Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Behav Res Ther. 2024 Apr 16;177:104541. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2024.104541

Savoring Changes Novel Positive Mindset Targets of GAD Treatment: Optimism, Prioritizing Positivity, Kill-Joy Thinking, and Worry Mediation

Lucas S LaFreniere 1,2, Michelle G Newman 2
PMCID: PMC11096009  NIHMSID: NIHMS1988803  PMID: 38640622

Abstract

This study analyzed effects of savoring on unstudied positive mindset targets of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) treatment (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05040061)1. 85 students with GAD were randomly assigned to one of two ecological momentary interventions (EMIs) on smartphone for seven days. The SkillJoy EMI promoted practices for savoring positive emotions. An active control EMI mirrored SkillJoy, yet did not include savoring or positive emotion. Optimism, worry, kill-joy thinking (lessening positive emotion with cognition), and prioritization of positive emotion activities and goals were assessed at pre-trial, eighth-day, post-trial, and 30th-day follow-up. Savoring was assessed pre-trial and fifth-day mid-trial. Longitudinal linear mixed models and simple slope analyses examined change between and within conditions. Bias-corrected boot strapping path analysis examined mediation of worry change by increased savoring. SkillJoy led to significantly greater increases in both optimism and prioritizing positivity than the control from pre-trial to post-trial and to follow-up. Both interventions significantly reduced kill-joy thinking at both timepoints with Skilljoy leading to marginally greater change at post-trial. Pre-to-mid-trial increases in savoring mediated the relationships between treatment condition and reductions in worry at both post-trial and follow-up.

Keywords: generalized anxiety disorder, savoring, positive emotion, optimism, prioritizing positivity, worry, dampening, ecological momentary intervention

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is marked by a continually negative outlook on the future. “Apprehensive expectation” is the defining feature of the disorder—chronic and excessive worry about times yet to come (American Psychiatric Association, 2022). These adverse forecasts are not only largely inaccurate (LaFreniere & Newman, 2020), but also increase and sustain the worrier’s distress (Newman et al., 2013). The well-supported Contrast Avoidance Model (CAM) proposes that this distress buffers against unwanted increases in negative emotion (Newman & Llera, 2011). Worry maintains distress over time so that any future distress is merely a consistent state—one free from aversive increases in negative emotion (Llera & Newman, 2017; Newman et al., 2019; Newman et al., 2023; Newman et al., 2022). Thus, worriers brace for a future negative feeling by creating a current negative feeling via thought (Baik & Newman, 2023). Such a process is unlikely to yield much more than sustained negative emotion. Yet engaging with positive emotion may be one way to interfere with this negative mindset. Positive emotional attention may support elements of an opposing frame of mind—one that foresees a relatively more optimistic future with more enjoyable activities. The effect of treatment on the negative, worry-focused mindset of GAD has been widely studied. Yet its effect on many positive mindset factors—such as optimism, the prioritization of positive activities, and refraining from “kill-joy” thoughts—has gone unexamined thus far.

Interventions that upregulate positive emotions may shift these mindset factors. Positive emotions expand a person’s range of awareness, array of thoughts, and perceived paths of action in ways that facilitate positivity (see Fredrickson, 2013 for a review). In studies, positive emotions have expanded visual and cognitive attention toward more positive information, facilitated awareness of positive stimuli, improved attentional flexibility and task switching, and increased recognized sets of behavioral options (Alexander et al., 2021; Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005; Grol et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2010). Whereas worry and anxiety narrow the mind on perceived signals of threat (Goodwin et al., 2017), positive emotions open it up to more positive stimuli and information (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005)2. They also promote more flexible perusal and use of that information (Alexander et al., 2021). Moreover, accessing positive mental constructs in the laboratory has lessened or eliminated attentional bias to negative information (Smith et al., 2006). As contrast avoidance would suggest, the cycle of worry and distress in GAD may be disrupted by positive feelings. Studies in the laboratory and in daily life found worry and positive emotion had an inverse relationship (Baik & Newman, 2023; Kim & Newman, 2023; Llera & Newman, 2014; Newman et al., 2022). In general, positive emotions have been found to counter negative emotional states (such as anxiety and depression-related sadness or malaise; Garland et al., 2010). Accordingly, one positive affect-focused treatment reduced anxiety, depression, and negative affect to a greater degree than a negative affect-focused treatment (Craske et al., 2019), while also increasing reward anticipation-motivation and response to reward attainment (Craske et al., 2023). Another positive emotion psychotherapy reduced anxiety and depression when compared to a waitlist (Taylor et al., 2017).

Savoring is one means to deliberately activate positive emotions in an enduring way (Bryant & Veroff, 2007). It involves mindfully attending to and enjoying positive feelings from positive experiences, as well as purposefully extending their duration (Bryant, 2003). Across populations and methods, savoring has improved well-being (Chadwick et al., 2020; Smith & Bryant, 2017) and lessened the symptoms of mental disorders (see meta-analysis; Sin & Lyubomirsky, 2009). When examined by ecological momentary assessment (EMA), savoring prospectively predicted greater happiness and positive emotions (Kiken et al., 2017). EMA also found savoring to mediate and moderate the impact of positive events on momentary happy mood (Jose et al., 2012). In the laboratory, savoring amplified participants’ positive emotional valence, arousal, and relevant neural potentials in response to both positive and neutral stimuli (Wilson & MacNamara, 2021). It also resulted in greater reactivity to non-savored positive stimuli after a time delay. Thus, savoring may be a way to cultivate the well-being benefits of positive emotion for those with GAD, including a relatively more positive mindset.

Several studies have already examined this prospect. First, among those with GAD, a savoring practice reduced pre-existing worry and anxiety and increased positive emotion following a worry induction to a greater extent than an active control (Rosen & LaFreniere, 2023). In another study, our team developed and tested a smartphone-based ecological momentary intervention (EMI) for facilitating savoring practices in daily life, termed SkillJoy. In a randomized controlled trial, we compared SkillJoy to a closely-related active treatment control over seven days in a GAD sample (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023b). SkillJoy’s savoring practices led to significantly greater decreases in worry and depression symptoms, as well as greater increases in positive emotions and savoring ability. According to another analysis of this RCT, SkillJoy also reduced contrast avoidance (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023a)—the driving force behind GAD’s negative mindset toward the future. Moreover, these reductions in contrast avoidance motivation across the trial were significantly mediated by pre-trial to mid-trial increases in savoring ability. If savoring lessens the continual emotional bracing of contrast avoidance, it may allow those with GAD to open up to more positive expectations and plans. Increases in savoring may also be responsible for the observed association between treatment condition and decreased worry, mediating change in the intervention’s primary outcome.

Yet despite savoring’s possible benefits, worriers do not savor readily or frequently. GAD’s contrast-prevention mindset works against savoring—a state vulnerable to negative contrasts. Accordingly, several studies found that having greater GAD symptoms predicted less savoring (Eisner et al., 2009; Malivoire et al., 2022; Palmer et al., 2021; Rosen & LaFreniere, 2023). In fact, GAD has been associated with the opposite response—purposefully down-regulating positive emotion, or dampening (Abasi et al., 2023; Baik & Newman, 2023; Buhk et al., 2020; Eisner et al., 2009). The majority of the research on dampening links it to depression and related anhedonia (e.g., Bean et al., 2022; Nelis et al., 2015; Werner-Seidler et al., 2013). Dampening precludes the depression-countering effects of positive emotions, keeping those with depression in negative states. Yet dampening may be a problem for worriers as well.

Dampening supports contrast avoidance. Being in an ongoing positive state leaves those with GAD vulnerable to sharp shifts in negative emotion (i.e., negative contrasts). For example, in an EMA study, a mixed GAD/depressed sample was more likely than controls to endorse “I was focusing on the negative, because allowing myself to feel happy leaves me vulnerable to feeling terrible in the end” (Baik & Newman, 2023). In another study, the relation between GAD status and relaxation-induced anxiety was mediated by contrast avoidance (Kim & Newman, 2019). Similarly, Malivoire et al. (2022) found that the associations between 1) GAD and less savoring and 2) GAD and more dampening were both mediated by intolerance of uncomfortable states, such as vulnerability to contrast. Since worry reduces pleasant affect (Kim & Newman, 2023; Llera & Newman, 2014; Newman et al., 2022), worry engages what is known as “kill-joy thinking” (Quoidbach et al., 2010). Kill-joy thinking is a form of dampening that uses cognition (e.g., worry) to cut short ongoing positive emotions. Savoring positive emotions directly opposes kill-joy thinking, extending joy instead of extinguishing it. Given that repeated savoring practices reduced contrast avoidance (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023a) and that increased savoring mediated this association, it follows that savoring may also lessen kill-joy thinking.

