Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Decentering and Related Constructs: Capacity and Limitations of Extant Assessment Scales

  • ORIGINAL PAPER
  • Published:
Mindfulness Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Decentering and related constructs reflect the capacity to shift experiential perspective—from within one’s subjective experience onto that experience. According to the metacognitive processes model of decentering, these constructs are subserved by three metacognitive processes—meta-awareness, disidentification from internal experience, and reduced reactivity to thought content. We evaluated the latent dimensional structure across multiple published self-report measures of decentering and related constructs by means of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. We then, in two studies, examined the associations between the observed latent dimensions and key criterion variables so as to better understand the metacognitive processes reflected by the observed latent dimensions. We found that the only empirically and theoretically interpretable factor solution reflected two orthogonal factors. Based on item composition (eight Drexel Defusion Scale items) and theory, we labeled factor I “Intentional Decentered Perspective”—reflecting intentional states of disidentified and non-reactive meta-awareness of mental phenomena. Associations with criterion variables such as identification with internal experience during a meta-awareness with disidentification meditation supported this interpretation. Likewise, based on item composition (Cognitive Fusion Questionnaire items) and theory, we labeled factor II “Automatic Reactivity to Thought Content.” Associations with criterion variables such as rumination, thought suppression, and judging of experience supported this interpretation. Findings highlight limitations of a number of extant self-report measures of decentering and related constructs, point to an intriguing distinction between intentional and automatic metacognitive processes in decentering, and inform the need for and development of multi-method measures of decentering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). Amos 18 user's guide. Crawfordville: Amos Development Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. doi:10.1177/1073191105283504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., et al. (2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342. doi:10.1177/1073191107313003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bargh, J. A., Schwader, K. L., Hailey, S. E., Dyer, R. L., & Boothby, E. J. (2012). Automaticity in social-cognitive processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(12), 593–605. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2012.10.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Beck anxiety inventory: manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 893–897. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, A., & Brantz, H. (2013). Tolerance of negative affective states (TNAS): development and evaluation of a novel construct and measure. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(3), 421–433. doi:10.1007/s10608-012-9471-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, A., Hadash, Y., Lichtash, Y., Tanay, G., Shepherd, K., & Fresco, D. M. (2015). Decentering and related constructs: a critical review and metacognitive processes model. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(5), 599–617. doi:10.1177/1745691615594577.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Oxford: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. A., Antony, M. M., & Barlow, D. H. (1992). Psychometric properties of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire in a clinical anxiety disorders sample. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 30(1), 33–37. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(92)90093-V.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, C. J., Lutz, A., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Reconstructing and deconstructing the self: cognitive mechanisms in meditation practice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(9), 515–523. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.001.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Davey, G. C. L. (1993). A comparison of three worry questionnaires. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31(1), 51–56. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(93)90042-S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Desbordes, G., Gard, T., Hoge, E. A., Hölzel, B. K., Kerr, C., Lazar, S. W., et al. (2014). Moving beyond mindfulness: defining equanimity as an outcome measure in meditation and contemplative research. Mindfulness, 6(2), 356–372. doi:10.1007/s12671-013-0269-8.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Erisman, S. M., & Roemer, L. (2010). A preliminary investigation of the effects of experimentally induced mindfulness on emotional responding to film clips. Emotion, 10(1), 72–82. doi:10.1037/a0017162.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. M., Herbert, J. D., Juarascio, A. S., Yeomans, P. D., Zebell, J. A., Goetter, E. M., & Moitra, E. (2012). The drexel defusion scale: a new measure of experiential distancing. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1–2), 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2012.09.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fresco, D. M., Moore, M. T., van Dulmen, M. H., Segal, Z. V., Ma, S. H., Teasdale, J. D., & Williams, J. M. (2007). Initial psychometric properties of the experiences questionnaire: validation of a self-report measure of decentering. Behavior Therapy, 38(3), 234–246. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 304–312. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gillanders, D. T., Bolderston, H., Bond, F. W., Dempster, M., Flaxman, P. E., Campbell, L., et al. (2014). The development and initial validation of the cognitive fusion questionnaire. Behavior Therapy, 45(1), 83–101. doi:10.1016/j.beth.2013.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Three methods for analyzing limited time-series (N of 1) data. Behavioral Assessment, 5(2), 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadash, Y., Segev, N., Tanay, G., Goldstein, P., & Bernstein, A. (2016a). The decoupling model of equanimity: theory, measurement, and test in a mindfulness intervention. Mindfulness, 7(5), 1214–1226. doi:10.1007/s12671-016-0564-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadash, Y., Plonsker, R., Vago, D. R., & Bernstein, A. (2016b). Experiential self-referential and selfless processing in mindfulness and mental health: conceptual model and implicit measurement methodology. Psychological Assessment, 28(7), 856–869. doi:10.1037/pas0000300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: the process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henson, R. K., & Roberts, J. K. (2006). Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research: common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 393–416. doi:10.1177/0013164405282485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzberg, K. N., Sheppard, S. C., Forsyth, J. P., Credé, M., Earleywine, M., & Eifert, G. H. (2012). The believability of anxious feelings and thoughts questionnaire (BAFT): a psychometric evaluation of cognitive fusion in a nonclinical and highly anxious community sample. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 877–891. doi:10.1037/a0027782.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hollon, S. D., & Kendall, P. C. (1980). Cognitive self-statements in depression: development of an automatic thoughts questionnaire. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 4(4), 383–395. doi:10.1007/BF01178214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6, 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, R. E., & Hollon, S. D. (1986). Cognitive therapy for depression from an information processing perspective. In R. E. Ingram (Ed.), Information processing approaches to clinical psychology (xi ed., pp. 259–281). San Diego: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaccard, J., & Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction effects in multiple regression. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Mulaik, S. A., & Brett, J. M. (1982). Causal analysis: assumptions, models, and data. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Just, N., & Alloy, L. B. (1997). The response styles theory of depression: tests and an extension of the theory. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106(2), 221–229. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.106.2.221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kross, E., Ayduk, O., & Mischel, W. (2005). When asking “why” does not hurt: distinguishing rumination from reflective processing of negative emotions. Psychological Science, 16(9), 709–715. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehner, C., & Weber, I. (1999). Responses to depression in unipolar depressed patients: an investigation of nolen-hoeksema's response styles theory. Psychological Medicine, 29(6), 1323–1333. doi:10.1017/S0033291799001282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., et al. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12), 1445–1467. doi:10.1002/jclp.20326.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C. (2009). Factor analysis. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 123–147). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahasi, S. (1978). Practical vipassanā meditational exercises. Rangoon: Buddhasāsanānuggaha Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28(6), 487–495. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(90)90135-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Molina, S., & Borkovec, T. D. (1994). The Penn State Worry Questionnaire: psychometric properties and associated characteristics. In G. Davey & F. Tallis (Eds.), Worrying: Perspectives on theory, assessment, and treatment (pp. 265–283). Sussex, England: Wiley & Sons.

  • Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., & Horselenberg, R. (1996). Individual differences in thought suppression. The white bear suppression inventory: factor structure, reliability, validity and correlates. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34(5–6), 501–513. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(96)00005-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Naragon-Gainey, K., & DeMarree, K. G. (2016). Structure and validity of measures of decentering and defusion. Psychological Assessment, Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000405.

  • Nolan, S. A., Roberts, J. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (1998). Neuroticism and ruminative response style as predictors of change in depressive symptomatology. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 22(5), 445–455. doi:10.1023/A:1018769531641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2000). The role of rumination in depressive disorders and mixed anxiety/depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(3), 504–511. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.109.3.504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Morrow, J. (1991). A prospective study of depression and posttraumatic stress symptoms after a natural disaster: the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(1), 115–121. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.61.1.115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Parker, L. E., & Larson, J. (1994). Ruminative coping with depressed mood following loss. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(1), 92–104. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.1.92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32(3), 396–402. doi:10.3758/BF03200807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Distinguishing automatic and controlled components of attitudes from direct and indirect measurement methods. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 386–396. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, N., & Stults, D. M. (1985). Factors defined by negatively keyed items: the result of careless respondents? Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(4), 367–373. doi:10.1177/014662168500900405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M., & Teasdale, J. D. (2013). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2015). The science of mind wandering: empirically navigating the stream of consciousness. Annual Review of Psychology, 66(1), 487–518. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015331.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spasojevic, J., & Alloy, L. B. (2001). Rumination as a common mechanism relating depressive risk factors to depression. Emotion, 1(1), 25–37. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.1.1.25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State mindfulness scale (SMS): development and initial validation. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1286–1299. doi:10.1037/a0034044.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., & Cox, B. J. (1998). An expanded anxiety sensitivity index: evidence for a hierarchic structure in a clinical sample. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 12(5), 463–483. doi:10.1016/S0887-6185(98)00028-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., Zvolensky, M. J., Cox, B. J., Deacon, B., Heimberg, R. G., Ledley, D. R., et al. (2007). Robust dimensions of anxiety sensitivity: development and initial validation of the anxiety sensitivity index-3. Psychological Assessment, 19(2), 176–188. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.2.176.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, J. D., Scott, J., Moore, R. G., Hayhurst, H., Pope, M., & Paykel, E. S. (2001). How does cognitive therapy prevent relapse in residual depression? Evidence from a controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(3), 347–357. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.69.3.347.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teasdale, J. D., Moore, R. G., Hayhurst, H., Pope, M., Williams, S., & Segal, Z. V. (2002). Metacognitive awareness and prevention of relapse in depression: empirical evidence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(2), 275–287. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.70.2.275.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M., & Zanakos, S. (1994). Chronic thought suppression. Journal of Personality, 62(4), 615–640. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00311.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zettle, R. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1986). Dysfunctional control by client verbal behavior: the context of reason-giving. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 4, 30–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zvolensky, M. J., Schmidt, N. B., Bernstein, A., & Keough, M. E. (2006). Risk-factor research and prevention programs for anxiety disorders: a translational research framework. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(9), 1219–1239. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.06.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Dr. Bernstein recognizes the funding support from the Israel Science Foundation (grant number 1136/2011), Israeli Council for Higher Education YigalAlon Fellowship, and the European Union FP-7 Marie Curie Fellowship International Reintegration Grant. Mr. Hadash recognizes the support from the University of Haifa President’s Doctoral Fellowship Program. Amit Bernstein and graduate students Yael Lichtash and Yuval Hadash designed the studies, analyzed the data, and worked on the manuscript. We want to thank research assistants Karin Levi and Adi Ohayon for their help in carrying out the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, 31905, Haifa, Israel

    Yuval Hadash, Yael Lichtash & Amit Bernstein

Authors
  1. Yuval Hadash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yael Lichtash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amit Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amit Bernstein.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 15 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 47.4 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hadash, Y., Lichtash, Y. & Bernstein, A. Measuring Decentering and Related Constructs: Capacity and Limitations of Extant Assessment Scales. Mindfulness 8, 1674–1688 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0743-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0743-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation