A pilot field trial: Evaluating the effectiveness of psychoeducation materials and a brief sleep,...
-
Upload
hans-chung -
Category
Education
-
view
173 -
download
2
Transcript of A pilot field trial: Evaluating the effectiveness of psychoeducation materials and a brief sleep,...
A PILOT FIELD TRIAL: EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
PSYCHOEDUCATION MATERIALS AND A BRIEF SLEEP,
MEDIA-MULTITASKING AND MINDFULNESS MEDITATION
INTERVENTION FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS.
HANS CHUNG LAI TUNG
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE
2015/2016
RUNNING HEAD: Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and
mindfulness intervention.
A pilot field trial: Evaluating the effectiveness of psychoeducation materials and a
brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness meditation intervention for university
students.
Chung Lai Tung Hans
Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for
The Degree of Bachelor of Social Sciences with Honours (Psychology)
2015/2016
i
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisors, Dr. Power and Dr. Gregor for their
invaluable support in guiding me along with this thesis. Dr. Gregor, for your realistic
advice in keeping my ambitious goals and ideas in check, and for providing me with
the rich starting materials upon which this thesis is based. I will forever keep the
lesson in mind to not hinder my future progress and success by “Nobel prize”
thinking. To Dr. Power, thank you so much for your unwavering support and patience
in guiding me through the process of formulating this thesis. I am truly and sincerely
touched by the long hours you spent with me helping me to understand the statistics
behind my data, especially when I was overwhelmed by the sheer amount of
measures. I have learnt so much from you these past few months. Thank you for
bearing with my “creative” ideas of reference conditions, dual repeated-measures type
of conceptualizations given my unfamiliarity with multivariate models. You have
certainly enlightened me to a different world of statistics. I hope you have enjoyed the
past few months with me as well and I wish you a good read ahead.
The findings in this thesis would not have been possible without the tenacious
support of my 67 participants. Your efforts have truly made a difference in this
important milestone of my life. Thank you for bearing with the long sessions of pre
and post-testing phases and the multiple health behaviours you attempted to change. I
know it was not an easy ask of you during that period. Seriously, thank you for
responding to my recruitment calls from all sorts of avenues in a time when I was so
worried about having to face you all, to potentially postpone the study. I hope you
have enjoyed the graphic e-book designed for you. Our relationship should not end
with this thesis as I hope that you will continue to practice being mindful, sleep more
ii
and media-multitask less for your long term benefit. Read on to find out more (you
should also have received this with an email to more resources).
To all the friends I’ve met and made in NUS, and also from beyond, thank you
for being a part of my journey in school and contributing in your own ways to make
me who I am. I know I haven’t always been around (busy working outside), but I truly
appreciate the companionship and friendships we have. Thank you for all the words of
encouragement you have gifted me. They have helped me get through the process
along the way.
To my girlfriend, Kimberly for always being there for me when I am at my
lowest, dealing with disappointment, frustrations and grief. Thank you for never
failing to be my support system and to care for me so selflessly these past few
months. I love you.
To my family, who have been with me for the past 24+ years. Thank you for
giving me a loving home to return to even though we may not always adequately and
efficaciously expressed our love for each other. To my mum for always supporting me
and encouraging me to do my best, and for that, to my father as well who always tries
to make us happy and works so hard to provide for us. To my brother, I know we
aren’t chatty but I know we both care for each other. Thank you.
Lastly, I would like to thank someone who has been there for me since I was 9
months old. Thank you auntie Betty for always being there for me and entertaining
my various antics for the past 24 years. You have worked so hard to take care of our
family for so many years. I will miss our bantering and me coming home every day to
say hello. I still walk past the room at night expecting to see you sleeping there. I was
heartbroken that you had to leave just 2 weeks before this was due but I know that it’s
time for you to go back to your family. You came over when Christopher was just 9
iii
years old and you’ve missed him growing up just to watch us grow up. Thank you for
the sacrifices you’ve made and for the love you have for all of us. We love you too.
See you soon.
This thesis is dedicated to all those who have made a difference in my life, regardless
how big or small the impact.
iv
Abstract
Psychoeducational materials were compiled targeting health behaviours (sleep,
media-multitasking, mindfulness) in undergraduate students. 67 students were
recruited and randomly assigned to 3 conditions: Control, Psychoeducation only and
psychoeducation with Practice. Intervention conditions were tasked with behavioural
change (10 days), after receiving a psychoeducation module. The Headspace Take10
guided meditation was a structured intervention for Practice subjects along with daily
text reminders. Behaviours (PSQI, MMI, Mindful habits) and outcomes (PANAS,
ERQ, DASS-21, CAMS-R, Stroop test) were measured at pre-test and post-test.
Results revealed limited success. Psychoeducation alone (versus Controls) was not
successful in behavioural change and subsequent outcomes. Only Practice subjects
significantly increased mindful practice duration, of which change scores as a
covariate predicted significant differences in reappraisal strategies that were also
found. Mindfulness levels did approach significant increase. Over the study but not
differentially across the conditions, sleep duration, media-multitasking, DASS-21
subscales and negative affect improved. Limitations included small sample size, study
timing and brief intervention length. The inefficacy of psychoeducation was discussed
within the Information-Motivation-Strategy model of health behaviour change, where
weaknesses in motivation and strategy were assessed. The findings demonstrate
promising mindfulness increases with brief intervention and also suggests the
predictive utility of mindfulness practice on increased usage of reappraisal strategies.
Future research should improve the psychoeducation and interventions to better
produce holistic outcomes for the university population.
Keywords: mindfulness meditation, sleep, media-multitasking,
psychoeducation, pilot field trial
v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................... i
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents .........................................................................................................v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. vii
List of Figures ........................................................................................................... viii
List of Appendices ...................................................................................................... ix
Introduction ..................................................................................................................1
Emotion Regulation ................................................................................................... 1
Mental Health ............................................................................................................. 5
Sleep Behaviours: Trends and Effects among University Students .................... 7
Media-Multitasking Behaviours: Trends and Effects among University
Students ..................................................................................................................... 12
Mindfulness and Its Beneficial Effects ................................................................. 16
Mindfulness for Students ........................................................................................ 22
Objectives and Experimental Design .................................................................... 24
Predictions and Hypotheses .................................................................................... 24
Methods .......................................................................................................................25
Subjects and Recruitment ........................................................................................ 25
Experimental Design................................................................................................ 25
Measures and Protocol ............................................................................................ 25
Procedure ................................................................................................................... 32
vi
Results .........................................................................................................................36
Statistical Analyses .................................................................................................. 36
Behavioural Measures ............................................................................................. 41
Outcome Measures ................................................................................................... 53
Psychoeducation Test Scores .................................................................................. 65
Programme Evaluation ............................................................................................ 65
Further Analyses and Observations ....................................................................... 65
Summary of Key Results......................................................................................... 66
Discussion....................................................................................................................67
Mindfulness Training Predicting the Use of Reappraisal Strategies ................. 67
Promising Changes in Mindfulness Levels within a Brief 10-Days Training . 70
Behavioural and Outcome Improvements across Time: Academic Situation
and Environment ...................................................................................................... 70
Interventions in the Present Study and Suggestions for Improvement ............. 72
Limitations of the Present Study ............................................................................ 80
Promising Attitudes from the Intervention ........................................................... 81
Conclusion: Implications, Future Developments and Research ........................ 82
References ...................................................................................................................85
Appendices ................................................................................................................113
vii
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Descriptive Statistics (Behavioural measures) ...........................................37
Table 1.2 Descriptive Statistics (Outcome measures) ................................................38
Table 1.3 Descriptive Statistics (Programme Evaluation – post-test only) ................39
Table 2.1 Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different
condition-pairs at each time level). .............................................................................43
Table 2.2 Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different time-
pairs at each condition level). ......................................................................................44
Table 3.1 Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different
gender-pairs at each time level). .................................................................................47
Table 3.2 Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different time-
pairs at each gender level). ..........................................................................................48
Table 4.1 Pairwise comparisons for CAMS-R (different condition-pairs at each time
level). ............................................................................................................................57
Table 4.2 Pairwise comparisons for CAMS-R (different time-pairs at each condition
level) .............................................................................................................................58
Table 5.1 Pairwise comparisons for reappraisal (different condition-pairs at each
time level). ....................................................................................................................61
Table 5.2 Pairwise comparisons for reappraisal (different time-pairs at each
condition level).............................................................................................................62
viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Study timeline. .............................................................................................35
Figure 2. Interaction effects of condition across time for weekly mindful practice
duration. .......................................................................................................................42
Figure 3. Interaction effects of gender across time for weekly mindful practice
duration. .......................................................................................................................46
Figure 4. Side-by-side paired comparisons of female interaction effects of condition
across time for weekly mindful practice duration........................................................50
Figure 5. Side-by-side paired comparisons of male interaction effects of condition
across time for weekly mindful practice duration........................................................52
Figure 6. Interaction effects of condition across time for CAMS-R. ..........................56
ix
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Participation Information Sheet ...........................................................113
Appendix B: Consent Form .......................................................................................115
Appendix C: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) ...............................116
Appendix D: Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) ..........................................118
Appendix E: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales - 21 (DASS-21) ..............................120
Appendix F: Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale - Revised (CAMS-R) ......123
Appendix G: Mindful Lifestyle Habits Questionnaire ...............................................125
Appendix H: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) ................................................126
Appendix I: Media Multitasking Index (MMI) .........................................................130
Appendix J: Stroop Test Stimuli ................................................................................137
Appendix K: Psychoeducation Materials...................................................................140
Appendix L: 10-Day Challenge Worksheet ...............................................................164
Appendix M: Psychoeducation Test ..........................................................................166
Appendix N: Program Evaluation (Psychoeducation and Practice Conditions Only)
....................................................................................................................................170
Appendix O: Schedule of Text Reminders ................................................................175
Appendix P.1: Sleep Duration (PSQI) Analyses .......................................................183
Appendix P.2: Media-Multitasking (MMI) Analyses ................................................185
Appendix P.3: Sleep Quality (PSQI) Analyses..........................................................187
Appendix P.4: Weekly Mindful Practice Duration Analyses ....................................189
Appendix P.5: Depression (DASS-21) Analyses.......................................................201
x
Appendix P.6: Anxiety (DASS-21) Analyses ............................................................203
Appendix P.7: Stress (DASS-21) Analyses ...............................................................211
Appendix P.8: Negative Affect (PANAS) Analyses .................................................213
Appendix P.9: Incongruent Trials Mean Response Time (Stroop) Analyses ............215
Appendix P.10: Congruent Trials Mean Response Time (Stroop) Analyses ............217
Appendix P.11: Stroop Effect Analyses ....................................................................220
Appendix P.12: Mindfulness (CAMS-R) Analyses ...................................................223
Appendix P.13: Reappraisal (ERQ) Analyses ...........................................................231
Appendix P.14: Suppression (ERQ) Analyses...........................................................241
Appendix P.15: Positive Affect (PANAS) Analyses .................................................243
Appendix P.16: Psychoeducation Test Analyses .......................................................245
Appendix P.17: Programme Evaluation Analyses .....................................................247
Appendix P.18: Further Analyses ..............................................................................268
Appendix Q: Challenges Faced .................................................................................278
Appendix R: Gratitude Expression ............................................................................290
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 1
Introduction
The pursuit of a university education can be a challenging endeavour, with
competition, workload and deadlines contributing to a stressful environment. In a
recent study, 30.5% of students cited educational progress as a source of stress
(Ramezankhani, et al., 2013). Behavioural adaptations of students within such an
environment may be potentially costly, both physical and mentally; for example,
sacrificing sleep, mindlessness or multitasking.
However, life is not only about the pursuit of academic grades and
performance, as students might be inclined to (Hwee, 2014). Other domains like
positive emotions, physical well-being, social relationships and activities, personal
growth and self-acceptance also matter and contribute holistically to our quality of life
(Burckhardt & Anderson, 2003), subjective (Diener & Chan, 2011) and psychological
well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). This study aims to achieve holistic outcomes in
some of these areas, specifically in mental health, emotion regulation and
mindfulness. The goal is to motivate students to adopt more adaptive health
behaviours in sleep, multitasking and mindfulness through psychoeducation and also
a brief intervention; assisting them in achieving these holistic outcomes.
Emotion Regulation
The process model of emotion regulation (Gross & John, 2003) has been well-
established and researched upon since its conception. The process model posits two
key processes of emotion regulation: the reappraisal process targeting cognitive
change antecedent to emotional response and the suppression process targeting the
experiential, behavioural and physiological emotional responses. Cognitive
reappraisal has the effect of changing the emotional response outcome before it even
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 2
occurs while expressive suppression involves active management (suppression) of the
emotional response that has already occurred.
The differential outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression
strategies have been well documented. Reappraisal is associated with greater
interpersonal functioning, wellbeing, experience and expression of positive emotions
but lesser for negative emotions, while suppression shows the opposite relationship
(Gross & John, 2003; Haga, Kraft, & Corby, 2009; John & Gross, 2004). More
importantly, reappraisal is superior in modifying responses to negative stimuli,
decreasing cardiovascular response (Cavanagh, 2013; Richards & Gross, 1999) while
suppression actually increases amygdala activation (Vanderhasselt, Baeken, Van
Schuerbeek, Luypaert, & De Raedt, 2013). Reappraisal has also been shown to be
faster, with more fronto-cingulate activity (which suppression did not demonstrate)
(Vanderhasselt, Baeken, Van Schuerbeek, Luypaert, & De Raedt, 2013); earlier
prefrontal cortex (PFC) responses and also decreased amygdala and insular responses
as opposed to suppression (Goldin, McRae, Ramel, & Gross, 2008). However,
suppression did also demonstrate decrease in the subjective emotional experience and
emotional behaviours (not for reappraisal) (Goldin, McRae, Ramel, & Gross, 2008).
Suppression has also been associated with costs beyond the affective and
physiological domains. The process of suppression compromises memory in
subsequent recall (Richards & Gross, 1999), which was differential from reappraisal
strategies (Richards & Gross, 2000). Suppressors also had poorer self-reported
memory as well. This resource-depletion effect of suppression also implicates neural
correlates of performance monitoring, differentially resulting in reduced error
detection (error-related negativity) as well as reduced accuracy on incongruent Stroop
trials (Wang & Yang, 2014).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 3
Emotional problems are a frequent issue in clinical psychopathology (Sheppes,
Suri, & Gross, 2015) and mental health issues may potentially arise from
contributions of a failure to regulate emotions or using the wrong emotion regulation
strategy (e.g. situational avoidance in phobias and anxiety) (Gross & Jazaieri, 2014).
Specifically to reappraisal and suppression, positive correlations have been found
with depression and use of suppression. However, suppression strategies did not
predict depressive symptoms, but instead depressive symptoms preceded increased
usage of suppression strategies in adolescents (Larsen, et al., 2013). This
“suppression-preference” relationship extends to clinical depression where subjects
greatly suppressed both positive and negative emotions compared to healthy controls
(Beblo, et al., 2012). This suppression was also closely associated to depressive
symptoms and the fear of emotions. Reappraisal on the other hand, was found to be
better at regulating both physiological arousal and subjective feeling of anxiety than
suppression strategies (Hofmann, Heering, Sawyer, & Asnaani, 2009). While these
studies further emphasize the benefits of reappraisal over suppression in the
presentation of psychopathology, one study does argue for a balanced and adaptive
use of these strategies contingent on the situational context. Eftekhari, Zoellner and
Vigil (2009) found that a high reappraisal and low suppression combination group
presented with the lowest reports of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress
disorder in contrast with other combinations: high regulators, moderate
reappraisal/low suppression and low regulators. In fact, low regulators presented with
the highest reports of problems, supporting the contribution of failure of regulation to
psychopathology.
There are however some alternative findings regarding reappraisal and
suppression that further inform their utility. Kalokerinos, Greenaway and Denson
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 4
(2015) found that reappraisal downregulated both positive and negative emotional
experiences while suppression did not. They suggested that suppression might have
the benefit of suppressing displays of positive emotion behaviour while not detracting
from the positive experience which may be useful in some situations (which may
require humility). Suppression was also found to be faster than reappraisal in response
to negative stimuli for Chinese subjects, although this came at a greater cognitive
(increased neural activity) cost (Yuan, et al., 2015). Yuan, Liu, Ding and Yang (2014)
also found support for suppression in a Chinese sample in its effectiveness in reducing
depressive experiences and its physiological markers. However, their comparison was
with acceptance strategies rather than reappraisal. Geisler and Schröder-Abé (2015)
also found support for suppression but in individuals with high self-regulatory
strength. These individuals had higher high-frequency heart rate variability (HF-
HRV) and using suppression was not associated with any increase in negative affect
unlike those with lower HF-HRV. Interestingly, mindfulness training may provide a
solution to better use of suppression strategies with its similarities to self-regulation
training (MacKenzie & Baumeister, 2015) and utility in reducing HF-HRV (Krygier,
et al., 2013).
Emotion regulation has also been implicated in academic domains. Gumora
and Arsenio (2002) found that emotion regulation, dispositional affect tendencies and
negative academic affect independently and uniquely predicted academic achievement
(GPA) in middle-schoolers. Research with younger children also found that those who
had poorer emotion regulation had trouble learning, and were less productive and
accurate on homework (Graziano, Reavis, Keane, & Calkins, 2007), suggesting that
such academic activities may arouse emotions which require regulation. They also
found that children with better emotion regulation had a more positive relationship
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 5
with their teachers, which may potentially lead to academic favoritism in the
classroom influencing academic achievement. Specifically, reappraisal of negative
stimuli was found to enhance learning and memory outcomes on an educational task,
with larger benefits for children with poorer emotion regulation skills (Davis &
Levine, 2013). While these studies concentrate on early education, they suggest the
importance of emotion regulation and academic emotions (Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, &
Perry, 2002) in outcomes of academic achievement. The learning and memory
benefits of reappraisal (Davis & Levine, 2013; Richards & Gross, 1999; 2000) also
demonstrate the importance and utility of reappraisal strategies of emotion regulation.
Adaptive emotion regulation will therefore be an extremely useful outcome for
university students in their academics as well as mental health, especially with
reappraisal strategies.
Mental Health
Depression, anxiety and stress are common mental health issues on the rise
among university students (American College Health Association, 2000; 2008).
Various studies have investigated and verified the problems of these three key mental
health issues in the university setting and stage of life transition, suggesting a pressing
need to provide interventions to alleviate such risks and issues (Bitsika, Sharpley, &
Rubenstein, 2010; Mahmoud J., Staten, Hall, & Lennie, 2012; Mahmoud J., Staten,
Lennie, & Hall, 2015; Ramezankhani, et al., 2013; Regehr, Glancy, & Pitts, 2013).