In addition to lessening these negative mindset factors, savoring may enhance some positive mindset factors. By weakening worry’s anticipation of future threat and kill-joy thinking, savoring may simultaneously strengthen an alternative perspective—optimism. Optimism is the extent to which individuals hold positive expectations for their future (Carver & Scheier, 2014). Experimental and naturalistic studies in non-clinical populations suggest savoring may promote optimism. For example, a greater naturalistic tendency to savor was significantly related to greater optimism at both a trait and state level (Kaveh-Farsani et al., 2021; Sytine et al., 2019; Titova Grandchamp et al., 2021). A range of savoring types have shown this optimism-enhancing effect. For example, a technique for looking forward to the future (anticipatory savoring) increased optimism (Peters et al., 2013). In another study, savoring a current experience significantly predicted greater positive nostalgia for that experience 4 to 9 months later, which then predicted greater optimism (Biskas et al., 2019). Lastly, savoring also increased couples’ relationship optimism (Wang et al., 2022). Yet despite its benefits and apparent changeability, clinical studies have never examined optimism as a treatment target.

Expectations for a brighter future clearly benefit well-being (Carver et al., 2010) and reduce the risk of anxiety and mood disorders (Öcal et al., 2022). Yet that future may actually be created by forming active plans and priorities toward rewarding activities. Prioritizing positivity is a tendency to select, seek out, and engage with activities expected to generate happiness (Catalino et al., 2014). Due to contrast avoidance, those with GAD highly prioritize their worry concerns over positive emotions or rewards, aiming to reduce the likelihood a negative emotional contrast (Baik & Newman, 2023; Newman et al., 2023). However, multiple studies found that prioritizing goals that worked toward rewarding experiences (rather than prevention) predicted lower anxiety (Jiang & Papi, 2022; Llewellyn et al., 2013; Woltin et al., 2018). Repeated savoring may lead those with GAD to place greater value on prioritizing positive emotion activities and less value on preventing possible contrasts from negative outcomes. As contrast avoidance lessens from savoring and positive activities receive greater positive reinforcement from savoring (Wilson & MacNamara, 2021), the prioritization of positive activities and plans may increase. Several new positive emotion treatments combine encouraging patients to pursue positive activities with skills for upregulating positive emotion (like savoring; e.g., Craske et al., 2019; Nagy et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2017). Yet patients’ prioritization of positive activities—a highly relevant target for these new treatments—has never been examined in clinical research.

Relatively greater prioritizing positivity and optimism, as well as less cognitive dampening, may add adaptive balance to the overly-negative outlook of chronic worry. By changing mindset through savoring, additional research-supported health and well-being benefits may result from new strengths that go beyond symptom reduction. Furthermore, building a relatively more positive mindset may also help maintain treatment gains over time. Clients may develop a more balanced orientation toward future events, priorities, and plans that ultimately resists unrealistic or maladaptive worry. Savoring may exchange maladaptive patterns (such as excessive worry and contrast avoidance) for functional replacements (such as positive mindset factors and activities), rather than solely eliminating maladaptive patterns temporarily. As behavioral theory has long-proposed (Skinner, 1953), this kind of functional replacement of problematic processes may promote sustained maintenance over time.

Following from the above rationales, we proposed that savoring positive emotions would change several unstudied positive mindset targets of GAD, while also being the mechanism responsible for changing its core negative mindset factor—worry. Accordingly, we examined previously unaddressed effects of savoring with a secondary analysis of our savoring RCT (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023b). We had three aims. First, we expected that longitudinal linear mixed models would find that SkillJoy’s savoring practices would lead to greater decreases in kill-joy thinking, greater increases in optimism, and greater increases in prioritizing positivity from both pre- to post-trial and pre-trial to follow-up than the control condition. Second, we proposed that level of increase in savoring from pre-trial to mid-trial would predict the same changes in the three positive mindset outcomes within the SkillJoy condition. Finally, we hypothesized that bias-corrected bootstrapping path analyses would find that SkillJoy’s greater decreases in worry over the control from pre- to post-trial and to follow-up would be mediated by greater increases in savoring from pre-trial to fifth-day mid-trial (the theorized mechanism).

Method

This secondary analysis examined the data from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing two interventions delivered by smartphone in daily life—the SkillJoy savoring intervention and a closely-related active treatment control (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023b). An institutional review board approved this study. It conforms to the Transparency and Openness Promotion guidelines. It was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT05040061). A complete CONSORT diagram and protocol can be accessed via the RCT’s primary efficacy publication: https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000794. All data was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials can be made available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Participants

There were 85 participants (41 SkillJoy, 44 control; 77 women, 8 men). They were recruited by an email advertising a study to test a “smartphone intervention for reducing anxiety and increasing wellbeing” sent to university subject pool participants who had met criteria for GAD on the GAD-Q-IV (Newman et al., 2002). Those consenting to participate were given the MINI clinical interview (Sheehan et al., 2015) GAD section to confirm diagnosis. Baseline Penn State Worry Questionnaire scores of the current sample (M = 66.72, SD = 7.17) were comparable to treatment-seeking community GAD samples (M = 65.20, SD = 9.41 averaged across 10 studies) and greater than analogue GAD samples (M = 63.41, SD = 10.07 averaged across 10 studies; Startup & Erickson, 2006). All participants were undergraduate students, spoke English, and were 18 years of age or older. Participants received subject pool credit sufficient to complete their total course requirement regardless of compliance. The few who went over credit hour caps received $5 per extra hour. 82.4% identified as White, 4.7% as Black, 4.7% as Asian, 3.5% as Multiracial, 3.5% as Latinx, and 1.2% as Middle Eastern. Table 1 includes demographic and clinical characteristics of the sample at baseline divided by treatment condition.

Table 1.

Pretreatment Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of the SkillJoy Savoring Condition and Active Self-Monitoring Control Condition Samples.

Values
M (SD)
Total
(N = 85) 		SkillJoy Savoring
(N = 41) 		ASM Control
(N = 44)
Gender: Women 77 39 38
Ethnicity White 82.4% 90.2% 75.0%
Black 4.7% 2.4% 6.8%
Asian 4.7% 4.9% 4.5%
Latinx 3.5% 2.4% 4.5%
Middle Eastern 1.2% 0% 2.3%
Multiracial 3.5% 0% 6.8%
Age in Years 18.66 (1.14) 18.54 (1.03) 18.77 (1.24)
Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire IV 10.09 (1.29) 10.18 (1.13) 10.00 (1.43)
Penn State Worry Questionnaire 66.72 (7.17) 67.44 (6.07) 66.05 (8.07)
Beck Depression Inventory II 25.26 (10.78) 26.39 (10.93) 24.20 (10.66)
Open in a new tab

Measures

The 16-item Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Meyer et al., 1990) measured severity and frequency of worry. It has strong internal consistency (In our sample, α = .78 at pre-trial, .87 at post-trial, and .89 at follow-up.), retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change from psychotherapy (Brown et al., 1992; Meyer et al., 1990).

The eight-item The Savoring the Moment Subscale of the Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI; Bryant, 2003) measured purposeful attention to, amplification of, and extension of present moment enjoyment (our theorized treatment mechanism). It has good internal consistency (in the current sample, pre: α = .80; post: .86; follow-up: .84), retest reliability, and convergent and divergent validity (Bryant, 2003).

The eight-item trait version of the Responses to Positive Affect Scale (RPAS; Feldman et al., 2008) measured kill-joy thinking with its Dampening subscale. It showed good model fit (RMSEA = 0.043; CFI = 0.94; RMSR = 0.049), internal consistency (α = 0.76 – 0.83; in our sample pre: α = .86; post: .88; follow-up: .88), and convergent and discriminant validity (Feldman et al., 2008; Nelis et al., 2015).

The Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R; Scheier et al., 1994) measured optimism. It has 10 items rated on a four-point scale. It showed good model fit (CFI = .99, TLI = .99, RMSEA = .04), convergent, and discriminant validity (Glaesmer et al., 2012). Internal consistency was acceptable in our sample (pre: α = .78; post: .82; follow-up: .82).

