For there is nothing either good or bad: a study of the mediating effect of interpretation bias on the association between mindfulness and reduced post-traumatic stress vulnerability

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in the association between mindfulness and reduced trauma vulnerability, and the use of mindfulness in the latest interventions for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), few studies have examined the mechanisms through which mindfulness may influence post-trauma psychopathology. The present study aimed to determine whether negative interpretation bias, the tendency to interpret ambiguous information as negative or threatening rather than positive or safe, mediates the association between higher levels of trait mindfulness and lower levels of PTSD symptoms. Negative interpretation bias was examined due to prior evidence indicating it is associated with being less mindful and post trauma psychopathology. METHODS: The study examined 133 undergraduate students who reported exposure to one or more potentially traumatic events in their lifetime. Participants completed self-report measures of trait mindfulness (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire – Short Form; FFMQ-SF) and PTSD symptoms (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist – Civilian version; PCL-C) as well an interpretation bias task that assessed the degree to which participants interpreted a range of everyday hypothetical scenarios to be threatening to their physical and/or psychological wellbeing. RESULTS: Results of a mediation analysis indicated a significant negative direct effect of trait mindfulness on PTSD symptomatology (p < .001). There was no evidence that negative interpretation bias mediated this relationship [BCa CI [-0.04, 0.03)], nor was it associated with trait mindfulness (p = .90) and PTSD symptomatology (p = .37). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study provide further evidence of the link between trait mindfulness and reduced post-trauma psychopathology while providing no support for the role of negative interpretation bias in this relationship. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-03950-y.