In the local context, the Singapore Mental Health Study (Chong, et al., 2012)
found that younger Singaporeans (18 to 34 years) were at the highest lifetime
prevalence risk of developing Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (8.6% compared to
5.8% in the overall population sample). Other areas where younger Singaporeans
presented with greater risk were Bipolar I & II disorders (2.0% versus 1.2% overall),
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 6
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) (1.2% versus 0.9% overall), Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder (OCD) (4.0% versus 3.0% overall) and alcohol abuse (4.2%
versus 3.1% overall). In fact this age group had a lifetime prevalence risk of 16.9% of
developing any disorder compared to 12.0% of the population sample. Further
analysis into the domain of anxiety found that this younger age group presented with
more severe expressions of generalized anxiety (Lee, Sagayadevan, Vaingankar,
Chong, & Subramaniam, 2015). Surprisingly, local rates of GAD are much lower than
western samples, although Chong, et al., (2012) suggests some cultural and
methodological reasons for this. Even more interestingly, those who had received at
least university education also demonstrated higher risk for MDD (7.8%) and OCD
(3.8%) compared to other education levels (Chong, et al., 2012). While the age range
in question is rather wide and covers ages and individuals other than a student
population, the results do suggest that mental health risk does have a positive
relationship with having a university education. This is contrary to research from
other countries about the protective effects of higher education against mental health
problems (Murrell, Salsman, & Meeks, 2003; Wickrama, O’Neal, & Lott, 2012).
Research from other cultures and countries however, agree that students in this stage
of life transition do face much challenges in the psychosocial, academic and financial
domains, putting them in a vulnerable position to attract mental health issues
(Bouteyre, Maurel, & Bernaud, 2007; Dyson & Renk, 2006; Eisenberg, Gollust,
Golberstein, & Hefner, 2007; Verger, Guagliardo, Gilbert, Rouillon, & Kovess-
Masfety, 2010). With a recent campus suicide in the National University of
Singapore, this might be even more relevant than ever (Yahoo! Newsroom, 2013).
Research also links mental health directly with academic performance, where poorer
mental health predicts poorer academic achievements and improvements in mental
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 7
health correspond accordingly in academic performance (Murphy, et al., 2015). Thus,
addressing the mental health of university students with the various health behaviours
during their most vulnerable stage of life will be extremely relevant and useful,
especially when they transition into the working world.
Sleep Behaviours: Trends and Effects among University Students
Our nightly sleep is an important behaviour and process to allow our bodies to
relax and repair itself. It has a crucial role in maintaining physiological homeostasis
and psychological balance (Chittora, et al., 2015). According to the National Sleep
Foundation (USA), the recommended sleep duration for university students (young
adults, 18 to 25 years) is 7 to 9 hours. They also recommend not sleeping less than 6
or more than 11 hours a night (Hirshkowitz, et al., 2015). The problem is rather
serious here among undergraduates students in Asia compared to their Western
counterparts (Chee, 2013). In fact, a study on undergraduate students from two
Singapore universities found an average sleep duration of 6.2 hours (Khalik, 2013),
which hovers close to the boundary of the non-recommended duration (Hirshkowitz,
et al., 2015).
Demands from academic study may be time consuming and a pressing reason
for getting less sleep (Chee, 2013; Lo, Leong, Loh, Dijk, & Chee, 2014); however
accumulating sleep debt can have significant repercussions for one’s health, in terms
of physical, mental and emotional health as well as cognitive performance (Baum, et
al., 2014; Morin & Ware, 1996; Mullington, Haack, Toth, Serrador, & Meier-Ewert,
2009; Orzeł-Gryglewska, 2010; Pilcher & Huffcutt, 1996).
Sleep deprivation can cause serious health issues, increasing cardiovascular
disease risk factors: increased blood pressure, glucose metabolism, hormonal
regulation (especially the growth hormone) and inflammation (Mullington, Haack,
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 8
Toth, Serrador, & Meier-Ewert, 2009; Orzeł-Gryglewska, 2010); and also increased
pain sensitivity, depressed immune response and higher risk of obesity and diabetes
(Orzeł-Gryglewska, 2010).
Sleep deprivation can also leave lasting effects on the brain, with potential
neurocognitive and neurodegenerative consequences (Chittora, et al., 2015). For
example, sleep-deprived brain cells will gradually deteriorate due to increased cortisol
levels in the brain (Gopalakrishnan, Ji, & Cirelli, 2004), and staying awake for 72
hours will reduce the brain’s metabolic rate by 6 to 8% (Chittora, et al., 2015). One
important finding is that sleep deprivation may impose oxidative stress on the
hippocampus (Süer, et al., 2011) which can lead to impairment of memory function
(Silva, et al., 2004). It has also been reported to negatively influence brain plasticity
and neurogenesis (Chittora, et al., 2015).
The consequential impact on cognitive function and performance as a result of
neurological impairments is not to be underestimated. Impaired perception
concentration difficulties, slower reaction times, reduced performance and efficiency
are some of the many problems that can result from sleep deprivation (Orzeł-
Gryglewska, 2010). Attentional impairment is one of these serious consequence of
insufficient sleep (Caldwell, Prazinko, & Caldwell, 2003; Johnson, 1982; Meddis,
1982), specifically causing inattentional lapses during the performance of tasks
(Elkin & Murray, 1974; Pilcher & Walters, 1997; Polzella, 1975; Williams & Lubin,
1967); longer sleep microepisodes (Thomas, et al., 2003) and even reduced attention
to external stimuli (Hockey, 1970).
The impact on learning and memory is thus of grave concern as well. Various
studies have demonstrated the benefits of sufficient sleep on memory functioning for
learning (Jenkins & Dallenbach, 1995; Peigneux, Laureys, Delbeuck, & Maquet,
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 9
2001; Smith, 1995). Some research has also highlighted the dependent relationships
that learning abilities have with sleep (Fallone, Owens, & Deane, 2002; Samkoff &
Jacques, 1991; Wolfson & Carskadon, 2003). Several interesting studies have also
investigated the effects of sleep on learning at the cellular level. Research suggests
that a key function of sleep is to consolidate and optimize synaptic circuits to
strengthen salient memory traces of important memories among the distracting
multitude of memories made during waking hours (Wang, Grone, Colas, Appelbaum,
& Mourrain, 2011). Some of this evidence also suggest that sleep magnifies the state
of plasticity for such memory trace optimization. Huber, Ghilardi, Massimini and
Tononi (2004) found that slow wave activity in the membrane potential of cortical
neurons during sleep was a cellular process that represented learning as opposed to
metabolic fatigue, justifying a cellular demand for sleep and the synaptic processes
that accompany it. It is thus not surprising that majority of sleep research agrees upon
the detrimental effects of sleep deprivation on academic performance (Gilbert &
Weaver, 2010; Gomes, Tavares, & de Azevedo, 2011; Killgore & Killgore, 2007;
Lund, Reider, Whiting, & Prichard, 2010; Meijer, 2008; Pilcher & Walters, 1997;
Trockel, Barnes, & Egget, 2000; Wolfson & Carskadon, 2003).
Sleep research has not only focused on outcomes but also the practical ways
deprivation affects the skills required for academic performance. Verbal expression of
thoughts and concepts are important skills in the university context; for example,
giving graded presentations, class participation and dissertation defense are all parts
of the university experience which require this skill that can be compromised by sleep
deficits (Harrison & Horne, 1997). Flexible and innovative thinking, planning and
decision making are other important skills compromised by rigid thinking and
perseverative errors (Harrison & Horne, 1999) as well as risky decision making
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 10
(Killgore, Balkin, & Wesensten, 2006). These performance and skill deficits should
be apparent to students in their daily work. However, Pilcher and Walters (1997)
found that sleep deprived students had the illusion that they had put in more
concentration and effort into the task and estimated their performance much higher
than non-sleep deprived students, contrary to the actual task performance. This study
demonstrated the students’ lack of awareness of the negative impact sleep deprivation
has on their performance abilities.
More importantly, sleep has a negative effect on academic motivation, a key
contributor to academic performance (Gilbert & Weaver, 2010). Edens (2006) found
that students who were sleepier had tendencies toward greater procrastination if they
were not motivated by grades, lower self-efficacy and more focused on performance
goals (grades) than mastery of materials. This negative impact on academic
motivation undermines the pursuit of a university education.
Sleep loss also has well established negative effects on mood and emotion
regulation (Baum, et al., 2014; Pilcher & Walters, 1997; Talbot, McGlinchey, Kaplan,
Dahl, & Harvey, 2010). Pilcher and Walters (1997) even suggested that the
debilitating effects of slep deprivation might have even more serious consequences
for mood than cognitive and motor performance deficits. Poorer sleep has been found
to be correlated with emotion regulation difficulties (Sandru & Voinescu, 2014).
Sleep deprivation studies provide clearer instances of these associations. Short-term
partial sleep deprivation has been shown to reduce positive affect (Talbot,
McGlinchey, Kaplan, Dahl, & Harvey, 2010) as well as positive emotionality (to
valenced stimuli) and increase negative emotionality and affect (Danielsson,
MacDonald, Jansson-Fröjmark, Linton, & Harvey, 2011). Baum and colleagues
(2014), restricted sleep for 5 nights in school-going adolescents to a mere 6.5 hours a
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 11
night. They found that this minor sleep restriction, albeit more long-term (5 nights to
simulate chronicity), resulted in worsened mood and poorer emotion regulation. On
the flipside, sleep extension (recovery of pre-existing sleep debt) for 9 nights
improved mood, decrease amygdala blood blow (emotional reactivity) and enhanced
negative functional connectivity of the amygdala and frontal pole, a pathway for
emotion regulation (Motomura, et al., 2014). These recoveries were erased following
a night of total sleep deprivation, supporting the critical role of sleep in emotion
regulation. Research on reappraisal strategies of emotion regulation have produced
mixed results. Minkel and colleagues (2012) did not find that sleep duration variations
predicted disruptions to neural circuits of reappraisal. However, the subjects in their
study had mostly good or mild sleep duration ratings, which may explain their
findings. On the other hand, Mauss, Troy and LeBourgeois (2013) found that poorer
sleep quality correlated with reduced usage of reappraisal.
Depression is one of the most common psychopathologies associated with
insomnia (Tsuno, Besset, & Ritchie, 2005), although the nature of this relationship
with sleep difficulties lacks the body of evidence for causal effects of sleep on
psychopathology (Morin & Ware, 1996). Still, the severity of sleep disturbances has
been shown to have a positive relationship with comorbid psychopathology (Morin &
Ware, 1996). Recent research however, offers perspectives in supporting a
bidirectional relationship between sleep and depression (Riemann, Berger, &
Voderholzer, 2001). One key hormone which controls this relationship is melanin-
concentrating hormone (MCH) which controls both rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep
and pathophysiology of depression (Torterolo, et al., 2015). Short sleep durations
have also been found to have associations with the risk of stress symptoms (An, Jang,
& Kim, 2015) and be predictive of chronic courses of depression and anxiety (van
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 12
Mill, Vogelzangs, van Someren, Hoogendijk, & Penninx, 2013). A study on
undergraduate students also revealed that good and poor quality sleepers had
significantly different levels of depression, anxiety and stress symptoms, with
emotion regulation difficulties as a correlate (Markarian, Pickett, Deveson, & Kanona,
2013).
Given the many physical, neurological, cognitive, academic, emotion
regulation and mental health costs of sleep deprivation, the current nightly state of
affairs for local university students seems to be in need of change, which this study
aims to improve.
Media-Multitasking Behaviours: Trends and Effects among University Students
Multitasking as a strategy is often used to resist against the limited resource of
time; an attempt to complete at least two discrete tasks simultaneously. Yet this
perception of simultaneous completion might be an illusion. Medina (2014), a
molecular biologist, even claims that true multitasking is a biological impossibility,
ostensibly from the perspective of task-switching.
Multitasking can be explored from various cognitive perspectives, namely
dual-tasking or task-switching (Worringer, et al., 2015). Salvucci, Taatgen, and Borst
(2009) proposed the multitasking continuum, as a unified theory of mutitasking;
ranging from concurrent multitasking (dual-tasking perspective) to sequential
multitasking (task-switching perspective), with time before switching tasks increasing
in this direction along the continuum. Dual-tasking paradigms posit simultaneous
performance of two tasks, albeit with associated cognitive and performance costs (Hu,
et al., 2015). Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009) emphasised the central role of task-
switching: switching between two different tasks in the process of multitasking. This
process is not simultaneous but instead reflects the temporal order of switching
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 13
between tasks. They developed the Media Multitasking Index (MMI) to assess media-
multitasking behaviours across twelve different forms of media, so as to discriminate
between heavy and light media multitaskers. Their influential study found significant
differences in cognitive control through various tasks like the Stroop, stop-signal,
task-switching, and two- and three-back tasks. They found that heavy media-
multitaskers actually performed much worse at task-switching, becoming more
susceptible to interference from irrelevant stimuli: in either the environment or
memory representations. Alzahabi (2015) further expanded on task-switching
research and found that advanced preparation (time for processing) and passive decay
(of interference from previous tasks) were independent factors influencing task-
switching performance.
Other research has also found that better working memory capacity
(specifically the processing and storage components) predicts better multitasking
performance (Colom, Martínez-Molina, Shih, & Santacreu, 2010), highlighting the
relationship between limited cognitive resources and multitasking, regardless of task-
switching or dual-tasking perspectives.
The ubiquitous rise of digital devices, social media and the internet has
resulted in the proliferation of media-multitasking (Wang & Tchernev, 2012). This
has profound implications for learning and academic performance. A recent study
found that majority of students reported media-multitasking on at least two tasks, and
that this was detrimental to their ability to focus on reading for academic purposes
(Mokhtari, Delello, & Reichard, 2015). One key media-multitasking paradigm
involves texting in classes and lectures. 90% of university students reported receiving
texts and 86% reported texting someone while in class (Clayson & Haley, 2013).
Texting in class predicted significantly lower grade performance (Clayson & Haley,
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 14
2013; Ellis & Jauregui, 2010; Rosen, Lim, Carrier, & Cheever, 2011). Additionally,
other research found similar negative influences on grade performance with laptop
multitasking (Sana, Weston, & Cepeda, 2013; Zhang, 2015); Facebook (Rosen,
Carrier, & Cheever, 2013) and electronic media in general (Jacobsen & Forste, 2011).
Laptop multitasking even hindered learning of nearby peers (Sana, Weston, &
Cepeda, 2013). Multitasking has also been shown to reduce mental fluidity (Clayson
& Haley, 2013) and cause learning to be inflexible in novel situations (Foerde,
Knowlton, & Poldrack, 2006).
Despite conscious acceptance that texting in class was disruptive to learning
(approximately 75%), 40% still felt that such behaviour was acceptable, signifying
underlying rewards that may overcome the cognitive understanding of multitasking
costs (Rosen, Lim, Carrier, & Cheever, 2011). Wang and Tchernev (2012) found that
while cognitive needs drove media-multitasking behaviour, such needs were not being
gratified. Instead, emotional and habitual needs were by-products being gratified,
implicitly reinforcing the association of pleasant feelings of relaxation and
entertainment with media-multitasking behaviours, leading to increased media-
multitasking.
This is despite findings that only 2.5% of the population (generalized from a
sample of 200 participants) are actually “supertaskers” (Watson & Strayer, 2010).
Watson and Strayer (2010), coined the term “supertaskers” during their accidental
discovery (Strayer & Watson, 2012) of subjects who demonstrated no performance
deficits between single and dual-task conditions. These “supertaskers” were in the top
quartiles of performance and their frequency was significantly greater than chance
(Watson & Strayer, 2010). Further research on “supertaskers” found they had
significantly more efficient recruitment of the anterior cingulate and posterior
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 15
frontopolar prefrontal cortices than controls matched for working memory capacity,
suggesting fundamental neural difference in processing efficiency and attentional
control (Medeiros-Ward, Watson, & Strayer, 2015), proving Medina (2014) wrong on
the biological impossibility of true multitasking. Still, this statistical improbability
does not seem to affect self-confidence of poor multitaskers’ abilities to multitask
despite anticipating (inaccurately) the costs of divided attention in multitasking
(Finley, Benjamin, & McCarley, 2014).
Research on the profile of multitaskers suggest that they have significantly
inflated perceptions of their ability and are typically high on levels of impulsivity and
sensation seeking, low on executive control and less able to block out distractions
(Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013) as well as lacking in self-
regulation (Zhang, 2015). Interestingly, heavy media-multitasking was associated
with significantly higher levels of depression and social anxiety symptoms as well
(Becker, Alzahabi, & Hopwood, 2013), perhaps due to the reduced grey matter
density in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and its reduced functional connectivity
with the precuneus correlated with the decreased socio-emotional regulation (Loh &
Kanai, 2014).
The various evidence of performance impairment, emotion regulation and
mental health associations due to media-multitasking have demonstrated negative
consequences. Within the context of university students, this is especially relevant as
such bad habits can carry over into the workplace (Mokhtari, Delello, & Reichard,
2015), extending the cycle of performance deficits. While it may be impossible to
entirely eliminate media-multitasking behaviours in our media-rich environments,
education of the costs and proper, adaptive usage of various media may help reduce
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 16
the prevalence and effects of such media-multitasking behaviours, beginning with the
university context.
Mindfulness and Its Beneficial Effects
Mindfulness has its roots in Eastern Buddhist traditions, from being firstly
translated from the Pali word sati in 1881 (Gethin, 2011) and then subsequently
introduced into the clinical context of psychotherapy by Jon Kabat-Zinn as
Mindfulness-Based Stress Reducation (MBSR) (Kabat-Zinn, 1996) and subsequent
modifications into Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) (Segal, Williams,
& Teasdale, 2002).
Mindfulness has been described as the “non-elaborative, non-judgemental,
present-centred awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises in
the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it is” (Bishop, et al., 2004).
Bishop and his colleagues (2004), as various experts on mindfulness, have come to a
formal consensus to propose a two-component model of mindfulness. Firstly,
mindfulness requires self-regulated attention to focus on the immediate experience, or
present moment, so as to recognize and be aware of emotions, behaviours and
thoughts in the moment. The key here is the direction of attention towards the
immediate experience of any “content objects” that may arise. Secondly, mindfulness
adopts various attitudes and perspectives to inform the experience of these “objects”
of attention within the present moment. Kabat-Zinn (1996) emphasizes seven key
attitudes as the foundation of mindfulness practice: non-judging, patience, beginner’s
mind, trust, non-striving, acceptance, letting go. Commitment, self-discipline and
intentionality are also values he encourages for approaching mindfulness practice.
The Eastern and Western approaches to mindfulness differ on various
perspectives, although they are similar in some of the psychological processes
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 17
involved. Eastern approaches emphasize the experience of meditation practice, where
mindfulness is cultivated, while Western approaches, primarily developed by Ellen
Langer, views mindfulness, as opposed to mindlessness, as a desireable result of
novelty-seeking orientations to envionmental stimuli. (Carmody, 2014). Both
approaches are similar in that they utilize the process of attention or awareness to
bring into focus the familiar or preconceived ‘objects’ we may not be consciously
aware of, and to bring into awareness the unconcious processes that shape and
contribute to this familiarity or preconception (Carmody, 2014). They also similarly
focus on the present moment (Kabat-Zinn, 1996; Langer, 2014); as well as novelty
(Langer, 2014) or curiosity (with the attitude of a beginner’s mind) (Kabat-Zinn,
1996). While the outcome of mindfulness is desired, both approaches differ in the
practices as well as the objectives for mindfulness.
The Western approach focuses on the paradigm of novelty-seeking in new
meanings and categories, to cast persons, objects or situations in new light and reduce
potential inherent biases previously assumed as stable and unchanging within the
mindlessness perspective (Langer, 2014). In this respect, mindfulness training is
primarily a cognitive event, through which the process of creating novel perspectives
motivates attentional redirection to the stimulus as well as allows for the overcoming
of pre-existing, stable and habitual biases or categorizations which have formed the
basis for attribution theory. Langer’s development of the Western approach first rose
from the question of whether people were even thinking, given the effects of priming
and attribution theory perspectives. Thus for the Western approach, mindfulness
through novelty is the means to the end of biases and erroneous attributions and rigid,
unchanging perspectives.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 18
In contrast, Eastern approaches to mindfulness place heavy emphasis on the
practice of mindfulness meditation to cultivate mindfulness. The two-component
model of mindfulness by Bishop and his colleagues (2004) portrays the operational
definition of mindfulness from this Eastern tradition. The passive self-observational
and non-judgemental attitudes of Eastern tradition contrasts with the proactive change
of cognitive constructions and active engagement in the Western approach. Moreover,
Bishop and his colleagues (2004) contrast Langer’s approach as dealing primarily
with external stimuli and their properties while the Eastern approach deals primarily
with internal stimuli (thoughts, feelings and sensations). To be fair, Langer’s approach
also highlights the internal phenomenological experience of engagement in her
cognitive perspective of mindfulness (Langer, 2014). It is important to note that
though Eastern approaches emphasize meditation practice to cultivate mindfulness, it
is by no means the only way to achieve the state of mindfulness; the key skills and
habits cultivated will allow for mindfulness to be evoked and generalized to attention
in everyday situations, allowing us to navigate our lives more mindfully (Bishop, et
al., 2004). The goal of mindfulness is then the state of mindfulness.
The non-striving attitude of mindfulness best captures this catch-22 situation
of mindfulness practice as both the means and the end. As Kabat-Zinn (1996)
describes “meditation is dfferent from all other human activities. Although it takes a
lot of work and energy of a certain kind, ultimately mediation is non-doing. It has no
goal other than for you to be yourself. The irony is that you already are.”
It can perhaps be considered that Eastern approaches to mindfulness may be
more comprehensive than Western approaches. Both approaches allow for novel
perspective-taking but the additional attitudes (Kabat-Zinn, 1996) further enhances
and operates in service of this outcome. The attitudes of non-judging, patience, trust,
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 19
non-striving, acceptance and letting go has the fundamental purpose of reducing
resistance, to allow mindfulness to have greater coherence with our lives. Given the
internal focus of Eastern mindfulness (thoughts, feelings and sensations), the potential
for resistance may be rather high. Adopting a beginner’s mind attitude to our internal
worldview might seem threatening to our self-esteem; a challenge to the pre-existing
construals of self and self in the world. The attitudinal advantage of the Eastern
approach allows for a comprehensive and coherent incorporation of mindfulness into
our daily lives.
Mindfulness-based therapies have been shown improve the symptoms of
insomnia (Ong, Ulmer, & Manber, 2012). In fact, mindfulness has also been shown to
improve sleep quality (Brand, Holsboer-Trachsler, Naranjo, & Schmidt, 2012) and
directly predict well-being as well as indirectly through the self-regulation of sleep
(Howell, Digdon, & Buro, 2010; Howell, Digdon, Buro, & Sheptycki, 2008). The
benefits of mindfulness thus extend into healthy self-regulation of sleep behaviours as
proposed by Shapiro and Schwartz (2000a; 2000b). An interesting study on emotion
regulation and sleep found that experiential emotion regulation (similar to Eastern
mindfulness) predicted better sleep quality (duration, efficiency, fewer awakenings
etc.) than cognitive analytical emotion regulation (similar to Western mindfulness)
when subjects were exposed to an emotional failure experience prior to sleep
(Vandekerckhove, et al., 2012), suggesting that mindfulness-like emotion regulation
more effectively overcomes emotional obstacles to sleep behaviours and quality.
Mindfulness in the Eastern tradition and media-multitasking are conceptually
opposed to each other since mindfulness predicates present moment attentional focus
on a singular task while media-multitasking divides attention (Finley, Benjamin, &
McCarley, 2014), increasing attentional failures (Ralph, Thomson, Cheyne, & Smilek,
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 20
2014). There is however, a lack of present literature exploring the relationship
between mindfulness and media-multitasking even though habits of mindfulness
should theoretically lead to reduced habits of media-multitasking. One study does
investigate this relationship, but within the Western approach to mindfulness (Ie,
2012). Counterintuitively, Ie and colleagues attempt to improve media-multitasking
with inducements of mindfulness states. Their study failed to find improvements in
media-multitasking ability although they did find that younger subjects (controls) with
greater trait mindfulness did present with better media-multitasking ablities,
suggesting that mindfulness could improve media-multitasking. Given that
mindfulness and meditation predicts better attentional performance and cognitive
flexibility on the Stroop paradigm and other measures (Fan, Tang, Tang, & Posner,
2014; Moore & Malinowski, 2009; Rodriguez Vega, et al., 2014) the conclusion and
premise from Ie and her colleagues is not surprising.
Mindfulness meditation has been shown to provide physical improvements,
with improved immune function corresponding to left anterior brain activation
(Davidson, et al., 2003) and reduced perception of nociceptive pain with associated
neurological activity (Zeidan, et al., 2011). Mindfulness has also been shown to
improve cognitive function, increasing working memory capacity, test performance as
well as reducing mind wandering (increase in sustained attentional focus) (Chambers,
Lo, & Allen, 2008; Mrazek, Franklin, Phillips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013) which is
associated with reduction in cognitive performance (Mooneyham & Schooler, 2013).
Neuroimaging research further confirms this research, with increases in grey matter
concentrations within the left hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex, temporo-
parietal junction and cerebellum, some of which are associated with learning and
memory processes (Hölzel, et al., 2011). Mindfulness seems to improve cognitive
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 21
performance, especially in stress tests of interference on the Stroop paradigm, through
neural regulation of alpha wave activity, resulting in reduced interference (Fan, Tang,
Tang, & Posner, 2014) and improved (faster) attentional processing (Kerr, et al.,
2011) as well as better attentional control (Rodriguez Vega, et al., 2014). Improved
cognitive flexibility (Moore, 2013; Moore & Malinowski, 2009) and rational
decision-making (Kirk, Downar, & Montague, 2011) are also further benefits of
mindfulness.
Mindfulness also reduces emotional reactivity (Keng, Smoski, & Robins,
2011), mediating psychological distress (Britton, Shahar, Szepsenwol, & Jacobs,
2012), which suggests the adoption of adaptive emotion regulation strategies.
Research by Hölzel, and colleagues (2011) also found increased grey matter
concentration in brain regions associated with emotion regulation and perspective
taking which is related to reappraisal. Some studies have linked mindfulness and
mindfulness training with suppression (Dick, Niles, Street, DiMartino, & Mitchell,
2014; Riley, 2014) as well as neural pathways in reappraisal strategies of emotion
regulation (Opialla, et al., 2015). Mindfulness has also been conceptually linked with
reappraisal strategies of positive emotion regulation (Garland, Farb, Goldin, &
Fredrickson, 2015) and improved emotion regulation (Turner, 2014). In contrast,
suppression and mindfulness have demonstrated differential neural pathways
(Murakami, et al., 2015) and oppositional predictions of psychological health
(Tamagawa, et al., 2013). It is thus not surprising that mindfulness is also associated
with affective benefits (Davis & Hayes, 2011). Davidson and colleagues (2003) found
increased activation in the left anterior region of the brain associated with positive
affect. Other reasearch has also found the positive relationship of mindfulness with
positive affect (Jimenez, Niles, & Park, 2010; Mandal, 2012), and the negative
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 22
relationship with negative affect (Mandal, 2012; Sears & Kraus, 2009; Vickery &
Dorjee, 2015; Vinci, et al., 2014). Mindfulness is also associated with the emotional
down-regulation of arousal in the amygdala expression (Lutz, et al., 2014) and
increased empathy (Shapiro, Schwartz, & Bonner, 1998).
Mindfulness-based interventions have also been relatively successfully
implemented to tackle various mental health issues (Cavanagh, et al., 2013; Gu,
Strauss, Bond, & Cavanagh, 2015; Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011; Song & Lindquist,
2015), improving symptoms of depression (Dimidjian, et al., 2014; Piet & Hougaard,
2011), anxiety (Chen, Yang, Wang, & Zhang, 2013; Tacón, McComb, Caldera, &
Randolph, 2003) and stress (Britton, Shahar, Szepsenwol, & Jacobs, 2012). A meta-
analysis by Khoury and colleagues (2013) even claims that mindfulness-based
interventions are especially effective for depression, anxiety and stress.
With the cognitive, mental and emotional health benefits of mindfulness,
introducing mindfulness training to university students will potentially give them a
useful tool to flourish in their university life.
Mindfulness for Students
Mindfulness-based interventions have shown promising effects in schools,
reducing stress, depressive and anxious symptoms (Kuyken, et al., 2013; Lynch,
Gander, Kohls, Kudielka, & Walach, 2011; Ramler, Tennison, Lynch, & Murphy,
2015; Shapiro, Schwartz, & Bonner, 1998); first year school adjustment (Ramler,
Tennison, Lynch, & Murphy, 2015); increasing well-being (Kuyken, et al., 2013);
increasing empathy (Shapiro, Schwartz, & Bonner, 1998); as well as increasing
mindfulness (Lynch, Gander, Kohls, Kudielka, & Walach, 2011). In a meta-analytic
review of mindfulness-based interventions in schools, Zenner, Herrnleben-Kurz and
Walach (2013) found that such studies held promise in improving cognitive
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 23
performance, and stress resilience, although they did mention that there was great
heterogeniety in the age, interventions as well as measurments for these studies. On
the educational front, Felver, Doerner, Jones, Kaye and Merrell (2013) have appealed
for the inclusion of mindfulness interventions for school populations, either as
universal, targeted or intensive individual interventions. Similarly, one of the few
studies (Lynch, Gander, Kohls, Kudielka, & Walach, 2011; Ramler, Tennison, Lynch,
& Murphy, 2015; Shapiro, Schwartz, & Bonner, 1998) on university populations, has
argued for greater adoption for mindfulness in the university setting, even as a
universal intervention, citing the mindfulness cultivation rates of their non-volunteer
sample (Ramler, Tennison, Lynch, & Murphy, 2015).
The present study joins the body of existing studies researching mindfulness-
based interventions for university student populations. One key difference is the
incorporation of two other holistic health behaviours in addition to mindfulness
training in the meditation form, namely, improving sleep quality (emphasis on
duration) as well as reducing media-multitasking behaviours. As Shapiro and
Schwartz (2000a; 2000b) discussed, mindfulness and its attentional focus on the body
promotes greater self-regulation of health behaviours, hinting at a possible reinforcing
impact on mindfulness training for healthier sleep and media-multitasking behaviours.
To date, the present study may be the only one to incorporate both sleep and
media-multitasking with mindfulness as a combined intervention program to
holistically tackle mindfulness, mental health, emotion regulation as well as cognitive
performance (Stroop paradigm) within the same design. Given the overlaps of the
three health behaviours with each other as well as with the various outcomes
previously elaborated, it is hoped that this holistic combination will yield significant
impact in improving the lives of university students.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 24
Objectives and Experimental Design
A set of psychoeducational materials targeting university students were
designed to provide didactic information in terms of health behaviours and habits:
multitasking, sleep, mind wandering and mindfulness. Information was aligned to
motivate students that such health behaviours would contribute to peak performance
in their lives, especially with relevance to their academic outcomes. A set of simple
behaviour changes were included as a structured intervention to complement the
efficacy of the psychoeducation materials and provide guidelines for behavioural
change.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the
psychoeducational materials, a complementary structured intervention in inspiring
behavioural change as well as the subsequent beneficial outcomes. The structured
intervention was a brief 10 day program focusing on the additional habit of
mindfulness meditation and habit changes in sleep and multitasking.
The present study employed a 3*2 mixed design, where subjects underwent 3
differing levels of intervention independently: Control condition, Psychoeducation
only condition, and the Psychoeducation with practice (Practice) condition; and were
assessed at 2 different points in time: pre-test and post-test.
Predictions and Hypotheses
It was hypothesized that increasing levels of intervention would yield greater
behaviour change in sleep, multitasking and mindfulness habits (none in Control).
This would be reflected in a condition*time interaction effect. It was also predicted
that such changes in behaviour (as a covariate) would improve mental health,
reappraisal strategies, positive affect, mindfulness and reduce, negative affect and
Stroop interference effects (condition*time).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 25
Methods
Subjects and Recruitment
A total of 73 university undergraduates were recruited from the National
University of Singapore. Of the subjects recruited, 6 subjects either withdrew their
consent or were non-responsive. This resulted in the participation of a total of 67
subjects: 27 females (M = 21.81 years, SD = 1.50 years) and 40 males (M = 23.57
years, SD = .87 years).
Subjects were recruited through an online appeal on social media pages of
various university groups. As part of the recruitment, subjects were provided with the
Participation Information Sheet (Appendix A) for information about the study as well
as a Consent Form (Appendix B) to provide informed consent for participation in this
study. Subjects then provided their demographic information as well as contact details
for subsequent contact for the study. They were then informed of the exact dates of
the study which was conducted across a period of twelve days in the month of
November, 2015.
Experimental Design
A 3 (intervention condition: control, psychoeducation only, psychoeducation
with practice) x 2 (time: pre-test, post-test) repeated measures design was conducted.
Dependent variables measured can be broadly classified into behavioural, outcome as
well as programme evaluation measures.
Measures and Protocol
Positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). This mood scale developed
by Watson, Clark and Tellegen (1988) consists a total of 20 items (Appendix C); 10
items measuring positive affect and negative affect each. The items were rated on a 5-
point Likert scale, on the extent subjects ‘felt this way during the past week’. The
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 26
scale ranged from 1 to 5: ‘Very slightly or not at all’, ‘A little’, ‘Moderately’, ‘Quite a
bit’, and ‘Extremely’ respectively.
Scores for each of the 20 items were summed up for both positive and
negative affect to constitute the total score of each respective affect. Scores range
from a possible 10 to 50 with higher scores denoting greater levels of the respective
affect. The mean scores for the original study were 33.3 (SD = 7.2) for positive affect
(PA) and 17.4 (SD = 6.2) for negative affect (NA). The scale also demonstrated good
internal consistency (PA: α = .88; NA: α = .85), low intercorrelation (r = -.22) and
relatively stable test-retest reliability across 2 months (PA: r = .48; NA: r = .42)
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
Emotion regulation questionnaire (ERQ). This questionnaire by Gross and
John (2003) evaluates two emotion regulation strategies; reappraisal and suppression.
The questionnaire consists a total of 10 statements (Appendix D); 6 statements
measuring reappraisal and 4 statements measuring suppression. Each statement
demonstrated either reappraisal or suppression strategies. Subjects were asked to rate
their agreement with the statements on a 7-point Likert scale, from 1 to 7: ‘Strongly
disagree’ to ‘Strongly agree’. Higher scores represented greater identification with the
statement’s strategy.
Scores for each of the 10 statements were summed up and then averaged for
both suppression and reappraisal strategies to constitute the representative score of
each strategy. This scale has been shown to have good internal consistency
(reappraisal: α = .79; suppression: α = .73) and relatively good test-retest reliability
across 3 months (both reappraisal and suppression: r = .69) (Gross & John, 2003).
Depression anxiety stress scales (DASS-21). This revised scale (Antony,
Bieling, Cox, Enns, & Swinson, 1998) measures mental health in three symptomatic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 27
subscales: depression, anxiety and stress. The scale consists a total of 21 statements
(Appendix E) as opposed to the original DASS, a 42-statement scale (Lovibond &
Lovibond, 1995). There were 7 statements measuring depression, anxiety and stress
symptoms each. Subjects were asked to rate on a 4-point Likert scale how much each
statement applied to them ‘over the past week’. The scale ranged from 0 to 3: ‘Did not
apply to me at all’, ‘Applied to me to some degree or some of the time’, ‘Applied to
me to a considerable degree, or a good part of time’ and ‘Applied to me very much, or
most of the time’ respectively.
For each subscale of the DASS-21, scores on the respective 7 statements were
summed and doubled for the respective total scores of depression, anxiety and stress
symptoms. Scores range from a possible 0 to 42 with higher scores denoting greater
levels of the respective symptoms. In a more recent study of a large non-clinical
sample (Henry & Crawford, 2005), the mean scores were 5.66 (SD = 7.74) for
depression, 3.76 (SD = 5.90) for anxiety, and 9.46 (SD = 8.40) for stress. The same
study also found good internal consistency for the subscales (depression: α = .88;
anxiety: α = .82; stress: α = .90).
Cognitive and affective mindfulness scale - revised (CAMS-R). This scale
by Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson and Laurenceau (2007) consists 10 statements
assessing mindfulness levels (Appendix F). These statements were rated on a 4-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4: ‘Rarely/Not at all’, ‘Sometimes’, ‘Often’ and
‘Almost always’ respectively.
The scores for the statements were summed to derive the total score on the
CAMS-R. Scores range from a possible 10 to 40, with higher scores denoting higher
levels of mindfulness. The scale also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α
= .76), good convergent validity with other mindfulness scales (Freiburg Mindfulness
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 28
Inventory: r = .69; Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale: r =.46) (Feldman, Hayes,
Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007).
Mindfulness lifestyle habits questionnaire. This simple questionnaire was
designed for this study to investigate the mindful habits of subjects and consisted 6
items (Appendix G). Of primary importance was their practice frequency and average
duration, the product of which yielded a weekly practice duration. Subjects were first
given a psychoeducation check to assess their knowledge of mindfulness. They were
then explicitly asked if they practiced mindfulness. Those who responded
affirmatively went on to indicate the weekly practice frequency, average duration of
each day’s practice and the type of mindful practices they engaged in.
Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI). This questionnaire by Buysse,
Reynolds, Monk, Berman and Kupfer (1989) assess the sleep quality of individuals.
The questionnaire consists 10 questions on various sleep habits (Appendix H),
covering 7 subcomponents of sleep quality: duration of sleep, sleep disturbance, sleep
latency, day dysfunction due to sleepiness, sleep efficiency, overall sleep quality and
usage of sleep medication. One question was left out as it did not contribute to the
scoring of the PSQI. Of particular interest for this study was information pertaining to
the subcomponent of duration of sleep.
The questionnaire was scored according to the authors’ instructions (Appendix
H). Each subcomponent yielded scores ranging from 0 to 3 and the sum of these
scores constituted the total PSQI score. Scores range from a possible 0 to 21, with
higher scores representing poorer sleep quality (≤ 5 good sleep quality; > 5 poor sleep
quality). The authors found an overall group mean of 7.4 (SD = 5.1) among a sample
of controls, and subjects with depression or sleep problems. The scale also
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 29
demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .83) and test-retest reliability (Buysse,
Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989).
Media multitasking index (MMI). This was a trait media multitasking index
developed by Ophir, Nass and Wagner (2009) to discriminate between heavy and
light media mutitaskers. The original task consisted of 12 media forms. After
discussion with the input of one of the authors, it was decided to reduce the number to
10 media forms in the current study. For brevity, non-music audio was removed as it
was deemed the least pervasive form of media consumption in a visually-dominated
environment. Text messaging and instant messaging were collapsed into a single
media form to account for the technological improvements that have given rise to
instant messaging applications on smartphones that are functionally equivalent to text
messaging. Also, caveats were added to several other media forms like social media
browsing for web surfing and internet calls for telephone and mobile phone calls.
Subjects were asked how many hours a week they engaged with each of the
media forms (hi). They were then given the media multitasking matrix, which rated
the frequency of using the other 9 media forms while using the specific media form in
question. There was thus a total of 9 matrices (Appendix I). The rating responses were
as follows: ‘Most of the time’, ‘Some of the time’, A little of the time’ and ‘Never’
with the respective scores of 1, 0.67, 0.33 and 0.
For each medium in question, the sum of ratings of the 9 other media
constituted the mean number of other media used (mi) while engaging on the medium
in question. The index indicates the overall level of media multitasking each subject
engages in for an hour of media consumption. The authors (Ophir, Nass, & Wagner,
2009), found a mean MMI score of 4.38 (SD = 1.52). The following formula
describes the MMI:
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 30
∑𝑚𝑖 × ℎ𝑖
ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
10
𝑖=1
Stroop test. This was a colour-identification task based on the work of John
Ridley Stroop (1935) measuring the inteference of colour-word incongruency on
reaction times (MacLeod, 1991). The task was based on the Psytoolkit platform
developed by Dr. Gijsbert Stoet (University of Glasgow, United Kingdom) using
various software and programing languages. No changes were made to the task on the
platform beyond the provision of practice trials and increasing the number of actual
trials.
There were 4 colours (green, yellow, blue, red) and their corresponding name-
words for this task, yielding a total of 16 possible colour-word combinations as
stimuli; 4 congruent and 12 incongruent combinations. Subject were to respond to the
color of the stimuli and ignore any interference from any incongruent word stimulus.
Responses were assigned as the keyboard keys ‘g’, ‘y’, ‘b’ and ‘r’ for the colors
green, yellow, blue and red respectively (Appendix J). The word stimuli presented
was in Arial font size 26 (Appendix J). Subjects were firstly presented with the
instructions for the task, and had to press the spacebar to advance to the task. They
then performed 20 practice trials before coming to a page informing them that they
had finished the practice and pressing the spacebar to move forward would bring them
to the 120 actual trials. Subjects were not informed of the number of trials they had to
complete.
The order of presentation of the stimuli was as follows. First a blank screen
was shown for 500ms, followed by a white fixation cross (200ms) (Appendix J) and
then a blank screen again for 100ms. After which the task stimulus of 1 of 16
combinations was randomly presented for a maximum of 2000ms or until the subjects
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 31
keyed in their response after which a feedback of their accuracy was immediately
presented for 500ms (Appendix J). This constituted 1 trial after which the process
looped back to the beginning and recurred for the remaining trials.
Reaction times were measured from the onset of stimulus presentation to the
response entry time by subjects. Accuracy of the response included a timeout value to
account for trials where subjects failed to key in a response within the 2000ms
timeframe.
Psychoeducation materials. An e-book was designed with didactic
information on four main topics: mindfulness, mind wandering, multitasking and
sleep (Appendix K). Research and evidence were distilled into relevant information
for university students, as well as the various costs or benefits and relevant strategies
to implement. The materials and information in this e-book were collated by Dr.
Gregor Lange (National University of Singapore) as a precursory draft of a final book
on strategies in various life domains to improve health behaviours and subsequently
peak performance of university students.
Headspace. The Headspace application is a mobile application available on
IOS and Android operating systems. It provides short 10-minute guided mindfulness
meditation sessions for individuals, narrated by Andy Puddicombe, a former Buddhist
monk.
For this current study, the free Take10 programme was used, which provided
subjects with ten days of unique and progressive 10-minute guided mindfulness
meditation sessions.
My 10-day challenge worksheet. This worksheet provided specific
instructions for subjects to reduce multitasking, get eight hours of sleep and practice
ten minutes of mindfulness meditation for a period of ten days (Appendix L). The
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 32
worksheet also provided instructions to download a guided meditation mobile
application, Headspace for their 10-Day Challenge.
Psychoeducation test. Based on the psychoeducation materials, 12 questions
were formulated to assess subject’s knowledge and recall of the materials read, half of
which were multiple choice and the other half free response. For each of the four
topics, there were 3 questions asked (Appendix M).
Programme evaluation. The programme evaluation was specifically designed
to investigate subjects’ perceptions of behaviour and outcome changes, as well as
their propensity to maintain (if they expressed change) or change (if they expressed
no change) their behaviours more adaptively. These attitudes and perceptions were
explicitly expressed in individual questions rated on a 7-point Likert scale or as binary
yes or no answers (Appendix N). Feedback about challenges and potential
improvements were also collected.
Procedure
After recruitment, subjects were randomly assigned, controlling for gender,
into one of three experimental conditions: Control condition, Psychoeducation only
condition, and the Psychoeducation with practice (Practice) condition. Subjects were
then informed of which dates they had to respond according to their condition:
Control subjects on days 1 and 12, and Psychoeducation and Practice subjects on days
1, 2 and 12. Figure 1 summarizes the timeline of the study for the various conditions.
Pre-testing. All subjects firstly underwent the pre-testing phase on the first
day to record their baseline measures on the PANAS, ERQ, DASS-21, CAMS-R,
Mindful Lifestyle Habits Questionnaire, PSQI, MMI and the Stroop Test. These
measures were recorded online using the Google forms and Psytoolkit (Stroop Test)
platforms.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 33
Psychoeducation. On the second day, subjects in the Psychoeducation and
Practice conditions were given an e-book of psychoeducation materials titled: Holistic
Strategies for Effective Students; Mindfulness, Mind Wandering, Multitasking & Sleep
(Appendix K) to peruse. Additionally, subjects in the Practice condition were shown a
My 10-Day Challenge (Challenge) worksheet (Appendix L) for them to keep track of
their progress, beginning that day. Subjects were then given a psychoeducation test to
quiz them on the materials they had just read.
Day 1 of challenge. At the end of the psychoeducation test, subjects (both
conditions) were provided links to download the e-book and the worksheet (Practice
condition). Later on in the same day, these subjects each received an individualized
text message (Appendix O). The message encouraged subjects to put into practice the
various strategies they had learnt from the booklet. They were urged to implement
these habit changes over the next ten days, beginning that day. Subjects in the Practice
condition were also welcomed to the first day of their challenge and reminded to use
the Headspace application for their guided meditation.
Days 2 to 10 of challenge. From the third to eleventh day of the study,
subjects in the Practice condition received daily text reminders (Appendix O) to keep
on track with their practice in line with the Challenge. Messages welcomed them to
the specific day of the Challenge, provided some snippets of information from the e-
book in line with the four topics and lastly a specific reminder to practice ten minutes
of mindful meditation. Subjects in the Control and Psychoeducation conditions
received no reminders during this period.
Post-testing. On the twelfth and final day, all subjects underwent the post-
testing phase to record changes in measures on the PANAS, ERQ, DASS-21, CAMS-
R, Mindful Lifestyle Habits Questionnaire, PSQI, MMI and the Stroop Test.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 34
Additionally, subjects in the Psychoeducation and Practice conditions also did the
Psychoeducation test and a Programme evaluation.
Debrief. Upon completion of the study, all subjects were debriefed on the
objectives, different conditions and procedures. They were also provided the links to
download the e-book and worksheet.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 35
Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Control Pre-test No action taken Post-test
Psychoeducation Pre-test
a) Read Psychoeducation
e-book
b) Psychoeducation Test
c) Encouraged to practice
for the next 10 days
No reminders Post-test
Practice Pre-test
a) Read Psychoeducation
e-book
b) Issued My 10-Day
Challenge Worksheet
c) Psychoeducation Test
d) Encouraged to practice
for the next 10 days
Daily text reminders Post-test
Figure 1. Study timeline.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 36
Results
Statistical Analyses
Data collected were analysed using the IBM Statistical Package for Social
Sciences Statistics 20 software. Descriptive statistics of the pre-test and post-test
variables were first derived. Tables 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 summarize the descriptive
statistics for the various behavioural, outcome and other measures respectively.
As the experimental design consisted a repeated set of measures (pre-test and
post-test), a 3 x 2 x 2 repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) was used
to analyse the various dependent measures individually or their subscales (where
applicable). Condition (3) and gender (2) were entered as between-subjects factors
and Time (2) as a within-subjects factor. As the repeated measures only involved 2
levels (pre-test and post-test), sphericity was assumed for all within-subjects effects.
Thus all reported F-ratios for RM-ANOVA are the sphericity assumed values.
Pairwise comparisons were also conducted for variables with significant interaction
effects on the RM-ANOVA. The conservative Pillai’s trace correction was selected as
the reported statistic for multivariate analysis of these pairwise comparisons.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was also used to explore between-subjects
effects. Bonferroni correction was used for post-hoc analyses when between-subjects
interaction effects were significant and for non-predicted pair-wise comparisons for
within-subjects interaction effects.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 37
Table 1.1
Descriptive Statistics (Behavioural measures)
Pre-test Post-test
N Mean
Std.
Deviation Mean
Std.
Deviation
Sleep Duration 67 6.43 1.36 7.02 1.35
PSQI 67 5.73 2.85 4.33 2.03
MMI 67 3.37 1.27 2.61 1.67
Weekly Mindful Practice (mins) 67 36.21 107.78 40.87 83.91
Valid N (listwise) 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 38
Table 1.2
Descriptive Statistics (Outcome measures)
Pre-test Post-test
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Mean Std.
Deviation
Depression (DASS-21) 67 12.93 11.23 9.64 10.08
Anxiety (DASS-21) 67 9.25 7.86 5.79 6.40
Stress (DASS-21) 67 14.63 9.05 10.69 8.83
Positive Affect (PANAS) 67 28.57 8.02 29.04 7.89
Negative Affect (PANAS) 67 26.33 8.10 21.99 8.09
Reappraisal (ERQ) 67 4.92 .98 4.89 .97
Suppression (ERQ) 67 4.17 1.15 4.27 1.062
CAMS-R 67 24.00 5.16 24.06 5.23
Stroop Effect 67 95.11 64.93 91.38 52.72
Incongruent Mean Response Time 67 807.72 130.41 762.83 114.29
Congruent Mean Response Time 67 712.61 133.90 671.46 105.57
Psychoeducation test 47 16.15 2.43 15.88 2.60
Valid N (listwise) 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 39
Table 1.3
Descriptive Statistics (Programme Evaluation – post-test only)
Psychoeducation
(N = 23)
Practice
(N = 24)
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Mean Std.
Deviation
Reminders’ Usefulness 24 - - 5.13 1.45
Workload change 47 4.30 1.52 4.46 1.77
Mindfulness practice behaviour
change 47 4.30 .97
5.71 1.23
Overall Total 47 5.02 1.31 - -
Mindfulness practice
behavioural maintenanceb 31 2.00 .00
1.85 .37
Overall Total 31 1.90 .30 - -
Mindfulness practice future
behaviour change 16 4.67 1.72
5.50 .58
Overall Total 16 4.87 1.54 - -
Sleep behaviour change 47 4.22 1.00 4.50 1.02
Overall Total 47 4.36 1.01 - -
Sleep behavioural maintenanceb 20 1.67 .50 1.73 .47
Overall Total 20 1.70 .47 - -
Sleep future behaviour change 27 4.71 1.73 4.69 1.75
Overall Total 27 4.70 1.73 - -
Multitasking behaviour changea 47 4.96 1.11 5.21 1.06
Overall Total 47 5.09 1.08 - -
Multitasking behavioural
maintenanceb 36 2.00 .00
2.00 .00
Overall Total 36 2.00 .00 - -
Multitasking future behaviour
change 11 3.57 2.15
4.75 2.06
Overall Total 11 4.00 2.10 - -
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 40
Table 1.3 (continued)
Psychoeducation
(N = 23)
Practice
(N = 24)
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Mean Std.
Deviation
Mood outcome change 47 4.30 .56 4.92 .97
Overall Total 47 4.62 .85 - -
Mindfulness level outcome
change 47 4.52 .51
5.42 .97
Overall Total 47 4.98 .90 - -
Cognitive functioning outcome
change 47 4.35 .49
4.54 .93
Overall Total 47 4.45 .75 - -
Overall benefit received 4.83 .58 5.21 .72
Overall Total 47 5.02 .68 - -
Change your life for the betterb 47 1.87 .34 1.92 .28
Overall Total 47 1.89 .31 - -
Valid N (listwise) 47
a. Reverse-scored such that increased multitasking behaviour (not desirable) is scored below 4 and
reduced multitasking behaviour (desirable) is scored above 4.
b. Scored such that No is 1 and Yes is 2.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 41
Behavioural Measures
Main effects of time. There was a significant main effect of time for increased
sleep duration (F (1, 61) = 11.51, p < .01; Appendix P.1), decreased media-
multitasking (F (1, 61) = 16.64, p < .001; Appendix P.2), and reduced (increased
PSQI) sleep quality (F (1, 61) = 16.39, p < .001; Appendix P.3). No other significant
effects were found.
Weekly mindful practice duration (mindful practice duration). No main
effects of time, condition or gender were found for mindful practice duration
(Appendix P.4). However, tests of within-subjects effects revealed a significant two-
way interaction effect of condition*time as predicted (F (2, 61) = 4.47, p < .05). A
significant interaction effect of gender*time was also found (F (1, 61) = 4.80, p
< .05). No other significant effects were found.
Pairwise comparisons for the condition*time effect (Figure 2) revealed that
subjects in the Practice condition had significantly higher mindful practice duration
than the other two conditions (Table 2.1), but only at the post-test (F (2, 61) = 4.56, p
< .05). The other two conditions did not differ significantly from each other. It was
also revealed that only subjects in the Practice condition (Table 2.2) significantly
increased their mindful practice duration over time (Pillai’s trace = .11, F (1, 61) =
7.78, p < .01).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 42
Figure 2. Interaction effects of condition across time for weekly mindful practice
duration.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 43
Table 2.1
Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different condition-pairs at each time level).
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice (I) Condition (J) Condition
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Pre-test
Control Psychoeducation -29.087 33.234 .385 -95.543 37.370
Practice -12.755 33.695 .706 -80.132 54.623
Psychoeducation Control 29.087 33.234 .385 -37.370 95.543
Practice 16.332 32.592 .618 -48.839 81.503
Practice Control 12.755 33.695 .706 -54.623 80.132
Psychoeducation -16.332 32.592 .618 -81.503 48.839
Post-test
Control Psychoeducation -12.734 24.246 .601 -61.215 35.748
Practice -68.940* 24.582 .007 -118.094 -19.787
Psychoeducation Control 12.734 24.246 .601 -35.748 61.215
Practice -56.207* 23.776 .021 -103.751 -8.663
Practice Control 68.940* 24.582 .007 19.787 118.094
Psychoeducation 56.207* 23.776 .021 8.663 103.751
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 44
Table 2.2
Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different time-pairs at each condition level).
Condition
(I)
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice
(J)
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test 5.639 18.814 .765 -31.982 43.260
Pre-test -5.639 18.814 .765 -43.260 31.982
Psychoeducation Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test 21.992 17.607 .216 -13.214 57.199
Pre-test -21.992 17.607 .216 -57.199 13.214
Practice Pre-test Post-test -50.547* 18.125 .007 -86.790 -14.303
Post-test Pre-test 50.547* 18.125 .007 14.303 86.790
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 45
Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni adjusted) for the gender*time effect (Figure
3) revealed that female subjects had significantly higher mindful practice duration
(Table 3.1) than the males only at the post-test (F (1, 61) = 4.31, p < .05) but not at
pre-test. An approaching significance effect (Table 3.2) of female subjects increasing
their mindful practice duration over time (Pillai’s trace = .06, F (1, 61) = 3.589, p
= .063) was also found.
These results demonstrated the observations that (i) the significant
condition*time interaction was due to the effect of the Practice condition over time;
(ii) the gender*time interaction was due to female subjects’ significantly higher
mindful practice durations than males at the post-test and (iii) perhaps also their
approaching significance increase in mindful practice duration over time. Given these
results, it was possible to infer and suggest that the effects of the Practice condition
over time may have been caused by the female subjects in that condition despite the
lack of a significant three-way condition*gender*time interaction effect (F (2, 61)
= .83, p = .439). As such, pairwise comparisons were conducted for this 3-way
interaction.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 46
Figure 3. Interaction effects of gender across time for weekly mindful practice
duration.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 47
Table 3.1
Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different gender-pairs at each time level).
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice (I) Gender (J) Gender Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Pre-test Male
Female
Female 4.986 27.089 .855 -49.181 59.154
Male -4.986 27.089 .855 -59.154 49.181
Post-test Male
Female
Female -41.035* 19.762 .042 -80.551 -1.518
Male 41.035* 19.762 .042 1.518 80.551
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 48
Table 3.2
Pairwise comparisons for weekly mindful practice duration (different time-pairs at each gender level).
Gender
(I)
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice
(J)
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Male Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test 15.372 13.393 .256 -11.408 42.152
Pre-test -15.372 13.393 .256 -42.152 11.408
Female Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test -30.649 16.178 .063 -62.999 1.701
Pre-test 30.649 16.178 .063 -1.701 62.999
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 49
Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni adjusted) of the three-way interaction
(Appendix P.4) revealed that female subjects in the Practice condition did indeed have
significantly higher mindful practice durations than female subjects in the other two
conditions (Figure 4), but only at post-test (F (2, 61) = 4.85, p < .05). However,
individual pairwise comparison between Practice and Psychoeducation conditions was
only marginally significant (p = .050). That this effect at post-test was not found for
male subjects supported the integration of observations (i) and (ii); the inference that
significant differences at post-test due to the Practice condition was also due to the
female subjects in that condition. Observation (ii) was also corroborated in this
pairwise comparison, where in the Practice condition only, females had significantly
higher mindful practice durations than males (F (1, 61) = 7.57, p < .01) at post-test.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 50
Figure 4. Side-by-side paired comparisons of female interaction effects of condition across time for weekly mindful practice duration.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 51
The integration of observations (i), (ii) and (iii) was also found to be
supported. Female subjects in the Practice condition significantly increased their
mindful practice duration over time (Pillai’s trace = .08, F (1, 61) = 5.22, p < .05), and
this increase was not significant for the males in that condition (Pillai’s trace = .04, F
(1, 61) = 2.56, p > .05). However, there was also another significant effect in the
Psychoeducation condition (iv). Male subjects in the Psychoeducation condition
significantly decreased (Figure 5) their mindful practice duration over time (Pillai’s
trace = .11, F (1, 61) = 7.50, p < .01).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 52
Figure 5. Side-by-side paired comparisons of male interaction effects of condition across time for weekly mindful practice duration.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 53
Given the three corroborating evidence for the pairwise comparisons (2
univariate and 1 multivariate), it is possible that female subjects in the Practice
condition were the main driving force behind the significant interaction effects of
condition*time and gender x time. Also, the non-corroborated finding of observation
(iv) may provide insight into the lack of a significant three-way interaction effect. In
the pairwise comparisons, males in the Psychoeducation showed significant decrease
in opposing direction with the significant increase by females in the Practice
condition. Also this effect by the males was extremely significant (p < .01), compared
to the effect by the females which was sufficiently significant (p < .05). These issues
may have potentially muted the three-way interaction effect of condition*gender*time
and hidden the consistent effects by females in the Practice condition.