The Prioritizing Positivity Scale (PPS; Catalino et al., 2014) measured the degree to which participants prioritized seeking positive emotional experiences in their plans and goals. It has six items with which participants either agree or disagree on a nine-point scale. It had good model fit (CFI = .99; RMSEA = .04), internal consistency (α = .81, in our sample, pre: α = .83; post: .88; follow-up: .91), and good construct validity (Catalino et al., 2014).

Smartphone Software Applications

PACO: The Personal Analytics Companion (PACO Developers, 2018) is a mobile application software package for implementing ecological momentary research. It allows for fixed, stratified random, and user-editable prompting on participants’ personal iOS and Android smartphones. Quip (Taylor & Gibbs, 2018) is a mobile application for creating and editing cloud-based documents, embedded spreadsheets, and task lists. It can be edited in real time.

Procedure

Eligible participants were randomly assigned to either the SkillJoy treatment or the active treatment control condition by a random number generator, implemented by the principal investigator. First, those who met criteria for GAD on both the GAD-Q-IV and the MINI International Neuropsychiatric Interview presented to the laboratory and provided informed consent. They then completed baseline questionnaires on a computer via PsychData, followed by a computerized task for a different study. Each participant then received a description and rationale for how their assigned intervention would both increase positive emotions and reduce their GAD symptoms (see Supplementary Materials A). Afterward, they downloaded the study apps on their personal phones and were trained in their use. Training was conducted with online presentation slides, both shown on screen and provided through a link in email. The slides were accessible to participants throughout the trial. Both groups were trained in study procedures, were informed of the required 5th day phone call to check compliance, planned for 8th day study tasks, and were given opportunities to ask questions.

Participants underwent each condition’s EMI with the PACO app for seven days in their daily lives. The EMIs were delivered in their natural environments. Each day participants received eight prompts that required engagement and assessment responses. A ninth prompt in the afternoon served as a reminder for a condition-specific task. See Supplementary Materials B for all EMI prompts. Users could edit the timing of each day’s first and last prompt to fit their sleep schedules. Participants also received a compliance check phone call on the fifth day of the trial assessing rate of compliance, level of effort, and if any harm had occurred. After this call, participants completed a battery of mid-trial questionnaires on their personal devices. On the eighth day of the study, participants returned to the laboratory and completed the same questionnaires and tasks provided at baseline.

SkillJoy Condition

SkillJoy Training:

SkillJoy participants were first guided through remembering and describing a positive moment from their past, as well as one good experience from their day. Next, they chose a small candy or dried fruit and were then guided through attending to the sensory, emotional, and cognitive experience of eating it, purposefully attempting to amplify and extend the resulting positive emotion. After, they brainstormed and scheduled enjoyable activities for the week (all rated 7 or greater on a 10-point enjoyment scale) using Quip.

SkillJoy EMI:

Present-moment savoring prompts were delivered by stratified random prompting (three prompts). The other six prompts were delivered at fixed times distributed across the day, with two being user-editable. SkillJoy included savoring interventions modified to target GAD pathology. These interventions included 1) Enjoyable Activity Savoring. Participants were prompted at a time of their choosing (before 11:30 AM) to schedule an exact time for an enjoyable activity for the following day. They were then reminded (in this prompt) and later prompted (in a fixed reminder prompt) to savor upcoming positive activities. At the end of the day, they were asked to focus on what they liked about their enjoyable activity; 2) Present-Moment Positive Evaluation. Participants received three identical daily prompts guiding them to focus on and savor what they enjoyed about the present moment; 3) Savoring recent memories. Participants received two daily prompts that encouraged reflective savoring of recent activities and events; 4) “Counting Blessings” Technique. Twice a day participants received prompts guiding them to consider and write about events that turned out better than expected and events that were enjoyable or went well. 5) Looking forward to the day’s events. During their first daily prompt, participant savored anticipation of an upcoming positive activity for that day.

Active Self-Monitoring Control EMI

Active Self-Monitoring (ASM) Training:

ASM participants were trained using content identical to that of SkillJoy participants, omitting all aspects of engaging with positive emotion. To practice reflective thinking, they were first guided to remember a day in the past week and an event from the current day. After, they engaged in present-moment self-awareness. They were asked to pay attention to and describe their thoughts and feelings while eating a small candy or dried fruit. This activity resembled a mindfulness exercise, but did not explicitly direct attention to any positive emotions or thoughts. Next, they described and scheduled possible future events they had to do or planned to do during the following week using the Quip template.

ASM EMI:

The ASM control included self-monitoring activities mirroring SkillJoy’s interventions and language, but omitting components for increasing or sustaining positive emotion. Careful attention was paid to match SkillJoy in its exact structure, wording, and tone. Within prompts, participants received reminders to pay attention to their thoughts and feelings (instead of the reminders to savor positive emotion in SkillJoy). Interventions included: 1) Planning tomorrow’s activities. Each morning at a time of their choosing (before 11:30AM) participants received a prompt to schedule the following “day’s major events” using Quip; 2) In-the-moment thoughts and feelings. Participants received three identical stratified random prompts to attend to their thoughts and feelings at that present moment. In addition, they received a separate prompt that reminded them to be aware of their thoughts, feelings, and plans in general. 3) Remembering. Participants received two prompts to remember events from their day. The prompts asked them to think of an event from their day, take 60 seconds to remember the event in detail, and complete a series of ratings about it. 4) Recording the day’s events. Participants received two daily prompts guiding them to think about and record recent events. At the end of the day, they were prompted to remember and think about their events, thoughts, and feelings from across that day. They wrote down three events that happened that day and reflected on the most salient event. 5) Anticipating the day’s biggest event. In each day’s initial prompt, participants anticipated and recorded the day’s most important upcoming event.

Planned Statistical Analyses

An RMASS II power analysis suggested a need for 35 participants per condition for a d of 0.5 (our current n = 85, n1 = 41, n2 = 44). We used longitudinal multilevel modeling to examine differences in secondary outcome change between conditions. To account for missing data, we used multiple imputation with 100 iterations of the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, creating 10 imputed datasets for each analysis. All multilevel modeling results reflect analyses pooled across the imputed datasets. Separate longitudinal linear mixed models compared between-condition differences in pre- to post-trial change and pre- to follow-up change in kill-joy thinking, optimism, and prioritizing positivity. Each model included the intercept, linear time trend, intervention condition, and interaction between time trend and condition as fixed effects and the intercept as a random effect. Afterward, multilevel simple slope analyses were conducted to examine degree of change in each outcome within each condition. Separate models examined pre- to mid-trial savoring change as predictor of pre- to post-trial and follow-up change in all three positive mindset factors within the SkillJoy condition, specified the same way as the models comparing between conditions.

Mplus statistical software was used to run a bias-corrected bootstrapping path analysis (Preacher & Hayes, 2008) where savoring change from pre- to mid-trial was specified as a mediator for the relationship between intervention condition and the slopes of pre- to post-trial change in PSWQ scores. Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) estimation accounted for missingness3. The reported confidence intervals were 95% bootstrap confidence intervals. The mediation analysis was a two-step process: 1) Extracting individual participants’ slopes of change in PSWQ scores from a longitudinal linear mixed model, then 2) analyzing mediation of intervention condition’s effect on the extracted PSWQ random effect slopes by change in savoring scores. We used multilevel modeling in the R statistical program’s lme4 and lmerTest packages to extract each individual’s slope of change in PSWQ scores from pre- to post-trial. To do so, we specified a linear mixed effects model where PSWQ scores were predicted by a fixed effect of intercept, a random effect of intercept, and a random effect of time from pre- to post-trial. The fixed effect of time was not specified so that its common influence would not be removed from individuals’ slopes of change. To acquire slopes of change, we then extracted random effects of time trend on PSWQ scores for each individual. These slopes in worry were then used as the outcome variable of our mediation model.

Between-condition differences in baseline measures, degrees of missingness, and compliance rates were examined with independent samples t-tests. The outcome change comparison analyses were all pre-registered, but the mediation analyses were not (i.e., they were devised later). Reliable change index analyses were conducted using the formula of Jacobson and Truax (1991). Cohen’s d was calculated in the traditional manner for t-tests, (M2 – M1) ⁄ SDpooled where SDpooled = √((SD12 + SD22) ⁄2) (Cohen, 1988). In linear mixed models and simple slope analyses, Cohen’s d was calculated with an alternative formula for multilevel models, d = 2t/(√df), as recommended by Rosenthal (1994). For bootstrapping path analyses, Cohen’s d effect sizes were calculated by the formula d = B/(√(n)*SE). We report unstandardized coefficients for path betas (a, b, ab, c, and c’) in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual diagram of a mediation model where the relationship between treatment condition (X) and pre- to post-trial change in worry (Y) is mediated by pre- to mid-trial change in savoring (M). Unstandardized regression coefficients: a = effect of X on M, b = effect of M on Y, ab = indirect effect (representing mediation), c’ = direct effect of X on Y (with M included in the model), c = total effect of X on Y (with M not included in the model). * significant at α = .05.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Conceptual diagram of a mediation model where the relationship between treatment condition (X) and pre-trial to follow-up change in worry (Y) is mediated by pre- to mid-trial change in savoring (M). Unstandardized regression coefficients: a = effect of X on M, b = effect of M on Y, ab = indirect effect (representing mediation), c’ = direct effect of X on Y (with M included in the model), c = total effect of X on Y (with M not included in the model). * significant at α = .05.

Results

Descriptive Statistics and Baseline Group Difference Tests

Means and standard deviations.

See Table 2 for outcome means and variability.

Table 2.

Means and standard deviations for outcome measures at pre-trial, post-trial, and follow-up.

Pre-Trial Post-Trial Follow-Up
Outcome Measure SkillJoy
M (SD) 		ASM
M (SD) 		SkillJoy
M (SD) 		ASM
M (SD) 		SkillJoy
M (SD) 		ASM
M (SD)
RPAS Dampening (Kill-Joy Thinking) 19.68 (5.73) 18.98 (5.84) 15.15 (4.85) 16.31 (5.58) 16.71 (6.35) 15.88 (4.65)
Life Orientation Test - Revised 14.12 (4.82) 14.86 (4.60) 18.33 (4.22) 16.02 (5.31) 18.53 (4.44) 16.84 (5.52)
Prioritizing Positivity Scale 34.93 (6.76) 37.41 (9.72) 43.8 (5.75) 40.12 (9.94) 39.21 (9.73) 39.91 (9.87)
PSWQ 67.44 (6.07) 66.05 (8.07) 58.35 (9.80) 65.02 (8.48) 58.71 (10.32) 61.67 (10.42)
SBI Savoring the Moment 3.91 (1.06) 4.14 (1.19) 4.75 (0.85) 4.30 (1.40) 4.57 (1.06) 4.21 (1.18)
Open in a new tab

Note. PSWQ = Penn State Worry Questionnaire, SBI = Savoring Beliefs Inventory, RPAS = Responses to Positive Affect Scale.

†

marginally significant at α = .10.

*

significant at α = .05.

**

significant at α = .01.

Missingness.

8.49% of values were missing across all timepoints. 1.57% of values were missing across pre- and post-trial measures. There were no nonrandom patterns in missing values. Little’s Missing Completely at Random test suggested missing values were likely missing completely at random (χ2 (66) = 55.01, p = .831). The number of missing values also did not significantly differ between SkillJoy and ASM (t(83) = 1.06, p = .292, d = 0.23).

Compliance rates.

The average rate of prompts completed was 92.63%. There was no difference in compliance between SkillJoy users (M = 91.85%, SD = 16.36) and active self-monitoring (ASM) controls (M = 93.36%, SD = 13.16; t(83) = 0.47, p = .639, d = 0.10). The mode for both conditions was 100%.

Outcome measure baseline difference tests.

There were no significant differences on any outcome measure score at baseline between conditions (see Table 3).

Table 3.

Independent samples t-tests comparing baseline scores of outcome measures between SkillJoy users and active self-monitoring (ASM) controls.

Outcome Measure SkillJoy
M (SD) 		ASM
M (SD) 		df t p d
PSWQ 67.44 (6.07) 66.05 (8.07) 83 −0.90 .373 0.19
SBI Savoring the Moment 3.91 (1.06) 4.14 (1.19) 83 0.95 .346 0.20
RPAS Dampening 19.68 (5.73) 18.98 (5.84) 83 −0.56 .576 0.12
Life Orientation Test–Revised 14.12 (4.82) 14.86 (4.60) 83 0.73 .470 0.16
Prioritizing Positivity Scale 34.93 (6.76) 37.41 (9.72) 83 1.36 .178 0.30
Open in a new tab

Note. PSWQ = Penn State Worry Questionnaire, SBI = Savoring Beliefs Inventory, RPAS = Responses to Positive Affect Scale.

†

marginally significant at α = .10.

*

significant at α = .05.

**

significant at α = .01.

Outcome Measure Results

Responses to Positive Affect (RPAS) Dampening.

For kill-joy thinking, there was a marginally significant interaction in pre-to-post change in kill-joy thinking with SkillJoy users decreasing to a greater degree than ASM controls (Table 4). In simple slope analyses, both SkillJoy and ASM users significantly decreased in kill-joy thinking from pre- to post-trial (Table 5), with a larger effect size for SkillJoy (d = −1.34) than ASM (d = −0.79). 45% of SkillJoy users and 26.19% of controls surpassed the reliable change criterion from pre-to-post. From pre-to-follow-up there was no significant difference, with a decrease in kill-joy thinking across both conditions. This was consistent with simple slope analyses. Also, 31.43% of SkillJoy users and 24.24% of controls surpassed the reliable change criterion from pre-to-follow-up.

Table 4.

Secondary outcome measures linear mixed model results for pre-trial to post-trial, post-trial to follow-up, and pre-trial to follow-up time trends, condition effects, and their interactions.

Pre to Post Pre to Follow-Up Post to Follow-Up
t p d t p d t p d
RPAS Dampening Intercept 18.98 <.001 ** 4.17 18.98 <.001 ** 4.17 16.41 <.001 ** 3.60
Time −2.57 <.001 ** −0.56 −2.46 .006 ** −0.54 0.10 .885 0.02
Condition 0.71 0.56 0.16 0.71 .574 0.16 −1.21 .298 −0.27
Time*Cond. −1.92 .065 † −0.42 −0.45 .721 −0.10 1.46 .127 0.32
Life Orientation Test - Revised Intercept 14.86 <.001 ** 3.26 14.86 <.001 ** 3.26 16.06 <.001 ** 0.72
Time 1.19 .049 * 0.26 1.46 .051 † 0.32 0.27 .687 0.06
Condition −0.74 .468 −0.16 −0.74 .468 −0.16 2.33 .026 * 0.51
Time*Cond. 3.07 <.001 ** 0.67 2.83 .009 ** 0.62 −0.25 .794 −0.06
Prioritizing Positivity Scale Intercept 37.41 <.001 ** 8.21 37.41 <.001 ** 8.21 39.86 <.001 ** 8.75
Time 2.45 .017 * 0.54 1.94 .160 0.43 −0.50 .658 −0.11
Condition −2.48 .175 −0.54 −2.48 .175 −0.54 4.24 .021 * 0.93
Time*Cond. 6.73 <.001 ** 1.48 3.04 .128 0.67 −3.69 .025 * −0.81
Open in a new tab

Note. RPAS = Responses to Positive Affect Scale.

†

marginally significant at α = .10.

*

significant at α = .05.

**

significant at α = .01.

Table 5.

Simple slopes analyses of linear mixed model fixed effects results for time trends predicting outcome measures by condition.

Pre to Post Pre to Follow Up
Slope t p d Slope t p d
RPAS Dampening (Kill-Joy Thinking) SkillJoy −4.48 −6.12 <.001 ** −1.34 −2.92 −3.07 .003 ** −0.67
Control −2.57 −3.60 .001 ** −0.79 −2.46 −2.56 .012 * −0.56
Life Orientation Test - Revised SkillJoy 4.27 6.85 <.001 ** 1.50 4.29 5.27 <.001 ** 1.16
Control 1.19 1.97 .053 † 0.43 1.46 1.78 .082 † 0.39
Prioritizing Positivity Scale SkillJoy 9.17 8.83 <.001 ** 1.94 4.98 3.26 .002 ** 0.72
Control 2.45 2.42 .018 * 0.53 1.94 1.24 .218 0.27
Open in a new tab

Note. Slope coefficients are unstandardized. RPAS = Responses to Positive Affect Scale.

†

marginally significant at α = .10.

*

significant at α = .05.

**

significant at α = .01

Life Orientation Test – Revised (LOT-R).

