Table 4.
Primary and Secondary Candidate Mechanisms Measured With EMA at Post-intervention and 4-Week Follow-up§
| Post-intervention | Follow-Up | Adj. B (95% CI) |
d-type effect size | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adj. B (95% CI) |
d-type effect size | Adj. B (95% CI) |
d-type effect size | |||
| Primary candidate mechanism: Stress reactivity | ||||||
| Stress × time × condition† | −0.10 (−0.16–−0.03) |
−0.10 | ||||
| Condition | ||||||
| Experimental condition | 0.41 (0.37–0.44) |
0.42 | 0.30 (0.26–0.34) |
0.30 | ||
| Control condition | 0.37 (0.34–0.41) |
0.38 | 0.36 (0.32–0.39) |
0.37 | ||
| Experimental vs. control condition | 0.04 (−0.01–0.08) |
0.04 | −0.06 (−0.11–−0.01) |
−0.06 | ||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Threat anticipation | ||||||
| Condition | −0.25 (−0.58–0.08) |
−0.20 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 2.13 (1.85–2.42) |
2.00 (1.70–2.30) |
||||
| Control condition | 2.39 (2.11–2.68) |
2.23 (1.93–2.54) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | −0.26 (−0.61–0.09) |
−0.20 | −0.24 (−0.6 –0.14) |
−0.19 | ||
| Time × condition | 0.03 (−0.27–0.32) |
0.02 | ||||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Aberrant salience | ||||||
| Condition | −0.38 (−0.57–−0.18) |
−0.56 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 1.16 (0.97–1.35) |
1.15 (0.99–1.31) |
||||
| Control condition | 1.61 (1.41–1.80) |
1.46 (1.30–1.62) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | −0.45 (−0.69–−0.20) |
−0.66 | −0.30 (−0.50–−0.11) |
−0.45 | ||
| Time × condition | 0.15 (−0.05–0.34) |
0.22 | ||||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Negative affective appraisals | ||||||
| Condition | 0.06 (−0.34–0.45) |
0.05 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 4.75 (4.46–5.05) |
4.80 (4.37–5.23) |
||||
| Control condition | 4.83 (4.53–5.13) |
4.61 (4.19–5.02) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | −0.08 (−0.44–0.29) |
−0.06 | 0.19 (−0.37–0.75) |
0.16 | ||
| Time × condition | 0.27 (−0.24–0.78) |
0.22 | ||||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Self-compassion | ||||||
| Condition | −0.04 (−0.36–0.28) |
−0.04 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 4.49 (4.22–4.76) |
4.62 (4.35–4.90) |
||||
| Control condition | 4.50 (4.23–4.77) |
4.69 (4.41–4.98) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | −0.01 (−0.34–0.32) |
−0.01 | −0.07 (−0.42–0.28) |
−0.07 | ||
| Time × condition | −0.06 (−0.30–0.18) |
−0.06 | ||||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Interpersonal sensitivity | ||||||
| Condition | −0.15 (−0.51–0.20) |
−0.11 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 4.45 (4.15–4.76) |
4.74 (4.41–5.07) |
||||
| Control condition | 4.60 (4.3 –4.91) |
4.90 (4.56–5.23) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | −0.15 (−0.5 0.23) |
−0.11 | −0.16 (−0.5 0.26) |
−0.12 | ||
| Time × condition | −0.01 (−0.37–0.35) |
−0.01 | ||||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Negative affect/Emotional reactivity | ||||||
| Condition | −0.17 (−0.40–0.07) |
−0.20 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 2.05 (1.84–2.25) |
1.86 (1.66–2.05) |
||||
| Control condition | 2.13 (1.92–2.35) |
2.10 (1.90–2.30) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | −0.09 (−0.35– 0.17) |
−0.11 | −0.24 (−0.48–−0.01) |
−0.29 | ||
| Time × condition | −0.15 (−0.33–0.03) |
−0.18 | ||||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Resilience item‡ | ||||||
| Condition | 0.55 (0.18–0.92) |
0.33 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 4.23 (3.85–4.62) |
4.39 (4.02–4.77) |
||||
| Control condition | 3.69 (3.33–4.05) |
3.84 (3.47–4.21) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | 0.54 (0.06–1.02) |
0.33 | 0.56 (0.07–1.04) |
0.34 | ||
| Time × condition | 0.02 (−0.58–0.61) |
0.01 | ||||
| Secondary candidate mechanism: Second resilience measure (positive affect) | ||||||
| Condition | −0.12 (−0.38–0.15) |
0.11 | ||||
| Experimental condition | 4.11 (3.89–4.33) |
4.24 (4.02–4.47) |
||||
| Control condition | 4.26 (4.03–4.49) |
4.32 (4.09–4.55) |
||||
| Experimental vs. control condition | −0.16 (−0.43– .12) |
−0.15 | −0.08 (−0.36–0.21) |
−0.07 | ||
| Time × condition | 0.08 (−0.13–0.28) |
0.07 | ||||
Note: §All models are adjusted for the centered baseline values of the respective mechanism/outcome and group status; †Coefficient for highest-level interaction term; ‡This model did not converge with the full random effects specification, which was likely due to the low number of observations within some individuals and, hence, the random effect for the regression coefficient “time” (post-intervention vs. follow-up) was removed, assuming the same slope across individuals.