Outcome Measures
Main effect of time. There was a significant main effect of time for decreases
in depression (F (1, 61) = 8.63, p < .01; Appendix P.5), anxiety (F (1, 61) = 30.04, p
< .001; Appendix P.6), stress (F (1, 61) = 13.74, p < .001; Appendix P.7) and negative
affect scores (F (1, 61) = 17.25, p < .001; Appendix P.8) as well as incongruent (F (1,
61) = 23.66, p < .001; Appendix P.9) and congruent mean response times (F (1, 61) =
16.13, p < .001; Appendix P.10) on Stroop trials. No other significant effects were
found for these measures other than anxiety which had a condition*gender interaction
effect (F (2, 61) = 5.93, p < .005; see Appendix P.6 for extended results).
Main effect of Gender. There was a significant between-subjects main effect
of gender for the Stroop effect. Male subjects had significantly larger Stroop effect
scores than females (F (1, 61) = 4.23, p < .05; see Appendix P.11 for extended
results).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 54
Mindfulness (CAMS-R). There was a significant between-subjects main
effect of condition (F (2, 61) = 4.91, p < .05). However, Levene’s test was violated
for the post-test (F (5, 61) = 4.32, p < .005) but not the pre-test (F (5, 61) = .43,
p > .05). Post hoc tests (Bonferroni adjusted) revealed that subjects in the Control
condition had significantly higher average CAMS-R scores than the other two
conditions (Appendix P.12). However, given the Levene’s test violation, paired-
comparisons of t-tests were conducted to account for variance assumptions.
The paired-comparisons of t-tests confirmed this relationship between the
Control and Psychoeducation (equal variances assumed, t (41) = 2.85, p < .01) and the
Control and Practice conditions (equal variances assumed, t (42) = 2.36, p < .05).
No other significant effects were found, although the within-subjects
condition*time effect did approach significance (F (2, 61) = 2.49, p = .092). Given the
significantly higher average CAMS-R scores in the Control condition and the
approaching significance condition*time interaction effect, pairwise comparisons
were conducted to further investigate the potential condition*time interaction.
Pairwise comparisons for the condition*time interaction effect (Figure 6)
revealed that at pre-test, subjects in the Control condition had significantly higher
CAMS-R scores than the other two conditions (F (2, 61) = 6.01, p < .005). At post-
test however, this effect only approached significance (F (2, 61) = 3.07, p = .054),
perhaps due to the non-significant (p = .502) difference between the Control and
Practice conditions’ CAMS-R scores (Table 4.1). This suggests that subjects in the
Practice condition increased their CAMS-R score over time to reduce the significant
gap with subjects in the Control condition.
This seems to be supported by the non-significant change in CAMS-R scores
across time for the Control condition (Table 4.2). However, the increase in CAMS-R
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 55
scores for the Practice condition only approached significance (Pillai’s trace = .05, F
(1, 61) = 3.48, p = .067)
It was possible that the significantly higher CAMS-R scores in the Control
subjects muted the condition*time interaction effects. However, the approaching
significance increase in scores for the Practice subjects across time demonstrated that
this was too weak an effect to yield a significant condition*time interaction.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 56
Figure 6. Interaction effects of condition across time for CAMS-R.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 57
Table 4.1
Pairwise comparisons for CAMS-R (different condition-pairs at each time level).
timeCAMSR (I) Condition (J) Condition
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Pre-test
Control Psychoeducation 4.057* 1.481 .024 .410 7.704
Practice 4.876* 1.502 .006 1.179 8.574
Psychoeducation Control -4.057* 1.481 .024 -7.704 -.410
Practice .819 1.453 1.000 -2.757 4.396
Practice Control -4.876* 1.502 .006 -8.574 -1.179
Psychoeducation -.819 1.453 1.000 -4.396 2.757
Post-test
Control Psychoeducation 3.902* 1.576 .048 .021 7.782
Practice 2.232 1.598 .502 -1.702 6.166
Psychoeducation Control -3.902* 1.576 .048 -7.782 -.021
Practice -1.669 1.546 .853 -5.474 2.136
Practice Control -2.232 1.598 .502 -6.166 1.702
Psychoeducation 1.669 1.546 .853 -2.136 5.474
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 58
Table 4.2
Pairwise comparisons for CAMS-R (different time-pairs at each condition level)
Condition (I) timeCAMSR (J) timeCAMSR Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test .894 .974 .362 -1.053 2.841
Pre-test -.894 .974 .362 -2.841 1.053
Psychoeducation Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test .738 .911 .421 -1.083 2.560
Pre-test -.738 .911 .421 -2.560 1.083
Practice Pre-test Post-test -1.750 .938 .067 -3.625 .125
Post-test Pre-test 1.750 .938 .067 -.125 3.625
Based on estimated marginal means
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 59
Reappraisal (ERQ). No main effects of time, condition or gender were found
for reappraisal scores (Appendix P.13). However, tests of within-subjects effects
revealed a significant two-way interaction effect of condition*time as predicted (F (2,
61) = 3.72, p < .05). A significant three-way interaction effect of
condition*gender*time was also found (F (2, 61) = 3.47, p < .05). No other significant
effects were found.
Pairwise comparisons for the condition*time interaction effect (Figure 7)
revealed that subjects in the Practice condition did not have significantly higher
(Table 5.1) reappraisal scores than the other two conditions at the post-test (F (2, 61)
= 2.13, p > .05). The condition*time interaction effect was therefore caused by
subjects in the Practice condition who significantly increased (Table 5.2) their
reappraisal scores over time (Pillai’s trace = .08, F (1, 61) = 5.24, p < .05).
It was also noted that while the univariate statistic for differences between
conditions at post-test did not demonstrate significant contrasts, the pairwise
differences in estimated marginal means between Practice and Control as well as
Practice and Psychoeducation conditions (Table 5.1) did approach significance (p
= .068 and p = .094 respectively). It was possible that perhaps the extremely non-
significant (p = .83) pair of Control and Psychoeducation conditions at post-test may
have further muted the marginal significance of the other two condition pairs in the
univariate test.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 60
Figure 7. Interaction effects of condition across time for reappraisal (ERQ).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 61
Table 5.1
Pairwise comparisons for reappraisal (different condition-pairs at each time level).
timeReappraisalERQ (I) Condition (J) Condition
Mean Difference
(I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Pre-test
Control Psychoeducation -.056 .306 .855 -.669 .556
Practice .104 .311 .739 -.517 .725
Psychoeducation Control .056 .306 .855 -.556 .669
Practice .160 .300 .596 -.441 .761
Practice Control -.104 .311 .739 -.725 .517
Psychoeducation -.160 .300 .596 -.761 .441
Post-test
Control Psychoeducation -.063 .289 .828 -.642 .515
Practice -.545 .293 .068 -1.132 .041
Psychoeducation Control .063 .289 .828 -.515 .642
Practice -.482 .284 .094 -1.049 .085
Practice Control .545 .293 .068 -.041 1.132
Psychoeducation .482 .284 .094 -.085 1.049
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 62
Table 5.2
Pairwise comparisons for reappraisal (different time-pairs at each condition level)
Condition
(I)
timeReappraisalERQ
(J)
timeReappraisalERQ Mean Difference (I-J) Std. Error Sig.b
95% Confidence Interval for
Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test .207 .200 .305 -.193 .608
Pre-test -.207 .200 .305 -.608 .193
Psychoeducation Pre-test
Post-test
Post-test .200 .187 .290 -.175 .575
Pre-test -.200 .187 .290 -.575 .175
Practice Pre-test Post-test -.442* .193 .026 -.828 -.056
Post-test Pre-test .442* .193 .026 .056 .828
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 63
Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni adjusted) of the three-way interaction
(Appendix P.13) revealed that female subjects in the Practice condition had
significantly higher reappraisal scores than females in the other two conditions
(Figure 8), but only at post-test (F (2, 61) = 4.03, p < .05). However, individual
pairwise comparisons showed only marginal significance between the Practice and
Psychoeducation conditions (p = .054). This effect at post-test was not found for male
subjects in the Practice condition. This was further corroborated by the significant
increase over time, in reappraisal scores, only in females from the Practice condition
(Pillai’s trace = .13, F (1, 61) = 8.82, p < .01). As a result, male and female
reappraisal scores for the Practice condition significantly differed at post-test (F (1,
61) = 7.34, p < .01).
The convergence of evidence from the condition*time and the
condition*gender*time interaction effects point towards the female subjects in the
practice condition as the main source of change in reappraisal scores contributing to
these effects. This was despite the result of such change (overall) not being significant
across the conditions at post-test. However, the three-way interaction revealed that
when males were removed from the analysis, Practice condition females had
significantly higher reappraisal scores than the other two conditions at post-test. This
suggests that the lack of significant change from the males in the Practice condition,
as well as the marginally significant pairwise comparison between Practice and
Psychoeducation conditions for females at post-test may have contributed to muting
the post-test cross-condition effects for the two-way condition*time interaction.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 64
Figure 8. Side-by-side paired comparisons of female interaction effects of condition across time for reappraisal (ERQ).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 65
No significant outcome effects. No significant effects were found for
suppression (Appendix P.14), and positive affect (Appendix P.15).
Psychoeducation Test Scores
There were no significant differences in psychoeducation test scores
(Appendix P.16).
Programme Evaluation
Only attitudes on changes in mindful practice, mood and mindfulness levels
demonstrated a main effect of condition (see Appendix P.17 for extended results).
Further Analyses and Observations
Given the similar findings between the dependent variables of reappraisal
scores (outcome) and mindful practice duration (behaviour), change scores of mindful
practice duration were entered as a covariate into the RM ANOVA for reappraisal
scores to determine if the variation in mindful practice duration would predict the
previous effects in reappraisal scores.
A significant within-subjects three way interaction of condition*gender*time
was found (F (2, 60) = 3.37, p < .05) indicating that after partialing out the effects of
the covariate, the three-way interaction remained significant as before; ergo, the
covariate did not contribute to this effect as previously found (Appendix P.18).
However, the two way within-subjects interaction of condition*time had now lost its
significance (F (2, 60) = 2.82, p = .068), indicating that the covariate did contribute to
the significant effect of this interaction previously found.
Pairwise comparisons revealed that at post-test, mean differences between the
Practice and Control (p = .177) as well as Psychoeducation (p = .245) conditions
became even more insignificant, compared to the marginal significance found
previously, yielding a similarly insignificant effect across conditions at post-test (F (2,
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 66
60) = 2.23, p > .05). However, the Practice condition retained its significant increase
in reappraisal scores over time (Pillai’s trace = .06, F (1, 60) = 4.07, p < .05),
although this was approaching the confidence interval boundary (p = .048). This
suggests that partialing out the covariate’s effects was sufficient to reduce the overall
significance of condition*time but not for the specific across time increases in the
Practice condition found earlier.
Pairwise comparisons for the three way interaction also revealed that the
previously found effects retained their significance. Differences across conditions for
females at post-test (F (2, 60) = 4.12, p < .05); across time for females in the Practice
condition (Pillai’s trace = .11, F (1.00, 60.00) = 7.41, p < .01); and across genders in
the Practice condition at post-test (F (1, 60) = 7.50, p < .01) remained significant,
despite partialing out the covariate’s effects. This suggests that the covariate was not
essential in predicting this three way interaction effect.
Additionally, the covariate of mindful practice duration was run for CAMS-R
scores and the covariate of sleep duration change for reappraisal scores but no
significant effects were found.
Summary of Key Results
In summary, mindful practice duration and reappraisal scores were the only
two dependent variables with the predicted within-subjects condition*time interaction
effects and entering change scores for mindful practice duration as a covariate
supported it as a predictor for reappraisal scores. These two variables also
demonstrated gender influences through gender*time (mindful practice duration) or
three way (reappraisal) interaction effects.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 67
MMI, sleep duration, PSQI, depression, anxiety, stress, negative affect and
MRT on both congruent and incongruent trials showed significant within-subjects
main effect of time.
CAMS-R and Stroop effect showed significant between-subjects effects of
condition and gender respectively and there was potential for the marginally
significant condition*time effect for CAMS-R.
Discussion
While it was predicted that both the Psychoeducation and Practice conditions
would have significantly different behavioural and outcome changes from the Control
condition (and differences between themselves), the results did not demonstrate that
psychoeducation alone was sufficient to induce significant behavioural changes and
the subsequent outcomes, perhaps indicating the need for a structured intervention
plan like in the Practice condition. Even so, not all the predicted effects were found
for the Practice condition as findings were limited to mindfulness practices. Also,
mindfulness practice did not differentially reinforce health behaviours of sleep and
media-multitasking as proposed given that such behavioural changes did not differ
across the conditions.
Mindfulness Training Predicting the Use of Reappraisal Strategies
The results revealed that females in the Practice condition seemed to be
driving the condition*time and gender*time effects for mindful practice duration
although the three way interaction lacked significance. This was paralleled in the
analysis of reappraisal scores with females in the Practice condition driving the three
way interaction and condition*time effects. Together, this evidence seemed to suggest
a reasonable convergence that the antecedent mindful practice for subjects in the
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 68
Practice condition might have been the cause of the change in reappraisal scores,
perhaps even driven by females.
The finding of a female-driven three way interaction for reappraisal scores
remained unexplained, due to a lack of covariate effect (the three way interaction
remained significant); although some research does suggest that females are likely to
use several emotion regulation strategies much more than men (Nolen-Hoeksema &
Aldao, 2011). However, entering change scores for mindful practice duration as a
covariate did render the condition*time effect insignificant, suggesting that this
change in mindfulness practice contributed to the significantly higher reappraisal
scores for the Practice condition at post-test (but not across time in the Practice
condition, although the covariate did reduce significance to closely approach the
confidence interval boundary). This significant covariate effect on reappraisal scores
suggests the predictive value of mindfulness training (Practice condition) in
increasing the usage of reappraisal strategies of emotion regulation.
Recent research seems to support this proposition. Garland and his colleagues
(2015) recently proposed a process model of mindful positive emotion regulation, of
which reappraisal was central to the process. They argued that mindfulness, which has
several key attitudes like beginner’s mind, non-judging, acceptance, and letting go
(Kabat-Zinn, 1996), interrupts automatic or default stress appraisals or reactivity, and
opens up the search of novel perspectives (beginner’s mind, similar to Langer’s
(2014) conception of mindfulness) to inform and reframe stressful situations or
emotions; essentially the process of cognitive reappraisal. They also emphasize the
enhancing effects that mindfulness has on reappraisal as the attentional features of
mindulness bring into focus the awareness of “contents of consciousness” and the
meta-awareness of the “process of consciousness.” This has the effect of forming
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 69
psychological distance and promoting the separation of thoughts from facts (Segal,
Williams, & Teasdale, 2002), further reinforcing reappraisal strategies and outcomes.
Neuroscience research also supports the enahancing role of mindfulness in reappraisal
strategies with their common neural circuitry in emotion-processing regions of the
brain, like the amygdala and structures of the prefrontal cortex that regulate the limbic
regions (Lutz, et al., 2014; Opialla, et al., 2015). Individuals regulating emotion with
reappraisal of negative stimuli predicted greater activity in reappraisal regions of the
brain when they had higher mindful tendencies, including the dorsomedial prefrontal
cortex and other dorsal areas (Modinos, Ormel, & Aleman, 2010). Importantly, this
was correlated to greater reductions in emotional response to negative stimuli in the
amygdala, demonstrating the enhancing effects of mindfulness on reappraisal
strategies. When comparing between mindfulness and reappraisal strategies, both
strategies overlapped in activation of established regions of emotion regulation
processes (medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala) in the brain (Opialla, et al., 2015). In
line with these perspectives and neurological evidence, the findings of the present
study do suggest that mindfulness practice induces greater usage of reappraisal
strategies for emotion regulation, although further, more intervention-specific
research is required to advance this hypothesis. It is also important however, to
recognize the existence of contrasting evidence between reappraisal and mindfulness,
in both brain activation as well as contextual scenarios: larger depletion of cognitive
resources for reappraisal (Keng, 2012), and reappraisal mediating relationships of
mindfulness with depression but not anxiety (Desrosiers, Vine, Klemanski, & Nolen‐
Hoeksema, 2013).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 70
Promising Changes in Mindfulness Levels within a Brief 10-Days Training
Given the significant increases in mindfulness practice from the Practice
condition, it would have seemed likely that the most direct outcome would have
presented itself in the CAMS-R scores, a measure of trait mindfulness levels.
However, CAMS-R scores only showed a marginally significant increase for subjects
in the Practice condition, although subjects in the Psychoeducation and Practice
conditions may have erroneously held attitudes that their mindfulness levels had
increased (mean attitude scores were 4.98 out of 7, where 4 was the semantic
equivalent of no change). Given the short time-frame of 10 days (of just 10 minutes a
day), there may have been insufficient experiential depth for subjects who used
Headspace to significantly improve their trait mindfulness levels over time in
comparison to the specific process links of mindfulness practice with cognitive
reappraisal as discussed earlier.
One important finding however, was the significantly higher average
mindfulness of the Control subjects which may have muted the marginally significant
increase for Practice condition subjects. Moreover, the CAMS-R is just one of at least
five other similar measures of trait mindfulness (Siegling & Petrides, 2013), the most
comprehensive of which is the five-facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ), a
factorial-analysis constructed scale from the various mindfulness scales, including the
CAMS-R, providing greater breadth and depth. The present study did not use the
FFMQ as it was too lengthy (39 items).
Behavioural and Outcome Improvements across Time: Academic Situation and
Environment
Sleep duration increased significantly across the duration of the present study
while sleep quality and media multitasking decreased significantly (PSQI scores
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 71
increased). The divergent directions of sleep duration and quality may perhaps be
attributed to the formulation of sleep quality which incorporates hygiene factors
beyond sleep duration, like sleep disturbances and day disturbances, indicating such
factors (not the focus of this study) may have increased over the study to significantly
impact and reduce sleep quality.
There was also a significant reduction in negative outcome measures of
depression, anxiety, stress and negative affect, but no increase in positive affect over
time. MRT of both congruent and incongruent Stroop trials significantly decreased as
well.
The study began on the final week of classes for the semester and ended
midway into the study break week prior to the final examinations. The last projects or
assignments of the semester usually have deadlines not exceeding the final week of
classes. This academic situation and environment may have contributed to the
significant improvement in negative outcomes and both types of Stroop trials, given
the immediate saliency of emotional and cognitive relief following completion of
final projects and assignments. Although attitudes of workload change may not have
reflected this (mean attitude scores were 4.38 out of 7, where 4 was the semantic
equivalent of no change), the upcoming final examinations may have influenced those
attitudes.
This academic situational environment may also potentially explain the
increased sleep duration as well as reduction in media multitasking. Additionally, the
significant increase in sleep to approximately 7 hours was at the bottom of
recommended range by the National Sleep Foundation (Hirshkowitz, et al., 2015).