A significant interaction between time and condition showed greater increases in optimism from pre- to post-trial for SkillJoy users over ASM controls, as hypothesized (Table 4). Simple slope analyses showed significant change for SkillJoy users with a large effect size (d = 1.50), yet only marginally significant change for ASM controls (d = 0.43; Table 5). 35% of SkillJoy users and 9.52% of controls surpassed the reliable change criterion from pre-to-post. Similarly, a significant time by condition interaction demonstrated greater increases in optimism for SkillJoy users over ASM controls from pre-trial to follow-up as well. Once again, simple slopes suggested SkillJoy users significantly increased in optimism with large effect (d = 1.16), whereas controls changed with only marginal significance of a lesser effect (d = 0.39). 38.24% of SkillJoy users and 19.35% of controls surpassed the reliable change criterion from pre-to-follow-up.

Prioritizing Positivity Scale.

A significant interaction between time and condition demonstrated that SkillJoy users increased in prioritizing positivity to a greater degree than ASM controls across the trial (Table 4). In simple slope analyses, both conditions led to significantly increased prioritization of positivity. Yet the slope and effect size of SkillJoy users (B = 9.17, d = 1.94) was over three times that of controls (B = 2.45, d = 0.53). 40% of SkillJoy users and 9.52% of controls surpassed the reliable change criterion from pre-to-post. There were no significant between-condition mixed model results for pre-trial to follow-up analyses. Even so, simple slope analyses showed that SkillJoy users significantly increased in prioritizing positivity from pre-trial to follow-up, whereas controls did not significantly change (Table 5). 41.18% of SkillJoy users and 12.5% of controls surpassed the reliable change criterion from pre-to-follow-up.

Increases in Savoring Predicting Increases in the Positive Mindset Factors

Within the SkillJoy condition, greater increases in savoring from pre-trial to mid-trial significantly predicted greater decreases in kill-joy thinking pre-trial to post-trial (t(31) = −3.409, p = .002, d = −1.22) and pre-trial to follow-up (t(30.08) = −2.95, p = .006, d = 1.08). Greater pre-to-mid-trial increases in savoring predicted greater increases in optimism pre-trial to post-trial (t(31) = 5.05, p < .001, d = 1.81) and to follow-up (t(30.44) = 4.03, p < .001, d = 1.46) as well. Greater increases in pre-to-mid-trial savoring also predicted greater increases in prioritizing positive emotional experiences pre-trial to post-trial (t(31) = 4.20, p < .001, d = 1.51) and to follow-up (t(30.11) = 5.78, p < .001, d = 2.11). These findings all aligned with our hypotheses.

Increases in Savoring Mediating Effect of Treatment Condition on Reduced Worry

Results supported the hypothesized savoring mediation models for between-condition differences in worry reductions at both post-trial and follow-up. Figure 1 summarizes the results of the pre-trial to post-trial longitudinal mediation analysis: According to a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval, the indirect effect for the pre- to post-trial model was significant (ab = −0.88, 95% bootstrap CI = [−2.58, −0.05], d = −0.17). This indicated that the effect of treatment condition predicting pre- to post-trial reduction in worry was mediated by pre- to mid-trial increases in savoring. Note that both the a and b paths were significant: Treatment condition significantly predicted pre- to mid-trial increases in savoring (a = 0.54, 95% bootstrap CI = [0.03, 1.06], d = 0.25) and pre- to mid-trial increases in savoring significantly predicted pre- to post-trial decreases in worry (b = −1.64, 95% bootstrap CI = [−2.74, −0.35], d = −0.33)4. The total effect was also significant (c = −3.78, 95% bootstrap CI = [−5.98, −1.50], d = −0.41).

Figure 2 summarizes the pre-trial to follow-up longitudinal mediation analysis. According to a 95% bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval, the indirect effect for the pre- to follow-up model was significant (ab = −1.10, 95% bootstrap CI = [−3.06, −0.04], d = −0.19). The effect of treatment condition predicting pre- to follow-up reduction in worry was mediated by pre- to mid-trial increases in savoring. Both the a and b paths were also significant: Treatment condition significantly predicted pre- to mid-trial increases in savoring (a = 0.55, 95% bootstrap CI = [0.02, 1.10], d = 0.26) and pre- to mid-trial increases in savoring predicted pre- to follow-up decreases in worry (b = −1.99, 95% bootstrap CI = [−3.47, −0.19], d = −0.31). The total effect was also significant (c = −1.97, 95% bootstrap CI = [−4.99, −1.18], d = −0.16). As expected, SkillJoy’s theorized mechanism—increases in savoring—appeared to mediate the between-condition differences in worry reductions from both pre- to post-trial and pre-trial to follow-up.

Discussion

Purposefully engaging with positive emotions may have beneficial effects on the worry-driven mindset of GAD. As expected, bias-corrected bootstrapping path analysis found that a between-condition difference in worry reduction from pre- to post-trial was mediated by increases in savoring ability from pre- to mid-trial. The same held true from pre-trial to follow-up. Thus, previously-reported reductions in worry from SkillJoy’s savoring practices (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023b) appear to be at least partly due to improvements in savoring—the theorized mechanism. In addition, linear mixed models showed that SkillJoy led to greater increases in optimism and greater prioritization of positive activities and goals than the ASM control from pre-trial to post-trial and to follow-up. Lastly, SkillJoy also resulted in significant reductions in kill-joy thinking at both post-trial and follow-up. These reductions marginally significantly differed from the ASM control at post-trial, but did not differ at follow-up. Both EMIs led to significant decreases at both timepoints. Even so, SkillJoy’s effect sizes for reducing kill-joy thinking were larger than that of the control—particularly at post-trial (d = −1.34 vs. d = −0.79), though less so at follow-up (d = −0.67 versus d = −0.56). This difference may suggest SkillJoy worked faster at lessening kill-joy thinking. Regarding clinically-significant change, Skilljoy (vs. ASM) led to a greater percentage of persons achieving reliable change at post-trial and follow-up on all three outcomes. Moreover, SkillJoy’s post-trial and follow-up increases in these positive mindset factors were all significantly predicted by pre- to mid-trial increases in savoring.

Overall, findings suggested savoring may build a more positive mindset that includes 1) more positive expectations for the future (including less worry), 2) greater prioritization of positive emotion activities over prevention of negative emotional contrasts, and 3) less “kill-joy” thoughts aimed at dampening contrast-vulnerable joy. Prior to this study, these positive mindset factors had never been studied as treatment targets for GAD. Yet according to our findings, they may be amenable to change—even in a disorder driven by processes that directly oppose them.

There are several reasons why increased savoring may have been the mechanism by which GAD’s predominant mindset—chronic worry—was lessened. At a basic level, savoring may interfere with worry’s perseverative drive, “cutting off” its continuation. In a single-session experiment, savoring immediately after worrying experimentally reduced worry and anxiety and boosted positive emotion in a GAD sample (Rosen & LaFreniere, 2023). In addition, positive emotion and worry have been shown to have an inverse relationship in daily life, even among those with GAD (Baik & Newman, 2023; Kim & Newman, 2023; Newman et al., 2022). Truly engaging with pleasant affect may be incompatible with worrying, which evokes distress (e.g., Llera & Newman, 2010). By lessening distress, savoring may foster tolerance and habituation to being vulnerable to negative contrasts. Recall that savoring reduced contrast avoidance—a function fueling worry—in another analysis of SkillJoy’s RCT (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023a). If contrast avoidance lessens, the use of worry should lessen as well. In regard to cognition, worry is conceptualized as the prediction of negative future outcomes—“apprehensive expectation”. Those with GAD tend to over-estimate the likelihood of negative outcomes, despite evidence of their improbability (LaFreniere & Newman, 2020). SkillJoy included many tasks explicitly directing participants to recognize and dwell on events that went well. SkillJoy also encouraged savoring positive emotion from in-the-moment experiences, looking forward to future enjoyable experiences, and good memories. Shifting attention to positive events may lessen worry’s negative forecasting, building a more positive mindset that includes positive expectations and plans. If one’s evidence from the past appears brighter, the future may as well.

