and psychological well-being) were loaded onto one single factor

Source(s): Author’s own work

Table 2

Descriptive statistics and correlation evaluation

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Mindfulness	3.02	0.68	(0.98)
2. Reappraisal	3.64	0.75	0.77**	(0.96)
3. PA	3.52	0.73	0.78**	0.73**	(0.97)
4. SWB	3.58	0.80	0.73**	0.63**	0.77**	(0.98)
5. PWB	4.11	0.82	0.68**	0.67**	0.73**	0.76**	(0.96)
6. Age	43.73	5.67	−0.05	−0.00	−0.04	−0.01	0.03	–
7. Sex	–	–	−0.06	−0.05	−0.10	−0.18**	−0.18*	−0.11	–
8. NA	2.61	0.48	−0.21**	−0.18**	−0.33**	−0.16*	−0.14*	−0.03	−0.04	(0.95)

Note(s): N = 1,260; ^*p < 0.05 ^**p < 0.001

PA: Positive affect; SWB: Subjective well-being; PWB: Psychological well-being. NA: Negative affectivity

Cronbach’s alphas are in brackets

Source(s): Author’s own work

Ethical approval and consent to participate: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.

Availability of data and materials: Data and materials will be made available upon request from the authors (Ana Junça Silva: ana_luisa_silva@iscte-iul.pt).

Competing interests: The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest in this paper.

Funding: This work was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (No: UIDB/00315/2020).

Author's contributions: The author conducted and developed the entire study.