Given the significant improvements in sleep duration to adequate recommended
levels, the reduction of negative outcomes may have been further bolstered by the
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 72
improved sleep durations. This would not be surprising given that strong relationships
have been consistently documented between sleep duration and depression
(Fernandez‐Mendoza, et al., 2015; Furihata, et al., 2015; Perlman, Johnson, &
Mellman, 2006; Zhai, Zhang, & Zhang, 2015), anxiety (Potvin, Lorrain, Belleville,
Grenier, & Préville, 2014; Prather, Vogelzangs, & Penninx, 2015; van Mill,
Vogelzangs, van Someren, Hoogendijk, & Penninx, 2013), stress (An, Jang, & Kim,
2015; Mezick, Matthews, Hall, Richard Jennings, & Kamarck, 2014), negative affect
(Kalmbach, Pillai, Roth, & Drake, 2014; Minkel, et al., 2012; Seixas, et al., 2015),
and the benefits of sleep recovery (Motomura, et al., 2014). Attitudes on mood
changes by the Psychoeducation and Practice conditions seemed to reflect this (mean
attitude scores were 4.62 out of 7, where 4 was the semantic equivalent of no change).
These findings however, are contrary to the reduction in sleep quality (Potvin,
Lorrain, Belleville, Grenier, & Préville, 2014). There were also no corresponding
improvements in positive affect, reappraisal and the Stroop effect.
Interventions in the Present Study and Suggestions for Improvement
Psychoeducation as a standalone intervention. Given that the behavioural
change differences in both intervention conditions was in the specific mindfulness
practice, the structured intervention in the form of Headspace may have been a
contributing factor to this difference. In fact, both conditions demonstrated no
significant differences in psychoeducation knowledge both right after completing the
psychoeducation module and at post-test, indicating similar competence in the
knowledge of costs, benefits and strategies which were tested.
The Headspace application offered practical support in the form of a
structured intervention, especially with the guided meditation. One subject even
poignantly commented, “The process of learning mindfulness could be done in a
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 73
video/audio form instead of word form that had to be read.” Moreover, subjects in the
Practice condition did get daily reminders, which has been shown to increase
treatment adherence (Fenerty, West, Davis, Kaplan, & Feldman, 2011). Some subjects
in the Psychoeducation condition reflected the lack of reminders as challenge to their
behavioural change (Appendix Q). Much feedback was also given about the challenge
of finding the time (competing resources with academic and social pursuits) to
practice mindfulness. By contrast, subjects in the Practice condition did provide some
positive feedback about having the Headspace application for their practice, although
some did reflect about the time issue as well. These two differences were the main
factors separating the two conditions in the domain of mindful practice.
Understanding these issues from the perspective of the Information-
Motivation-Strategy (IMS) Model of health behaviour change (DiMatteo & DiNicola,
1982) may shed some light on the inefficacy of the standalone psychoeducation
module. The model suggests that the health behaviour changes proposed would
require three factors; information (health literacy, beliefs, knowledge, recall of what
to do which are provided by the psychoeducation module), motivation (incorporated
in the psychoeducation module as the cost or benefits of the behaviour) and strategy
(physical, social or practical tools, like Headspace which demonstrated success in the
Practice condition).
The psychoeducation module serves as a primary information device fulfilling
the information component of the IMS model. It is likely that the failure to action may
have come from the weakness of the module to provide sufficient motivation and
strategy as components in the IMS model. Information alone may be insufficient to
result in behaviour change. A relevant study found that sleep hygiene awareness was
not strongly correlated to actual practices; ergo knowledge did not equate to practice
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 74
(Brown, Buboltz Jr, & Soper, 2002). Motivation and strategies to reduce motivational
barriers may be necessary to put such knowledge into actionable changes.
Motivation and strategy: sleep and multitasking. Within the
psychoeducation module, the primary device of motivation was in the relevant costs
and benefits to the subjects, which were tied to desirable outcomes in health,
emotional and academic functioning and success. This may not have been sufficient
given the overall lack of behaviour change.
The psychoeducational material included both beneficial (improving sleep and
reducing multitasking) as well as cost information regarding maladaptive behaviours.
Theories of loss aversion would suggest that framing the psychoeducation materials
from the perspective of a valence (attractive possession) and possession loss (Brenner,
Rottenstreich, Sood, & Bilgin, 2007) might yield greater motivation and subsequently
behaviour to avoid such losses beyond just perception of benefits and costs. This
might take the form for example of losing close friends (attractive possession)
because insufficient sleep may compromise interpersonal interactions with foul mood
(poorer emotion regulation). The crucial issue would be to accurately identify the
variety of “attractive possessions” that would be lost.
Additionally, a study examining motivational components of alcohol
interventions found better results when comparing the discrepancy of actual
behaviours with drinking norms than with ideal drinking behaviours in a bid to
investigate the contextual efficacy of cognitive dissonance as a motivational impetus
(McNally & Palfai, 2003). While alcohol consumption behaviours hold different
functions and needs from sleep (biological) and media-multitasking (emotional), the
phenomenon of self versus norm cognitive dissonance may similarly provide more
effective motivation than didactically prescribing ideal behaviours in comparison with
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 75
self. It is noted that alcohol study made use of group discussion as a mode of
intervention.
However, as this intervention was largely designed to be a self-directed
programme (originally a part of a book), in-person structured interventions may
contravene this ideal and goal which would further compete with time resources from
the subjects. Perhaps then, one possible solution to enhance motivation would be
through a behavioural contract or action plan to create expectancy effects and also
engage the cognitive dissonance of behavioural non-performance (Martin, Haskard-
Zolnierek, & DiMatteo, 2010) although the schedule of consequences would have to
be self-maintained and controlled in this paradigm.
The general lack of strategy, which may have been present in this study, could
have been a potential cost, increasing barriers to motivation. The component
interventions involved broad, general goals of “sleeping at least 8 hours a night”,
“stop multitasking” or to “practice 10 minutes of mindfulness meditation every day,”
albeit with guided suggestions and instructions. This was contrasted with the
structured and practical support of the Headspace application, which provided guided
meditation every day of the intervention. While this was not the original intention for
the Practice condition (see below), behavioural contracts and a specific structured
intervention as practical support for sleep and multitasking behaviours would likely
have yielded greater behaviour change, beyond the Control condition.
Sleep and multitasking behaviours also presented with different challenges
than mindfulness which may have required greater motivation and strategy to tackle.
Firstly, sleep and multitasking behaviours are naturally pre-existing behaviours where
attitudes and beliefs have been entrenched, requiring much motivation and practical
strategy to modify. This is opposed to mindfulness which was a novel behaviour to
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 76
most of the subjects. The structured intervention thus provided sufficient practical
support to help with this behaviour change in the Practice condition, even though
motivation and strategy was not sufficient in the Psychoeducation condition.
Secondly, behaviour change predicates opposing challenge to said behaviour.
Increasing sleep duration competes with time resources, which subjects in both
conditions reflected as a main challenge due to their workload. In contrast,
mindfulness meditation required only 10 minutes compared to the hour timescale of
sleep change. This may have been a relative time-scarcity barrier to change even
though subjects did sleep more overall. The reflections of subjects on media-
multitasking inhibition (Appendix Q) revealed that they realised it was not an easy
task to change their habit, hinting at the intrinsic motivation of emotional
gratifications reinforcing their media-multitasking behaviours (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer,
Medeiros-Ward, & Watson, 2013).
As mentioned earlier, structured interventions were originally intended for
sleep and media-multitasking behaviours to provide practical support as a strategy in
managing these behaviours. However, due to the increased operational complexity
and potentially laborious workload for the subjects (concurrent with recruitment
challenges) as detailed below, these intervention plans were dropped from the present
study.
Original intervention for sleep. The Sleep Time mobile application was
originally proposed as a sleep tracking tool since it demonstrated high accuracy in
sleep-wake detection in clinical trials (Bhat, et al., 2014). This would have served to
feedback on subjects’ sleep duration, highlighting the salience of their current
behaviour and motivating them to change in comparison with the ideal sleep proposed
to them. This program however does assume that awareness of one’s sleep hygiene
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 77
factors (sleep duration) would lead to behavioural changes. This would be challenging
in the face of assignments and deadlines competing for time. Moreover, awareness
does not always lead to change (Brown, Buboltz Jr, & Soper, 2002).
Recent research suggests that reducing work-family conflict through social
and organizational change improves sleep duration (Olson, et al., 2015). This might
be a potential intervention for future research, although it does go beyond the scope of
self-directed help in context of the present study.
Original intervention for media-multitasking. In a bid to increase the costs of
and interrupt media-multitasking, StayFocusd and Forest were proposed as
technological aids. StayFocusd is a browser extension which would have allowed
subjects to track time on their website browsing (feedback similar to sleep above) and
more importantly set daily time limits to block websites (social media sites etc.) and
structurally inhibit and control media-multitasking through such scarcity-rationing,
access denial and built-in challenges to access restoration. They also have a “Nuclear
Option” which is irreversible and only resets on the next day. Such negative
punishments notwithstanding, Forest focuses on positive reinforcement as well
(Schacter, Gilbert, & Wegner, 2011; Skinner, 1938). Forest grows trees (visually), for
pre-set time intervals, to grow a forest as a reward for users. It is available both on
mobile phones and internet browsers on computers. Accessing websites on the
“Blacklist” or exiting the phone application would “kill” the currently “growing” tree.
This visual reward-tracking would provide a strongly motivating and practical
structured intervention strategy to modify media-multitasking behaviours, effectively
replacing the emotional gratification “reward” (Sanbonmatsu, Strayer, Medeiros-
Ward, & Watson, 2013). Interestingly, Forests’ tagline is “Forest: Stay focused, be
present”, in line with the practice of mindfulness.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 78
Gneezy, Meier, and Rey-Biel (2011) would however caution againt such
external incentives to replace intrinsic motivations as behaviour would likely resume
once the incentives are removed (for instance subjects can stop using the programs).
Instead, the crowding-out effect (Gneezy, Meier, & Rey-Biel, 2011) on intrinsic
motivation could potentially be employed (counterintuitively) against emotional
gratifications from media-multitasking. Rewarding media-multitasking behaviours
would ‘crowd-out’ the intrinsic motivations underlying this behaviour, such that
incentive removal would result in cessation of media-multitasking. Such an
intervention would however be risky and require expert supervision to determine
when intrinsic motivations have been ‘crowded-out.’
Original intervention for a social support network. Originally, it was proposed
that subjects would be responsible to remind two other subjects (and subsequently be
reminded by two others) to engage in the desired behaviours and to share their
personal growth and journey in the programme. This would essentially establish an
overlapping (for operational redundancy) looped social network where subjects would
be engaged in establishing social support and subjective norms in others’ adherence
behaviours.
Social support can also be a huge motivational factor, enhancing perceived
behavioural control and informing subjective norms to empower behavioural
intentions to change (Theory of Planned Behaviour) as well as a strategic social tool
(IMS model) (Martin, Haskard-Zolnierek, & DiMatteo, 2010). Peer support has been
shown to increase adherence to an online psychoeducation programme for bipolar
patients (Proudfoot, et al., 2012), superior to usual care for depression (Pfeiffer,
Heisler, Piette, Rogers, & Valenstein, 2011) and improved drug adherence (Horvath,
et al., 2013). Benefits have even been shown for the providers of peer support
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 79
(Schwartz & Sendor, 1999). Specifically, group interventions have been shown to be
useful for mindfulness-based interventions (Hassed, De Lisle, Sullivan, & Pier, 2009;
Sharplin, et al., 2010), with added benefits of peer learning.
Mindfulness meditation and Headspace. The contrasting behavioural
changes between the two intervention conditions reflected the differences in both
motivational and strategy components of the IMS model of health behaviour change.
As mentioned, written instructions were given to both conditions as to how to carry
out the mindfulness meditation practice. However, this was a novel, unfamiliar
behaviour, unlike sleep or media-multitasking. Motivational factors may not have
been sufficient to overcome this challenge of novelty as well as that of time
constraints. Mindfulness was framed within a gain perspective as it was behavioural
addition not a modification, unlike sleep and media-multitasking. However,
behavioural contracts and action plans as discussed earlier could still be applied to
enhance motivation for behaviour change.
The key driver for change in this present study seemed to be the structured
intervention of having the Headspace application for subjects to follow. However, not
all the predicted effects were found. In contrast, the only other known study involving
Headspace found increases in positive affect and decreases in depression as compared
to controls after 10 days as well (Howells, Ivtzan, & Eiroa-Orosa, 2014). It is
important to note the sample biases in their study as they primarily recruited
“happiness-seekers” to investigate their experiences with Headspace, which may have
resulted in a positive results search bias given their purposive sampling techniques. In
contrast, the present study was purposive only to the general population of university
students. Given the contrasting findings between the Psychoeducation and Practice
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 80
conditions, there appears to be no inherent motivations to behavioural change guiding
this present study to form a similar positive results search bias.
Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), as advanced by Jon Kabat-
Zinn, was designed as an 8 week intervention with 45 minutes of formal practice
every day (Kabat-Zinn, 1996), while the present study utilized a brief 10-day
programme of just 10 minutes a day. The relatively much shorter length of the study
may be the reason why not all the predicted effects were found for those in the
Practice condition. It is important emphasize the point that mindfulness is not
equivalent to meditation (Bishop, et al., 2004). Instead the practice of meditation
serves the purpose of cultivating mindfulness to generalize into the way we deal with
and be mindful in other contexts of our lives, beyond the formal practice sessions.
This practice would necessarily need to extend and maintain beyond the short 10 days
of the present study for long term effects and benefits.
Limitations of the Present Study
In addition to the issues raised earlier; the short intervention timeframe,
motivation, strategy, and timing of the study, there were other limitations to the
present study.
Due to the timing coupled with the length of the study, recruitment of subjects
was extremely challenging and resulted in a relatively small sample sizes for each
condition (20, 23 and 24 subjects in order of increasing intervention). Thus the results
and findings from this study will require cautious interpretation and only non-
generalizable conclusions (specific to the present study population) could be made.
Given that this is a pilot intervention study however, the findings will provide general
directions for future research to explore and enhance.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 81
With the recruitment challenges, the present study was also unable to pre-
select and pre-qualify only meditation-naïve subjects to enhance the contextual
relevance and significance of the findings.
Moreover, given the significantly higher CAMS-R scores in the Control
condition, matching subjects into the various conditions after the pre-test may have
been a better design to statistically remove this confound. Despite this, given the
multitude of pre-test measures, matching subjects would have been an extremely
challenging effort should subjects present with significant individual differences on
more than one measure.
The length of the pre-test and post-test measures also meant that subjects
would require approximately 25 to 30 minutes for each session. This raised the
potential for task fatigue which could influence the accuracy of subjects’ responses.
Outcome measures were intentionally presented first to minimize task fatigue
influence on these critical measures. The only exception was for the Stroop test as it
was run on a separate platform and was thus presented as the final task. This may
have contributed to the lack of significant predicted effects for Stroop performance.
Lastly, the study was conducted at the subjects’ convenience due to
recruitment challenges. Meaning to say, the environment under which the subjects
took the pre-test, psychoeducation module and post-test were not controlled for. This
may have led to extraneous environmental influences at these various test points.
Subjects were however, given heavily-emphasized instructions to participate in these
test points while in a quiet and comfortable environment.
Promising Attitudes from the Intervention
Despite these limitations, subjects in the Psychoeducation and Practice
condition did rate the study highly in terms of the overall benefits felt (means of 4.83
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 82
and 5.21 respectively out of 7, where 4 was the semantic equivalent of no change) and
that the programme changed their lives for the better (42 out of 47 responded yes). In
fact, some subjects expressed their gratitude for being recruited in the present study
(Appendix R). More importantly, attitudes to either behavioural maintenance or future
behavioural change were generally favourable, indicating the conscious knowledge
and awareness of the benefits and need for this programme, as promoted through the
psychoeducation element of the study. These attitude ratings were held within single
face-valid items on the backdrop of reduced emotional and cognitive load after the
final week of the semester. As such, caution is advised on definitive conclusions from
these attitudes, especially with binary yes or no attitudes.
Conclusion: Implications, Future Developments and Research
The present study may have been too ambitious in introducing two additional
components of intervention to the primary mindfulness training component, despite
the goals for a holistic and comprehensive intervention. In fact, the original intentions
for the sleep, multitasking and social support component would have added layers of
complexity to the design of the 10 day programme.
Even so, the intervention programme for the Practice condition did show
promising effects of increased usage of reappraisal strategies and an approaching
increase in mindfulness levels within the constraints of a short time-frame and the
demands of final week deadlines, supporting the albeit limited efficacy of the
programme. The finding of the link between mindfulness practice of the Eastern
traditions and the associated increase in reappraisal strategies as the related
psychological constructs proposed by the Western traditions of mindfulness further
emphasizes the conceptual similarities behind both traditions, despite their differences
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 83
in formal practice. Further research could also investigate the results on suppression
strategies of emotion regulation as well to examine any potential contrasts.
Given the documented benefits of these health behaviours (see Introduction),
future research should look into further developing and enhancing the
psychoeducation materials and design of the present intervention programme. For
example, redesigning the psychoeducational materials to activate “loss aversion” as
well as incorporating short homework tasks of behavioural contracts and action plans
to enhance the motivational components of the psychoeducation materials so as to
inspire greater behaviour change in future versions of this programme.
Future research can also look into implementing the various structured
interventions for sleep and media-multitasking behaviours beyond the
psychoeducational component to provide the practical strategies and resources for
improved probability of such health behaviour change. These behavioural
interventions could be separately investigated to assess their individual efficacies
before combining all three behavioural changes into a holistic programme like the
present study. Research into the proposed social support network could further
enhance these interventions.
Most importantly, future research should increase the length of the
mindfulness intervention to further explore its effects among the student population.
Long-term follow-ups on behavioural maintenance and outcomes would also provide
validation of the long-term efficacy of such an intervention programme to improve the
design and delivery.
In conclusion, it is hoped that future research can expand on the lessons and
findings from the present study to develop evidence-based, student-targeted
interventions incorporating sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness that will help
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 84
improve students’ health behaviours and subsequently mood, emotion regulation,
mental health and cognitive performance.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 85
References
American College Health Association. (2008). American College Health Association-
National college health assessment Spring 2007 reference group data report
(Abridged). Journal of American College Health, 56, 469–480.
Alzahabi, R. (2015). An individual differences approach to investigate task-switching
and its relationship to media multitasking. (Doctoral dissertation, MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY).
American College Health Association. (2000). American College Health Association-
National College Health Assessment: Reference Group Executive Summary
Spring 2000. Retrieved from American College Health Association:
http://www.acha-ncha.org/docs/ACHA-
NCHA_Reference_Group_ExecutiveSummary_Spring2000.pdf
An, K., Jang, J., & Kim, J. (2015). Sedentary Behavior and Sleep Duration Are
Associated with Both Stress Symptoms and Suicidal Thoughts in Korean
Adults. The Tohoku journal of experimental medicine, 237(4), 279-286.
Antony, M., Bieling, P., Cox, B., Enns, M., & Swinson, R. (1998). Psychometric
properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychological
assessment, 10(2), 176-181.
Baum, K., Desai, A., Field, J., Miller, L., Rausch, J., & Beebe, D. (2014). Sleep
restriction worsens mood and emotion regulation in adolescents. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(2), 180-190.