Accordingly, SkillJoy also led to greater increases in optimism than the control at both post-trial and follow-up, with simple slopes of large effect (d = 1.50; d = 1.16). These clinical results extend a growing body of non-clinical studies finding that savoring increased optimism (Kaveh-Farsani et al., 2021; Sytine et al., 2019; Titova Grandchamp et al., 2021). Intentionally engaging with present-moment joys, reflecting on recent positive memories, and identifying events that went well in one’s day may all create expectations for events to go well in the future. Consistent with this notion, Biskas et al. (2019) found that savoring practices increased positive memories, which were then associated with optimism. Relatedly, Hallford and colleagues (2022) also found that training in recalling positive episodic memories predicted greater detail/vividness and anticipatory pleasure when imagining future positive events. Optimism may have also arisen from the “broaden-and-build” effects of increased positive emotions. Positive emotions may open up patients’ awareness of multiple, flexible future possibilities, as opposed to anxiety’s narrowed focus on potential threats (Smith et al., 2006). Enhanced optimism may be one of savoring’s most valuable effects—a treatment target worthy of clinical focus. Several meta-analyses and reviews (e.g., Carver et al., 2010) highlight links between optimism and physical health (Rasmussen et al., 2009), coping (Nes & Segerstrom, 2006), and happiness (Myers & Diener, 1995). Longitudinal studies suggest it is possible for trait optimism to change over time in enduring ways (see Purol & Chopik, 2021 review)—an avenue for future clinical research.

SkillJoy’s savoring practices also increased prioritizing positivity at post-trial and follow-up. In fact, increases in savoring pre- to mid-trial predicted increases in prioritizing positivity through post-trial and follow-up in multilevel models as well. Prioritizing positivity is the trait tendency to select, seek out, and engage with situations and activities that are expected to create happiness (Catalino et al., 2014). SkillJoy’s savoring practices offered a structured way for participants to do exactly that—brainstorming pleasurable activities, scheduling them, and enjoying them when they occur. These tasks counter an anxious mindset that over-emphasizes prevention of adversity relative to the promotion of rewarding experiences. A savoring mindset may lead users to notice and pursue opportunities for enjoyment they would not have otherwise noticed or pursued. In support of this idea, Jose et al. (2020) found that greater savoring prospectively predicted increases in self-reported everyday positive life events. These newly noticed and created events offer additional opportunities for savoring. Taking advantage of these opportunities may maintain benefits, further strengthening a mindset where future threat is less emphasized. Thus, greater prioritization of positive activities after treatment may maintain gains.

Relatedly, SkillJoy’s encouragement of pleasurable activities is similar to behavioral activation (BA)—an efficacious intervention for major depressive disorder (Cuijpers et al., 2007). Given that SkillJoy also reduced depression symptoms in GAD (LaFreniere & Newman, 2023b), savoring may be a promising transdiagnostic therapy. Adding savoring training to behavioral activation may treat comorbid anxiety and depression in an efficient way, amplifying and extending BA’s benefits. Accordingly, our team is currently testing a Savoring-Supported Behavioral Activation (SSBA) intervention. In fact, a variety of promising novel therapies are testing ways to combine skills for upregulating positive emotion with positive emotional activities (Craske et al., 2023; Nagy et al., 2020; Sandman & Craske, 2022; Taylor et al., 2017). Given that savoring seems to help patients place greater priority on positive emotion activities and goals after treatment, it may be advisable to emphasize savoring in programs promoting such aims.

Results regarding kill-joy thinking were more uncertain though. Simple slopes suggested SkillJoy significantly reduced kill-joy thinking at both timepoints, but these decreases did not differ from that of the ASM control. Even so, effect sizes and reliable change percentages at post-trial and follow-up were greater for SkillJoy than the control. According to our review, this study is the first to find changes in dampening of any kind as a response to treatment. It makes sense that promoting the extension of enjoyment would lessen efforts to cut it short: Savoring and kill-joy thinking are directly opposed. It is possible that rather than SkillJoy failing to lessen kill-joy thinking, the ASM control simply succeeded at it more than expected. Of course, any observed changes from the control could have merely been due to placebo, time, or expectancy effects. Yet alternatively, active self-monitoring may have had its own beneficial effects—effects beyond placebo—accounting for similar levels of change on some measures.

The ASM control mimicked SkillJoy as closely as possible, while omitting any savoring. This tight control is a strength of the study, underscoring SkillJoy’s unique effects. Nevertheless, the control did include elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy theorized to reduce symptoms. Self-monitoring, focused attention to present-moment thoughts and feelings, guided organization of users’ time, and activity and goal planning were all aspects of the control. Many CBTs target these elements. Moreover, attention to present thoughts and feelings is a core component of mindfulness treatments. Beblo et al. (2018) found that when participants were instructed to attend to their emotions during negative and positive film clips, it later decreased negative emotional responses. This beneficial effect may have occurred for both EMIs. In addition, attending to, recording, and rating positive emotions may have led to “staying with” those emotions instead of “fighting them.” This practice may have resulted in less dismissal of pleasant feelings with negative thoughts—or kill-joy thinking—for both groups. Writing about thoughts and emotions has positive mental health effects as well (e.g., Pennebaker, 1997). All these elements may have changed outcomes in advantageous ways, even at rates similar to savoring.

Despite the strength of the control, there are several notable limitations of this study. Most participants were White women, and all were undergraduate students. Future trials should include more diverse populations. Another limitation of the study was its brief timeframe (seven days). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for GAD tends to last between 12 and 20 weeks. Longer savoring practice with SkillJoy may create stronger, more lasting improvements. Given that longer use may improve efficacy, SkillJoy should be tested across a longer active timeframe. Also, results cannot be generalized past a month’s time. A second control condition without self-monitoring or present-moment attention would have contributed positively to the design as well. Such a group would allow comparisons to an activity unassociated with CBT, isolating more working components. With the current design, it is difficult to know whether the similar changes in kill-joy thinking for both EMIs were due to placebo effects or true mechanisms.

Although replication is necessary, our findings suggest some preliminary clinical implications. Importantly, our results add to the growing evidence that positive emotion interventions can offer significant clinical benefits. Alongside the field’s many methods for regulating negative emotion, training clients in positive emotion skills may contribute to both treating ills and maximizing gains. Adding enjoyment practices to current approaches may make therapy more rewarding for clients, positively reinforcing attendance, task compliance, and overall skill engagement. These practices may also empower clients through payoffs that go beyond recovery into psychological prosperity—building a positive mindset toward expectations, priorities, and contrast-vulnerable emotions. For example, the present study suggests savoring practices may cultivate a more optimistic outlook, even for those chronically preoccupied with future threats. It is possible that more positive expectations may lead to greater patient treatment expectancy and engagement. Optimism may help patients believe they have a fruitful path forward—one worth their hard work. Savoring may also lead clients to shift their priorities from bracing for the worst to embracing life’s best. Often therapists are seeking these more hopeful perspectives and aims for their clients. Savoring may be one way to encourage not only a better pursuit of happiness, but also the perspective that—to some degree—it can be caught.

Supplementary Material

1
2
3
4

Highlights.

  • An RCT compared savoring and control EMIs on changes in positive mindset factors.

  • The savoring intervention increased optimism to a greater degree than the control.

  • It also led to greater increases in prioritizing positive emotion activities/goals.

  • Both active conditions significantly and similarly reduced kill-joy thinking.

  • Reductions in worry were mediated by increases in savoring, the proposed mechanism.

Acknowledgments

This research was partially funded by National Institute of Mental Health R01 MH115128.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

All materials can be made available upon reasonable request to the authors.

Declarations of interest: none.

1

Definition of non-standard abbreviations required by the journal: ASM = Active Self-Monitoring; GAD = Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

2

Note that some evidence suggests levels of approach motivation intensity may determine whether positive emotions broaden or narrow attention generally (Domachowska et al., 2016; Harmon-Jones et al., 2013). Yet regardless, the evidence clearly supports that positive emotions facilitate attention toward specifically positively-valenced stimuli and information, which may counter worry and threat hypervigilance (Smith et al., 2006).

3

We opted for FIML to handle missing data in this case because the Mplus statistical software does not allow for multiple imputation (MI) when modeling indirect effects for models with bias-corrected bootstrapping. Note that both MI and FIML provide unbiased parameter estimates and accurate standard errors when data are missing completely at random (MCAR) or missing at random (MAR; Newman, 2014) MI and ML produce results that are essentially identical to one another under MCAR and MAR (Collins et al., 2001), especially with less than 10% missingness. Our data had 8.49% missing and fit MCAR standards (see Missingness in Results). Within the specific context of our data and analyses, there is no established advantage of one method over the other (Newman, 2014). Note we went back and ran our outcome analyses with FIML to confirm: All results conclusions based on statistical significance were identical.

4

To confirm between-condition differences in savoring change, we ran a longitudinal linear mixed model where pre-to-mid time trend, condition, and their interaction predict savoring as a fixed effect with intercept as random effect. The results of this model showed that SkillJoy did increase savoring pre- to mid-trial to a greater degree than the ASM control (t(73.48) = 2.54, p = .03, d = 0.59).

References

  1. Abasi I, Shams G, Pascual-Vera B, Milosevic I, Bitarafan M, Ghanadanzadeh S, & Moghaddam MT (2023). Positive emotion regulation strategies as mediators in depression and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms: A transdiagnostic framework investigation. Current Psychology, 42(1), 800–807. 10.1007/s12144-021-01392-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Alexander R, Aragon OR, Bookwala J, Cherbuin N, Gatt JM, Kahrilas IJ, … Styliadis C (2021). The neuroscience of positive emotions and affect: Implications for cultivating happiness and wellbeing. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 121, 220–249. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/ 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baik SY, & Newman MG (2023). The transdiagnostic use of worry and rumination to avoid negative emotional contrasts following negative events: A momentary assessment study. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 95, 102679. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102679 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bean CAL, Summers CB, & Ciesla JA (2022). Dampening of positive affect and depression: A meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal relationships. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 156, 104153. 10.1016/j.brat.2022.104153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beblo T, Pelster S, Schilling C, Kleinke K, Iffland B, Driessen M, & Fernando S (2018). Breath versus emotions: The impact of different foci of attention during mindfulness meditation on the experience of negative and positive emotions. Behavior Therapy, 49(5), 702–714. 10.1016/j.beth.2017.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Biskas M, Cheung WY, Juhl J, Sedikides C, Wildschut T, & Hepper E (2019). A prologue to nostalgia: Savouring creates nostalgic memories that foster optimism. Cognition and Emotion, 33(3), 417–427. 10.1080/02699931.2018.1458705 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Brown TA, Antony MM, & Barlow DH (1992). Psychometric properties of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in a clinical anxiety disorders sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30(1), 33–37. 10.1016/0005-7967(92)90093-V [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bryant FB (2003). Savoring beliefs inventory (SBI): A scale for measuring beliefs about savoring. Journal of Mental Health, 12(2), 175–196. 10.1080/0963823031000103489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Bryant FB, & Veroff J (2007). Savoring: A new model of positive experience. Lawrence Erlbaum. [Google Scholar]
  11. Buhk AH, Schadegg MJ, Dixon LJ, & Tull MT (2020). Investigating the role of negative and positive emotional avoidance in the relation between generalized anxiety disorder and depression symptom severity. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 16, 103–108. 10.1016/j.jcbs.2020.03.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carver CS, & Scheier MF (2014). Dispositional optimism. Trends in Cognitive Science, 18(6), 293–299. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.02.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carver CS, Scheier MF, & Segerstrom SC (2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 879–889. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Catalino LI, Algoe SB, & Fredrickson BL (2014). Prioritizing positivity: An effective approach to pursuing happiness? Emotion, 14(6), 1155–1161. 10.1037/a0038029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Chadwick ED, Jose PE, & Bryant FB (2020). Styles of Everyday Savoring Differentially Predict Well-being in Adolescents Over One Month. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(2), 803–824. 10.1007/s10902-020-00252-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cohen J (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  17. Collins LM, Schafer JL, & Kam CM (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 330–351. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11778676 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Craske MG, Meuret AE, Echiverri-Cohen A, Rosenfield D, & Ritz T (2023). Positive affect treatment targets reward sensitivity: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 91(6), 350–366. 10.1037/ccp0000805 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Craske MG, Meuret AE, Ritz T, Treanor M, Dour H, & Rosenfield D (2019). Positive affect treatment for depression and anxiety: A randomized clinical trial for a core feature of anhedonia. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(5), 457–471. 10.1037/ccp0000396 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Cuijpers P, van Straten A, & Warmerdam L (2007). Behavioral activation treatments of depression: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(3), 318–326. 10.1016/j.cpr.2006.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Domachowska I, Heitmann C, Deutsch R, Goschke T, Scherbaum S, & Bolte A (2016). Approach-motivated positive affect reduces breadth of attention: Registered replication report of Gable and Harmon-Jones (2008). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 50–56. [Google Scholar]
  22. Eisner LR, Johnson SL, & Carver CS (2009). Positive affect regulation in anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(5), 645–649. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.02.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Feldman GC, Joormann J, & Johnson SL (2008). Responses to positive affect: A self-report measure of rumination and dampening. Cognitive Therapy Research, 32(4), 507–525. 10.1007/s10608-006-9083-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Fredrickson BL (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In Devine P & Plant A (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). Academic Press. 10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fredrickson BL, & Branigan C (2005). Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition and Emotion, 19(3), 313–332. 10.1080/02699930441000238 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Garland EL, Fredrickson B, Kring AM, Johnson DP, Meyer PS, & Penn DL (2010). Upward spirals of positive emotions counter downward spirals of negativity. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(7), 849–864. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Glaesmer H, Rief W, Martin A, Mewes R, Brahler E, Zenger M, & Hinz A (2012). Psychometric properties and population-based norms of the Life Orientation Test Revised (LOT-R). British Journal of Health Psychology, 17(2), 432–445. 10.1111/j.2044-8287.2011.02046.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Goodwin H, Yiend J, & Hirsch CR (2017). Generalized anxiety disorder, worry and attention to threat: A systematic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 54, 107–122. 10.1016/j.cpr.2017.03.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Grol M, Koster EH, Bruyneel L, & De Raedt R (2014). Effects of positive mood on attention broadening for self-related information. Psychological Research, 78(4), 566–573. 10.1007/s00426-013-0508-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Hallford DJ, Farrell H, & Lynch E (2022). Increasing anticipated and anticipatory pleasure through episodic thinking. Emotion, 22(4), 690–700. 10.1037/emo0000765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Harmon-Jones E, Gable PA, & Price TF (2013). Does negative affect always narrow and positive affect always broaden the mind? Considering the influence of motivational intensity on cognitive scope. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(4), 301–307. 10.1177/0963721413481 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jacobson NS, & Truax P (1991). Clinical significance: A statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(1), 12–19. 10.1037//0022-006X.59.1.12 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jiang C, & Papi M (2022). The motivation-anxiety interface in language learning: A regulatory focus perspective. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 32(1), 25–40. 10.1111/ijal.12375 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Johnson KJ, Waugh CE, & Fredrickson BL (2010). Smile to see the forest: Facially expressed positive emotions broaden cognition. Cognition and Emotion, 24(2), 299–321. 10.1080/02699930903384667 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Jose PE, Bryant FB, & Macaskill E (2020). Savor now and also reap the rewards later: Amplifying savoring predicts greater uplift frequency over time. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(6), 738–748. 10.1080/17439760.2020.1805504 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Jose PE, Lim BT, & Bryant FB (2012). Does savoring increase happiness? A daily diary study. Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 176–187. 10.1080/17439760.2012.671345 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kaveh-Farsani Z, Kaveh M, & Ghodrati Jabloo S (2021). The relationship between savouring beliefs, optimism, and subjective happiness in the elderly: The mediating role of life satisfaction. Aging Psychology, 7(3), 229–245. 10.22126/JAP.2021.6345.1522 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kiken LG, Lundberg KB, & Fredrickson BL (2017). Being present and enjoying it: Dispositional mindfulness and savoring the moment are distinct, interactive predictors of positive emotions and psychological health. Mindfulness, 8(5), 1280–1290. 10.1007/s12671-017-0704-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kim H, & Newman MG (2019). The paradox of relaxation training: Relaxation induced anxiety and mediation effects of contrast avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. Journal of Affective Disorders, 259, 271–278. 10.1016/j.jad.2019.08.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kim H, & Newman MG (2023). Worry and rumination enhance a positive emotional contrast based on the framework of the Contrast Avoidance Model. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 94, 102671. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2020). Exposing worry’s deceit: Percentage of untrue worries in Generalized Anxiety Disorder treatment. Behavior Therapy, 51(3), 413–423. 10.1016/j.beth.2019.07.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2023a). Reducing contrast avoidance in GAD by savoring positive emotions: Outcome and mediation in a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 93, 102659. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. LaFreniere LS, & Newman MG (2023b). Upregulating positive emotion in generalized anxiety disorder: A randomized controlled trial of the SkillJoy ecological momentary intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 91(6), 381–387. 10.1037/ccp0000794 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Llera SJ, & Newman MG (2010). Effects of worry on physiological and subjective reactivity to emotional stimuli in generalized anxiety disorder and nonanxious control participants. Emotion, 10(5), 640–650. 