Beblo, T., Fernando, S., Klocke, S., Griepenstroh, J., Aschenbrenner, S., & Driessen,
M. (2012). Increased suppression of negative and positive emotions in major
depression. Journal of affective disorders, 141(2), 474-479.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 86
Becker, M., Alzahabi, R., & Hopwood, C. (2013). Media multitasking is associated
with symptoms of depression and social anxiety. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 16(2), 132-135.
Bhat, S., Ferraris, A., Gupta, D., Mozafarian, M., DeBari, V., Gushway-Henry,
N., . . . Chokroverty, S. (2014). Is There a Clinical Role For Smartphone Sleep
Apps? Comparison of Sleep Cycle Detection by a Smartphone Application to
Polysomnography. Journal of clinical sleep medicine: JCSM: official
publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, 11(7), 709-715.
Bishop, S., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N., Carmody, J., . . . Devins,
G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical
psychology: Science and practice, 11(3), 230-241.
Bitsika, V., Sharpley, C., & Rubenstein, V. (2010). What Stresses University
Students: An Interview Investigation of the Demands of Tertiary Studies.
Australian journal of guidance and counselling, 20(1), 41-54.
Bouteyre, E., Maurel, M., & Bernaud, J. (2007). Daily hassles and depressive
symptoms among first year psychology students in France: The role of coping
and social support. Stress and Health, 23(2), 93-99.
Brand, S., Holsboer-Trachsler, E., Naranjo, J., & Schmidt, S. (2012). Influence of
mindfulness practice on cortisol and sleep in long-term and short-term
meditators. Neuropsychobiology, 65(3), 109-118.
Brenner, L., Rottenstreich, Y., Sood, S., & Bilgin, B. (2007). On the psychology of
loss aversion: Possession, valence, and reversals of the endowment effect.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34(3), 369-376.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 87
Britton, W., Shahar, B., Szepsenwol, O., & Jacobs, W. (2012). Mindfulness-based
cognitive therapy improves emotional reactivity to social stress: results from a
randomized controlled trial. Behavior Therapy, 43(2), 365-380.
Brown, F., Buboltz Jr, W., & Soper, B. (2002). Relationship of sleep hygiene
awareness, sleep hygiene practices, and sleep quality in university students.
Behavioral medicine, 28(1), 33-38.
Burckhardt, C., & Anderson, K. (2003). The Quality of Life Scale (QOLS):
reliability, validity, and utilization. Health and quality of life outcomes, 1, 60.
Buysse, D., Reynolds, C., Monk, T., Berman, S., & Kupfer, D. (1989). The Pittsburgh
Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research.
Psychiatry research, 28(2), 193-213.
Caldwell, J., Prazinko, B., & Caldwell, J. (2003). Body posture affects
electroencephalographic activity and psychomotor vigilance task performance
in sleep-deprived subjects. Clinical Neurophysiology, 114(1), 23-31.
Carmody, J. (2014). Eastern and Western Approaches to Mindfulness - Similarities,
Differences, and Clinical Implications. In A. Ie, C. Ngnoumen, & E. Langer,
The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness (pp. 48-57). Chichester, West
Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Cavanagh, C. (2013). Emotion Regulation and Cardiovascular Response to Emotion
Provocation: Reappraisal versus Suppression. Masters Dissertation, WEST
VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY.
Cavanagh, K., Strauss, C., Cicconi, F., Griffiths, N., Wyper, A., & Jones, F. (2013). A
randomised controlled trial of a brief online mindfulness-based intervention.
Behaviour research and therapy, 51(9), 573-578.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 88
Chambers, R., Lo, B., & Allen, N. (2008). The impact of intensive mindfulness
training on attentional control, cognitive style, and affect. Cognitive therapy
and research, 32(3), 303-322.
Chee, M. (2013). Sleep, public health and wellness: the elephant in the room. Annals
of the Academy of Medicine, 42(3), 105-107.
Chen, Y., Yang, X., Wang, L., & Zhang, X. (2013). A randomized controlled trial of
the effects of brief mindfulness meditation on anxiety symptoms and systolic
blood pressure in Chinese nursing students. Nurse education today, 33(10),
1166-1172.
Chittora, R., Jain, A., Suhalka, P., Sharma, C., Jaiswal, N., & Bhatnagar, M. (2015).
Sleep deprivation: Neural regulation and consequences. Sleep and Biological
Rhythms, 13(3), 210-218.
Chong, S., Abdin, E., Vaingankar, J., Heng, D., Sherbourne, C., Yap, M., . . .
Subramaniam, M. (2012). A population-based survey of mental disorders in
Singapore. Annals of the Academy of Medicine-Singapore, 41(2), 49-66.
Clayson, D., & Haley, D. (2013). An Introduction to Multitasking and Texting
Prevalence and Impact on Grades and GPA in Marketing Classes. Journal of
Marketing Education, 35(1), 26-40.
Colom, R., Martínez-Molina, A., Shih, P., & Santacreu, J. (2010). Intelligence,
working memory, and multitasking performance. Intelligence, 38(6), 543-551.
Danielsson, N., MacDonald, S., Jansson-Fröjmark, M., Linton, S., & Harvey, A.
(2011). Short-term partial sleep deprivation: Effects on emotion regulation of
healthy adults. Sleep Medicine, 12, S14.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 89
Davidson, R., Kabat-Zinn, J., Schumacher, J., Rosenkranz, M., Muller, D., Santorelli,
S., . . . Sheridan, J. (2003). Alterations in brain and immune function produced
by mindfulness meditation. Psychosomatic medicine, 65(4), 564-570.
Davis, D., & Hayes, J. (2011). What are the benefits of mindfulness? A practice
review of psychotherapy-related research. Psychotherapy, 48(2), 198-208.
Davis, E., & Levine, L. (2013). Emotion regulation strategies that promote learning:
Reappraisal enhances children’s memory for educational information. Child
development, 84(1), 361-374.
Desrosiers, A., Vine, V., Klemanski, D., & Nolen‐Hoeksema, S. (2013). Mindfulness
and emotion regulation in depression and anxiety: common and distinct
mechanisms of action. Depression and anxiety, 30(7), 654-661.
Dick, A., Niles, B., Street, A., DiMartino, D., & Mitchell, K. (2014). Examining
mechanisms of change in a yoga intervention for women: The influence of
mindfulness, psychological flexibility, and emotion regulation on PTSD
symptoms. Journal of clinical psychology, 70(12), 1170-1182.
Diener, E., & Chan, M. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being
contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐
Being, 3(1), 1-43.
DiMatteo, M., & DiNicola, D. (1982). Achieving patient compliance: The psychology
of the medical practitioner's role. Pergamon general psychology series.
Dimidjian, S., Beck, A., Felder, J., Boggs, J., Gallop, R., & Segal, Z. (2014). Web-
based Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy for reducing residual depressive
symptoms: An open trial and quasi-experimental comparison to propensity
score matched controls. Behaviour research and therapy, 63, 83-89.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 90
Dyson, R., & Renk, K. (2006). Freshmen adaptation to university life: Depressive
symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of clinical psychology, 62(10), 1231-
1244.
Edens, K. (2006). The relationship of university students' sleep habits and academic
motivation. NASPA Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 43(3),
432-445.
Eftekhari, A., Zoellner, L., & Vigil, S. (2009). Patterns of emotion regulation and
psychopathology. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 22(5), 571-586.
Eisenberg, D., Gollust, S., Golberstein, E., & Hefner, J. (2007). Prevalence and
correlates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality among university students.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 77(4), 534-542.
Elkin, A., & Murray, D. (1974). The effects of sleep loss on short-term recognition
memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie,
28(2), 192-198.
Ellis, Y. D., & Jauregui, A. (2010). The effect of multitasking on the grade
performance of business students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 8,
1-10.
Fallone, G., Owens, J., & Deane, J. (2002). Sleepiness in children and adolescents:
clinical implications. Sleep medicine reviews, 6(4), 287-306.
Fan, Y., Tang, Y., Tang, R., & Posner, M. (2014). Short term integrative meditation
improves resting alpha activity and stroop performance. Applied
psychophysiology and biofeedback, 39(3), 213-217.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. (2007).
Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 91
of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R).
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177-190.
Felver, J., Doerner, E., Jones, J., Kaye, N., & Merrell, K. (2013). Mindfulness in
school psychology: applications for intervention and professional practice.
Psychology in the Schools, 50(6), 531-547.
Fenerty, S., West, C., Davis, S., Kaplan, S., & Feldman, S. (2011). The effect of
reminder systems on patients’ adherence to treatment. Patient preference and
adherence, 6, 127-135.
Fernandez‐Mendoza, J., Shea, S., Vgontzas, A., Calhoun, S., Liao, D., & Bixler, E.
(2015). Insomnia and incident depression: role of objective sleep duration and
natural history. Journal of sleep research, 24(4), 390-398.
Finley, J., Benjamin, A., & McCarley, J. (2014). Metacognition of multitasking: How
well do we predict the costs of divided attention? Journal of experimental
psychology: applied, 20(2), 158–165.
Foerde, K., Knowlton, B., & Poldrack, R. (2006). Modulation of competing memory
systems by distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
103(31), 11778-11783.
Furihata, R., Uchiyama, M., Suzuki, M., Konno, C., Konno, M., Takahashi, S., . . .
Akashiba, T. (2015). Association of short sleep duration and short time in bed
with depression: A Japanese general population survey. Sleep and Biological
Rhythms, 13(2), 136-145.
Garland, E., Farb, N., Goldin, P., & Fredrickson, B. (2015). Mindfulness broadens
awareness and builds eudaimonic meaning: a process model of mindful
positive emotion regulation. Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 293-314.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 92
Geisler, F., & Schröder-Abé, M. (2015). Is emotion suppression beneficial or
harmful? It depends on self-regulatory strength. Motivation and Emotion,
39(4), 553-562.
Gethin, R. (2011). On some definitions of mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism,
12(1), 263-279.
Gilbert, S., & Weaver, C. (2010). Sleep quality and academic performance in
university students: A wake-up call for college psychologists. Journal of
college student psychotherapy, 24(4), 295-306.
Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don't) work
to modify behavior. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191-209.
Goldin, P., McRae, K., Ramel, W., & Gross, J. (2008). The neural bases of emotion
regulation: reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biological
psychiatry, 63(6), 577-586.
Gomes, A., Tavares, J., & de Azevedo, M. (2011). Sleep and academic performance
in undergraduates: a multi-measure, multi-predictor approach. Chronobiology
Internationa, 28(9), 786-801.
Gopalakrishnan, A., Ji, L., & Cirelli, C. (2004). Sleep deprivation and cellular
responses to oxidative stress. Sleep, 27(1), 27-35.
Graziano, P., Reavis, R., Keane, S., & Calkins, S. (2007). The role of emotion
regulation in children's early academic success. Journal of school psychology,
45(1), 3-19.
Gross, J., & Jazaieri, H. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and psychopathology
an affective science perspective. Clinical Psychological Science, 2(4), 387-
401.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 93
Gross, J., & John, O. (2003). Individual Differences in Two Emotion Regulation
Processes: Implications for Affect, Relationships, and Well-Being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348-362.
Gu, J., Strauss, C., Bond, R., & Cavanagh, K. (2015). How do mindfulness-based
cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental
health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation
studies. Clinical psychology review, 37, 1-12.
Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. (2002). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school
performance in middle school children. Journal of school psychology, 40(5),
395-413.
Haga, S., Kraft, P., & Corby, E. (2009). Emotion regulation: Antecedents and well-
being outcomes of cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression in cross-
cultural samples. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10(3), 271-291.
Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. (1997). Sleep deprivation affects speech. Sleep: Journal of
Sleep Research & Sleep Medicine, 20(10), 871-877.
Harrison, Y., & Horne, J. (1999). One night of sleep loss impairs innovative thinking
and flexible decision making. Organizational behavior and human decision
processes, 78(2), 128-145.
Hassed, C., De Lisle, S., Sullivan, G., & Pier, C. (2009). Enhancing the health of
medical students: outcomes of an integrated mindfulness and lifestyle
program. Advances in health sciences education, 14(3), 387-398.
Henry, J., & Crawford, J. (2005). The short‐form version of the Depression Anxiety
Stress Scales (DASS‐21): Construct validity and normative data in a large
non‐clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44(2), 227-239.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 94
Hirshkowitz, M., Whiton, K., Albert, S., Alessi, C., Bruni, O., DonCarlos, L., . . .
Hillard, P. (2015). National Sleep Foundation’s sleep time duration
recommendations: methodology and results summary. Sleep Health, 1(1), 40-
43.
Hockey, G. (1970). Changes in attention allocation in a multicomponent task under
loss of sleep. British Journal of Psychology, 61(4), 473-480.
Hofmann, S., Heering, S., Sawyer, A., & Asnaani, A. (2009). How to handle anxiety:
The effects of reappraisal, acceptance, and suppression strategies on anxious
arousal. Behaviour research and therapy, 389-394.
Hölzel, B., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., Congleton, C., Yerramsetti, S., Gard, T., &
Lazar, S. (2011). Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray
matter density. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 191(1), 36-43.
Horvath, K., Oakes, J., Rosser, B., Danilenko, G., Vezina, H. A., Williams, M., &
Simoni, J. (2013). Feasibility, acceptability and preliminary efficacy of an
online peer-to-peer social support ART adherence intervention. AIDS and
Behavior, 17(6), 2031-2044.
Howell, A., Digdon, N., & Buro, K. (2010). Mindfulness predicts sleep-related self-
regulation and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 48(4), 419-
424.
Howell, A., Digdon, N., Buro, K., & Sheptycki, A. (2008). Relations among
mindfulness, well-being, and sleep. Personality and Individual Differences,
45(8), 773-77.
Howells, A., Ivtzan, I., & Eiroa-Orosa, F. (2014). Putting the ‘app’in Happiness: A
Randomised Controlled Trial of a Smartphone-Based Mindfulness
Intervention to Enhance Wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1-23.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 95
Hu, C., Huang, K., Hu, X., Liu, Y., Yuan, F., Wang, Q., & Fu, G. (2015). Measuring
the cognitive resources consumed per second for real-time lie-production and
recollection: a dual-tasking paradigm. Frontiers in psychology, 6, 596.
Huber, R., Ghilardi, M., Massimini, M., & Tononi, G. (2004). Local sleep and
learning. Nature, 6995, 78-81.
Hwee, O. H. (2014, January 23). NUS rolls out 'grade-free' system for its freshmen.
Retrieved October 30, 2015, from Straits Times:
http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/nus-rolls-out-grade-free-system-for-its-
freshmen
Ie, A. H. (2012). Mindful multitasking: The relationship between mindful flexibility
and media multitasking. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(4), 1526-1532.
Jacobsen, W., & Forste, R. (2011). The wired generation: Academic and social
outcomes of electronic media use among university students.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(5), 275-280.
Jenkins, J., & Dallenbach, K. (1995). Oblivescence during sleep and waking. The
American Journal of Psychology, 35(4), 605-612.
Jimenez, S., Niles, B., & Park, C. (2010). A mindfulness model of affect regulation
and depressive symptoms: Positive emotions, mood regulation expectancies,
and self-acceptance as regulatory mechanisms. Personality and individual
differences, 49(6), 645-65.
John, O. P., & Gross, J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation:
Personality processes, individual differences, and life span development.
Journal of personality, 72(6), 1301-1334.
Johnson, L. (1982). Sleep deprivation and performance. Biological rhythms, sleep,
and performance, 111-141.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 96
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1996). Mindfulness meditation: What it is, what it isn’t, and its role in
health care and medicine. In Y. Haruki, Y. Ishii, & M. Suzuki, Comparative
and psychological study on meditation (pp. 161-169). Netherlands: Eburon.
Retrieved from
http://www.umassmed.edu/contentassets/24cd221488584125835e2eddce7dbb
89/mbsr_standards_of_practice_2014.pdf
Kalmbach, D., Pillai, V., Roth, T., & Drake, C. (2014). The interplay between daily
affect and sleep: a 2‐week study of young women. Journal of sleep research,
23(6), 636-645.
Kalokerinos, E., Greenaway, K., & Denson, T. (2015). Reappraisal but not
suppression downregulates the experience of positive and negative emotion.
Emotion, 15(3), 271-275.
Keng, S. (2012). A Laboratory Investigation of Mindfulness and Reappraisal As
Emotion Regulation Strategies. Doctoral dissertation, Duke University.
Keng, S., Smoski, M., & Robins, C. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological
health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical psychology review, 31(6),
1041-1056.
Kerr, C., Jones, S., Wan, Q., Pritchett, D., Wasserman, R., Wexler, A., . . . Moore, C.
(2011). Effects of mindfulness meditation training on anticipatory alpha
modulation in primary somatosensory cortex. Brain research bulletin, 85(3),
96-103.
Khalik, S. (2013, May 22). Lack of sleep is nothing to yawn about. Retrieved October
25, 2015, from Straits Times: http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/lack-of-
sleep-is-nothing-to-yawn-about
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 97
Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V., . . .
Hofmann, S. (2013). Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive meta-
analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(6), 763-771.
Killgore, W., & Killgore, D. (2007). Morningness-eveningness correlates with verbal
ability in women but not men. Perceptual and motor skills, 104(1), 335-338.
Killgore, W., Balkin, T., & Wesensten, N. (2006). Impaired decision making
following 49 h of sleep deprivation. Journal of sleep research, 15(1), 7-13.
Kirk, U., Downar, J., & Montague, P. (2011). Interoception drives increased rational
decision-making in meditators playing the ultimatum game. Frontiers in
Neuroscience, 5, 49.
Krygier, J., Heathers, J., Shahrestani, S., Abbott, M., Gross, J., & Kemp, A. (2013).
Mindfulness meditation, well-being, and heart rate variability: a preliminary
investigation into the impact of intensive Vipassana meditation. International
Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(3), 305-313.
Kuyken, W., Weare, K., Ukoumunne, O., Vicary, R., Motton, N., Burnett, R., . . .
Huppert, F. (2013). Effectiveness of the Mindfulness in Schools Programme:
non-randomised controlled feasibility study. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
203(2), 126-131.
Langer, E. (2014). Mindfulness Forward and Back. In A. Ie, C. Ngnoumen, & E.
Langer, The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Mindfulness (pp. 7-20). Chichester,
West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell.
Larsen, J., Vermulst, A., Geenen, R., Van Middendorp, H., English, T., Gross, J., . . .
Engels, R. (2013). Emotion Regulation in Adolescence A Prospective Study of
Expressive Suppression and Depressive Symptoms. The Journal of Early
Adolescence, 33(2), 184-200.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 98
Lee, S., Sagayadevan, V., Vaingankar, J., Chong, S., & Subramaniam, M. (2015).
Subthreshold and threshold DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder in
Singapore: Results from a nationally representative sample. Journal of anxiety
disorders, 32, 73-80.
Lo, J., Leong, R., Loh, K., Dijk, D., & Chee, M. (2014). Young adults’ sleep duration
on work days: differences between East and West. Frontiers in neurology, 5,
81.
Loh, K., & Kanai, R. (2014). Higher media multi-tasking activity is associated with
smaller gray-matter density in the anterior cingulate cortex. PloS one, 9(9),
e106698.
Lovibond, S., & Lovibond, P. (1995). Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress
Scales. (2nd. ed.). Sydney: Psychology Foundation.