10.1037/a0019351 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Llera SJ, & Newman MG (2014). Rethinking the role of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: Evidence supporting a model of emotional contrast avoidance. Behavior Therapy, 45(3), 283–299. 10.1016/j.beth.2013.12.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Llera SJ, & Newman MG (2017). Development and validation of two measures of emotional contrast avoidance: The Contrast Avoidance Questionnaires. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 49, 114–127. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2017.04.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Llewellyn N, Dolcos S, Iordan AD, Rudolph KD, & Dolcos F (2013). Reappraisal and suppression mediate the contribution of regulatory focus to anxiety in healthy adults. Emotion, 13(4), 610–615. 10.1037/a0032568 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Malivoire BL, Marcotte-Beaumier G, Sumantry D, & Koerner N (2022). Correlates of dampening and savoring in generalized anxiety disorder. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 15(4), 414–433. 10.1007/s41811-022-00145-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, & Borkovec TD (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. 10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Myers DG, & Diener E (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10–19. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00298.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  51. Nagy GA, Cernasov P, Pisoni A, Walsh E, Dichter GS, & Smoski MJ (2020). Reward network modulation as a mechanism of change in behavioral activation. Behavior Modification, 44(2), 186–213. 10.1177/0145445518805682 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Nelis S, Holmes EA, & Raes F (2015). Response styles to positive affect and depression: Concurrent and prospective associations in a community sample. Cognitve Therapy Research, 39(4), 480–491. 10.1007/s10608-015-9671-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Nes LS, & Segerstrom SC (2006). Dispositional optimism and coping: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 235–251. 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Newman DA (2014). Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organizational Research Methods, 17(4), 372–411. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1094428114548590 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Newman MG, Jacobson NC, Zainal NH, Shin KE, Szkodny LE, & Sliwinski MJ (2019). The effects of worry in daily life: An ecological momentary assessment study supporting the tenets of the contrast avoidance model. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(4), 794–810. 10.1177/2167702619827019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Newman MG, & Llera SJ (2011). A novel theory of experiential avoidance in generalized anxiety disorder: A review and synthesis of research supporting a Contrast Avoidance Model of worry. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 371–382. 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.01.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Newman MG, Llera SJ, Erickson TM, Przeworski A, & Castonguay LG (2013). Worry and generalized anxiety disorder: A review and theoretical synthesis of research on nature, etiology, and treatment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 275–297. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185544 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Newman MG, Rackoff GN, Zhu Y, & Kim H (2023). A transdiagnostic evaluation of contrast avoidance across generalized anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 93, 102662. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102662 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Newman MG, Schwob JT, Rackoff GN, Shin KE, Kim H, & Van Doren N (2022). The naturalistic reinforcement of worry from positive and negative emotional contrasts: Results from a momentary assessment study within social interactions. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 92, 102634. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2022.102634 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Newman MG, Zuellig AR, Kachin KE, Constantino MJ, Przeworski A, Erickson T, & Cashman-McGrath L (2002). Preliminary reliability and validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire-IV: A revised self-report diagnostic measure of generalized anxiety disorder. Behavior Therapy, 33(2), 215–233. 10.1016/S0005-7894(02)80026-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  61. Öcal EE, Demirtaş Z, Atalay BI, Önsüz MF, Işıklı B, Metintaş S, & Yenilmez Ç (2022). Relationship between mental disorders and optimism in a community-based sample of adults. Behavioral Science, 12(2). 10.3390/bs12020052 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. PACO Developers. (2018). PACO: The Personal Analytics Companion (Version 1.1.8.2). [Mobile application software]. Retrieved January 20th from https://www.pacoapp.com/
  63. Palmer CA, Oosterhoff B, & Gentzler AL (2021). Don’t Worry, Be Happy: Associations Between Worry and Positive Emotion Regulation. International Journal of Cognitive Therapy, 14(3), 417–435. 10.1007/s41811-020-00081-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Pennebaker JW (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process. Psychological Science, 8(3), 162–166. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00403.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  65. Peters ML, Meevissen YMC, & Hanssen MM (2013). Specificity of the best possible self intervention for increasing optimism: Comparison with a gratitude intervention. Terapia Psicológica, 31(1), 93–100. 10.4067/s0718-48082013000100009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  66. Preacher KJ, & Hayes AF (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. 10.3758/BRM.40.3.879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Purol MF, & Chopik WJ (2021). Optimism: Enduring resource or miscalibrated perception? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 15(5), e12593. 10.1111/spc3.12593 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  68. Quoidbach J, Berry EV, Hansenne M, & Mikolajczak M (2010). Positive emotion regulation and well-being: Comparing the impact of eight savoring and dampening strategies. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(5), 368–373. 10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  69. Rasmussen HN, Scheier MF, & Greenhouse JB (2009). Optimism and physical health: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 37(3), 239–256. 10.1007/s12160-009-9111-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosen FN, & LaFreniere LS (2023). Savoring, worry, and positive emotion duration in generalized anxiety disorder: Assessment and interventional experiment. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 97, 102724. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2023.102724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Rosenthal R (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In Cooper H & Hedges LV (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis. Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  72. Sandman CF, & Craske MG (2022). Psychological treatments for anhedonia. In Pizzagalli DA & Der-Avakian A (Eds.), Current Topics in Behavioral Neuroscience (pp. 491–513). Springer. 10.1007/7854_2021_291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Scheier MF, Carver CS, & Bridges MW (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of the life orientation test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1063–1078. 10.1037//0022-3514.67.6.1063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, … Dunbar GC (2015). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.) Version 7. DSM-5. [PubMed]
  75. Sin NL, & Lyubomirsky S (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 467–487. 10.1002/jclp.20593 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Skinner BF (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. [Google Scholar]
  77. Smith JL, & Bryant FB (2017). Savoring and well-being: Mapping the cognitive-emotional terrain of the happy mind. In Robinson MD & Eid M (Eds.), The happy mind: Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 139–156). Springer. 10.1007/978-3-319-58763-9_8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  78. Smith NK, Larsen JT, Chartrand TL, Cacioppo JT, Katafiasz HA, & Moran KE (2006). Being bad isn’t always good: Affective context moderates the attention bias toward negative information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(2), 210–220. 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.210 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Startup HM, & Erickson TM (2006). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ). In Davey GCL & Wells A (Eds.), Worry and Its Psychological Disorders: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
  80. Sytine AI, Britt TW, Sawhney G, Wilson CA, & Keith M (2019). Savoring as a moderator of the daily demands and psychological capital relationship: A daily diary study. Journal of Positive Psychology, 14(5), 641–648. 10.1080/17439760.2018.1519590 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  81. Taylor B, & Gibbs K (2018). Quip (Version 5.2.1) [Mobile Application software]. Retrieved January 20th from https://quip.com
  82. Taylor CT, Lyubomirsky S, & Stein MB (2017). Upregulating the positive affect system in anxiety and depression: Outcomes of a positive activity intervention. Depression and Anxiety, 34(3), 267–280. 10.1002/da.22593 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Titova Grandchamp VA, Gordeeva TO, & Sychev OA (2021). Optimistic attributional style as a predictor of well-being: Exploring the mediating roles of gratitude and savoring the moment. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 14(3), 50–67. 10.11621/pir.2021.0304 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Wang BA, Poole LZ, & Balderrama-Durbin CM (2022). Effects and mechanisms of a savoring-based single session intervention for partnered individuals. International Journal of Applied Positive Psychology. 10.1007/s41042-022-00065-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  85. Werner-Seidler A, Banks R, Dunn BD, & Moulds ML (2013). An investigation of the relationship between positive affect regulation and depression. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 51(1), 46–56. 10.1016/j.brat.2012.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Wilson KA, & MacNamara A (2021). Savor the moment: Willful increase in positive emotion and the persistence of this effect across time. Psychophysiology, 58(3), e13754. 10.1111/psyp.13754 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Woltin KA, Sassenberg K, & Albayrak N (2018). Regulatory focus, coping strategies and symptoms of anxiety and depression: A comparison between Syrian refugees in Turkey and Germany. PLoS ONE, 13(10), e0206522. 10.1371/journal.pone.0206522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

1
NIHMS1988803-supplement-1.docx (21.4KB, docx)
2
NIHMS1988803-supplement-2.docx (37.2KB, docx)
3
NIHMS1988803-supplement-3.docx (15KB, docx)
4
NIHMS1988803-supplement-4.pdf (1.1MB, pdf)

RESOURCES