Lund, H., Reider, B., Whiting, A., & Prichard, J. (2010). Sleep patterns and predictors
of disturbed sleep in a large population of college students. Journal of
adolescent health, 46(2), 124-132.
Lutz, J., Herwig, U., Opialla, S. H., Jäncke, L., Rufer, M., Grosse, H., & Brühl, A.
(2014). Mindfulness and emotion regulation—an fMRI study. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(6), 776-785.
Lynch, S., Gander, M., Kohls, N., Kudielka, B., & Walach, H. (2011). Mindfulness‐
based coping with university life: A non‐randomized wait‐list‐controlled pilot
evaluation. Stress and Health, 27(5), 365-375.
MacKenzie, M., & Baumeister, R. (2015). Self-Regulatory Strength and Mindfulness.
In B. Ostafin, M. Robinson, & B. Meier, Handbook of Mindfulness and Self-
Regulation (pp. 95-105). New York: Springer.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 99
MacLeod, C. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative
review. Psychological bulletin, 109(2), 163-203.
Mahmoud, J., Staten, R., Hall, L., & Lennie, T. (2012). The relationship among young
adult college students’ depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life
satisfaction, and coping styles. Issues in mental health nursing, 33(3), 149-
156.
Mahmoud, J., Staten, R., Lennie, T., & Hall, L. (2015). The Relationships of Coping,
Negative Thinking, Life Satisfaction, Social Support, and Selected
Demographics With Anxiety of Young Adult College Students. Journal of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 28(2), 97-108.
Mandal, S. P. (2012). Mental health and mindfulness: Mediational role of positive and
negative affect. SIS Journal of Projective Psychology and Mental Health,
19(2), 150-159.
Markarian, S., Pickett, S., Deveson, D., & Kanona, B. (2013). A model of BIS/BAS
sensitivity, emotion regulation difficulties, and depression, anxiety, and stress
symptoms in relation to sleep quality. Psychiatry research, 210(1), 281-286.
Martin, L., Haskard-Zolnierek, K., & DiMatteo, M. (2010). Health behavior change
and treatment adherence: Evidence-based guidelines for improving
healthcare. USA: Oxford University Press.
Mauss, I., Troy, A., & LeBourgeois, M. (2013). Poorer sleep quality is associated
with lower emotion-regulation ability in a laboratory paradigm. Cognition &
emotion, 27(3), 567-576.
McNally, A., & Palfai, T. (2003). Brief group alcohol interventions with college
students: Examining motivational components. Journal of drug education,
33(2), 159-176.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 100
Meddis, R. (1982). Cognitive dysfunction following loss of sleep. The pathology and
psychology of cognition, 225-252.
Medeiros-Ward, N., Watson, J., & Strayer, D. (2015). On supertaskers and the neural
basis of efficient multitasking. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 22(3), 876-
883.
Medina, J. (2014). Brain Rules : 12 Principles for Surviving and Thriving at Work,
Home, and School. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.
Meijer, A. (2008). Chronic sleep reduction, functioning at school and school
achievement in preadolescents. Journal of sleep research, 17(4), 395-405.
Mezick, E., Matthews, K., Hall, M., Richard Jennings, J., & Kamarck, T. (2014).
Sleep duration and cardiovascular responses to stress in undergraduate men.
Psychophysiology, 51(1), 88-96.
Minkel, J., Banks, S., Htaik, O., Moreta, M., Jones, C., McGlinchey, E., . . . Dinges,
D. (2012). Sleep deprivation and stressors: evidence for elevated negative
affect in response to mild stressors when sleep deprived. Emotion, 12(5),
1015-1020.
Minkel, J., McNealy, K., Gianaros, P., Drabant, E., Gross, J., Manuck, S., & Hariri,
A. (2012). Sleep quality and neural circuit function supporting emotion
regulation. Biology of mood & anxiety disorders, 2(1), 22-30.
Modinos, G., Ormel, J., & Aleman, A. (2010). Individual differences in dispositional
mindfulness and brain activity involved in reappraisal of emotion. Social
Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 5(4), 369–377.
Mokhtari, K., Delello, J., & Reichard, C. (2015). Connected Yet Distracted:
Multitasking Among College Students. Journal of College Reading and
Learning, 45(2), 164-180.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 101
Mooneyham, B., & Schooler, J. (2013). The costs and benefits of mind-wandering: a
review. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de
psychologie expérimentale, 67(1), 11-18.
Moore, A., & Malinowski, P. (2009). Meditation, mindfulness and cognitive
flexibility. Consciousness and cognition, 18(1), 176-186.
Moore, B. (2013). Propensity for experiencing flow: The roles of cognitive flexibility
and mindfulness. The Humanistic Psychologist, 41(4), 319-332.
Morin, C., & Ware, J. (1996). Sleep and psychopathology. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 5(4), 211-224.
Motomura, Y., K. S., Nakazaki, K., Oba, K., Katsunuma, R., Katayose, Y., . . .
Mishima, K. (2014). Recovery from potential sleep debt via sleep extension
may improve emotion regulation. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
2(94), 227.
Motomura, Y., Kitamura, S., Nakazaki, K., Oba, K., Katsunuma, R., Katayose, Y., . . .
Mishima, K. (2014). Recovery from potential sleep debt via sleep extension
may improve emotion regulation. International Journal of Psychophysiology,
2(94), 227.
Mrazek, M., Franklin, M., Phillips, D., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. (2013). Mindfulness
training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance while
reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 24(5), 776-781.
Mullington, J., Haack, M., Toth, M., Serrador, J., & Meier-Ewert, H. (2009).
Cardiovascular, inflammatory, and metabolic consequences of sleep
deprivation. Progress in cardiovascular diseases, 51(4), 294-302.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 102
Murakami, H., Katsunuma, R., Oba, K., Terasawa, Y., Motomura, Y., Mishima, K., &
Moriguchi, Y. (2015). Neural networks for mindfulness and emotion
suppression. PloS one, 10(6), e0128005.
Murphy, J., Guzmán, J., McCarthy, A., Squicciarini, A., George, M., Canenguez,
K., . . . Jellinek, M. (2015). Mental health predicts better academic outcomes:
a longitudinal study of elementary school students in Chile. Child Psychiatry
& Human Development, 46(2), 245-256.
Murrell, S., Salsman, N., & Meeks, S. (2003). Educational attainment, positive
psychological mediators, and resources for health and vitality in older adults.
Journal of Aging and health, 15(4), 591-615.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Aldao, A. (2011). Gender and age differences in emotion
regulation strategies and their relationship to depressive symptoms.
Personality and Individual Differences, 51(6), 704-708.
Olson, R., Crain, T., Bodner, T., King, R., Hammer, L., Klein, L., . . . Buxton, O.
(2015). A workplace intervention improves sleep: results from the randomized
controlled Work, Family, and Health Study. Sleep Health, 1(1), 55-65.
Ong, J., Ulmer, C., & Manber, R. (2012). Improving sleep with mindfulness and
acceptance: A metacognitive model of insomnia. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 50(11), 651-660.
Ophir, E., Nass, C., & Wagner, A. (2009). Cognitive control in media multitaskers.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587.
Opialla, S., Lutz, J., Scherpiet, S., Hittmeyer, A., Jäncke, L., Rufer, M., . . . Brühl, A.
(2015). Neural circuits of emotion regulation: A comparison of mindfulness-
based and cognitive reappraisal strategies. European Archives of Psychiatry
and Clinical Neuroscience, 265(1), 45-55.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 103
Orzeł-Gryglewska, J. (2010). Consequences of sleep deprivation. International
journal of occupational medicine and environmental health, 23(1), 95-114.
Peigneux, P., Laureys, S., Delbeuck, X., & Maquet, P. (2001). Sleeping brain,
learning brain. The role of sleep for memory systems. Neuroreport, 12(18),
A111-A124.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in students'
self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and
quantitative research. Educational psychologist, 37(2), 91-105.
Perlman, C., Johnson, S., & Mellman, T. (2006). The prospective impact of sleep
duration on depression and mania. Bipolar disorders, 8(3), 271-274.
Pfeiffer, P., Heisler, M., Piette, J., Rogers, M., & Valenstein, M. (2011). Efficacy of
peer support interventions for depression: a meta-analysis. General hospital
psychiatry, 33(1), 29-36.
Piet, J., & Hougaard, E. (2011). The effect of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for
prevention of relapse in recurrent major depressive disorder: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review, 31(6), 1032-1040.
Pilcher, J., & Huffcutt, A. (1996). Effects of sleep deprivation on performance: a
meta-analysis. Sleep: Journal of Sleep Research & Sleep Medicine., 19(4),
318-326.
Pilcher, J., & Walters, A. (1997). How sleep deprivation affects psychological
variables related to college students' cognitive performance. Journal of
American College Health, 46(3), 121-126.
Polzella, D. (1975). Effects of sleep deprivation on short-term recognition memory.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1(2),
194-200.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 104
Potvin, O., Lorrain, D., Belleville, G., Grenier, S., & Préville, M. (2014). Subjective
sleep characteristics associated with anxiety and depression in older adults: a
population‐based study. International journal of geriatric psychiatry, 29(12),
1262-1270.
Prather, A., Vogelzangs, N., & Penninx, B. (2015). Sleep duration, insomnia, and
markers of systemic inflammation: Results from the Netherlands Study of
Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). Journal of psychiatric research, 60, 95-
102.
Proudfoot, J., Parker, G., Manicavasagar, V., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., Whitton, A.,
Nicholas, J., . . . Burckhardt, R. (2012). Effects of adjunctive peer support on
perceptions of illness control and understanding in an online psychoeducation
program for bipolar disorder: a randomised controlled trial. Journal of
affective disorders, 142(1), 98-105.
Ralph, B., Thomson, D., Cheyne, J., & Smilek, D. (2014). Media multitasking and
failures of attention in everyday life. Psychological research, 78(5), 661-669.
Ramezankhani, A., Gharlipour, Z., Heydarabadi, A., Tavassoli, E., Motalebi, M.,
Barekati, H., . . . Moosavi, S. (2013). Perceived social support, depression, and
perceived stress in university students. Journal of Paramedical Sciences, 4(4),
Perceived social support, depression, and perceived stress in university
students.
Ramler, T., Tennison, L., Lynch, J., & Murphy, P. (2015). Mindfulness and the
college transition: The efficacy of an adapted mindfulness-based stress
reduction intervention in fostering adjustment among first-year students.
Mindfulness, 7(1), 1-10.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 105
Regehr, C., Glancy, D., & Pitts, A. (2013). Interventions to reduce stress in university
students: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of affective disorders, 148(1),
1-11.
Richards, J., & Gross, J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences
of emotion suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8),
1033-1044.
Richards, J., & Gross, J. (2000). Emotion regulation and memory: the cognitive costs
of keeping one's cool. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(3),
410-424.
Riemann, D., Berger, M., & Voderholzer, U. (2001). Sleep and depression—results
from psychobiological studies: an overview. Biological psychology, 57(1), 67-
103.
Riley, B. (2014). Experiential avoidance mediates the association between thought
suppression and mindfulness with problem gambling. Journal of Gambling
Studies, 30(1), 163-171.
Rodriguez Vega, B., Melero-Llorente, J., Bayon Perez, C., Cebolla, S., Mira, J. V., &
Fernández-Liria, A. (2014). Impact of mindfulness training on attentional
control and anger regulation processes for psychotherapists in training.
Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 202-213.
Rosen, L., Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. (2013). Facebook and texting made me do it:
Media-induced task-switching while studying. Computers in Human Behavior,
29(3), 948-958.
Rosen, L., Lim, A., Carrier, L., & Cheever, N. (2011). An empirical examination of
the educational impact of text message-induced task switching in the
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 106
classroom: Educational implications and strategies to enhance learning.
Psicología educativa, 17(2), 163-177.
Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(4), 719–727.
Salvucci, D., Taatgen, N., & Borst, J. (2009). Toward a unified theory of the
multitasking continuum: From concurrent performance to task switching,
interruption, and resumption. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on
human factors in computing systems (pp. 1819-1828). ACM.
Samkoff, J., & Jacques, C. (1991). A review of studies concerning effects of sleep
deprivation and fatigue on residents' performance. Academic Medicine,
66(11), 687-693.
Sana, F., Weston, T., & Cepeda, N. (2013). Laptop multitasking hinders classroom
learning for both users and nearby peers. Computers & Education, 62, 24-31.
Sanbonmatsu, D., Strayer, D., Medeiros-Ward, N., & Watson, J. (2013). Who multi-
tasks and why? Multi-tasking ability, perceived multi-tasking ability,
impulsivity, and sensation seeking. PloS one, 8(1), e54402.
Sandru, C., & Voinescu, B. (2014). The relationship between emotion regulation,
dysfunctional beliefs about sleep and sleep quality-an exploratory study.
Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, 14(2), 249-257.
Schacter, D., Gilbert, D., & Wegner, D. (2011). B. F. Skinner: The role of
reinforcement and Punishment. In Psychology; Second Edition (pp. 278-288).
New York: Worth, Incorporated.
Schwartz, C., & Sendor, R. (1999). Helping others helps oneself: response shift
effects in peer support. Social science & medicine, 48(11), 1563-1575.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 107
Sears, S., & Kraus, S. (2009). I think therefore I om: Cognitive distortions and coping
style as mediators for the effects of mindfulness meditation on anxiety,
positive and negative affect, and hope. Journal of clinical psychology, 65(6),
561-573.
Segal, Z., Williams, J., & Teasdale, J. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
for depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Seixas, A., Nunes, J., Airhihenbuwa, C., Williams, N., Pandi-Perumal, S., James, C.,
& Jean-Louis, G. (2015). Linking emotional distress to unhealthy sleep
duration: analysis of the 2009 National Health Interview Survey.
Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment, 11, 2425–2430.
Shapiro, S., & Schwartz, G. (2000a). Intentional systemic mindfulness: an integrative
model for self-regulation and health. Advances in mind-body medicine., 16(2),
128-134.
Shapiro, S., & Schwartz, G. (2000b). The role of intention in self-regulation: Toward
intentional systemic mindfulness. In M. Boekaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner,
Handbook of self-regulation. (pp. 253-273). San Diego, CA, US: Academic
Press.
Shapiro, S., Schwartz, G., & Bonner, G. (1998). Effects of mindfulness-based stress
reduction on medical and premedical students. Journal of behavioral
medicine, 21(6), 581-599.
Sharplin, G., Jones, S., Hancock, B., Knott, V., Bowden, J., & Whitford, H. (2010).
Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy: an efficacious community-based group
intervention for depression and anxiety in a sample of cancer patients. Medical
Journal of Australia, 193(5), S79-S82.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 108
Sheppes, G., Suri, G., & Gross, J. (2015). Emotion regulation and psychopathology.
Annual review of clinical psychology, 11, 379-405.
Siegling, A., & Petrides, K. (2013). Measures of trait mindfulness: Convergent
validity, shared dimensionality, and linkages to the five-factor model.
Frontiers in psychology, 5, 1164-1164.
Silva, R., Abilio, V., Takatsu, A., Kameda, S., Grassl, C., Chehin, A., . . . Tufik, S. F.-
F. (2004). Role of hippocampal oxidative stress in memory deficits induced by
sleep deprivation in mice. Neuropharmacology, 46(6), 895-903.
Skinner, B. (1938). The behavior of organisms: an experimental analysis. New York:
Appleton Century Crofts.
Smith, C. (1995). Sleep states and memory processes. Behavioural brain research,
69(1), 137-145.
Song, Y., & Lindquist, R. (2015). Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on
depression, anxiety, stress and mindfulness in Korean nursing students. Nurse
education today, 35(1), 86-90.
Strayer, D., & Watson, J. (2012). Supertaskers and the multitasking brain. Scientific
American Mind, 23(1), 22-29.
Stroop, J. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
experimental psychology, 18(6), 643-662.
Süer, C., Dolu, N., Artis, A., Sahin, L., Yilmaz, A., & Cetin, A. (2011). The effects of
long-term sleep deprivation on the long-term potentiation in the dentate gyrus
and brain oxidation status in rats. Neuroscience research, 70(1), 71-77.
Sundem, G. (2012, February 24). This is Your Brain on Multitasking: Brains of
multitaskers are structurally different than brains of monotaskers. Retrieved
from Psychology Today (Brain Trust):
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 109
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-trust/201202/is-your-brain-
multitasking
Tacón, A., McComb, J., Caldera, Y., & Randolph, P. (2003). Mindfulness meditation,
anxiety reduction, and heart disease: a pilot study. Family & community
health, 26(1), 25-33.
Talbot, L., McGlinchey, E., Kaplan, K., Dahl, R., & Harvey, A. (2010). Sleep
deprivation in adolescents and adults: changes in affect. Emotion, 10(6), 831.
Tamagawa, R., Giese‐Davis, J., Speca, M., Doll, R., Stephen, J., & Carlson, L.
(2013). Trait mindfulness, repression, suppression, and self‐reported mood and
stress symptoms among women with breast cancer. Journal of clinical
psychology, 69(3), 264-277.
Thomas, M., Sing, H., Belenky, G., Holcomb, H., Mayberg, H., Dannals, R., . . .
Redmond, D. (2003). Neural basis of alertness and cognitive performance
impairments during sleepiness II. Effects of 48 and 72 h of sleep deprivation
on waking human regional brain activity. Thalamus & Related Systems, 2(3),
199-229.
Torterolo, P., Scorza, C., Lagos, P., Urbanavicius, J., Benedetto, L., Pascovich, C., . . .
Monti, J. (2015). Melanin-concentrating hormone (MCH): role in REM sleep
and depression. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9, 475.
Trockel, M., Barnes, M., & Egget, D. (2000). Health-related variables and academic
performance among first-year college students: implications for sleep and
other behaviors. Journal of American college health, 49(3), 125-131.
Tsuno, N., Besset, A., & Ritchie, K. (2005). Sleep and depression. Journal of Clinical
Psychiatry, 66(10), 1254-1269.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 110
Turner, K. (2014). Mindfulness Skills Training: A Pilot Study of Changes in
Mindfulness, Emotion Regulation, and Self-Perception of Aging in Older
Participants. Activities, Adaptation & Aging, 38(2), 156-167.
van Mill, J., Vogelzangs, N., van Someren, E., Hoogendijk, W., & Penninx, B.
(2013). Sleep duration, but not insomnia, predicts the 2-year course of
depressive and anxiety disorders. The Journal of clinical psychiatry, 75(2),
119-126.
Vandekerckhove, M., Kestemont, J., Weiss, R., Schotte, C., Exadaktylos, V., Haex,
B., . . . Gross, J. (2012). Experiential versus analytical emotion regulation and
sleep: Breaking the link between negative events and sleep disturbance.
Emotion, 12(6), 1415-1421.
Vanderhasselt, M., Baeken, C., Van Schuerbeek, P., Luypaert, R., & De Raedt, R.
(2013). Inter-individual differences in the habitual use of cognitive reappraisal
and expressive suppression are associated with variations in prefrontal
cognitive control for emotional information: an event related fMRI study.
Biological psychology, 92(3), 433-439.
Verger, P., Guagliardo, V., Gilbert, F., Rouillon, F., & Kovess-Masfety, V. (2010).
Psychiatric disorders in students in six French universities: 12-month
prevalence, comorbidity, impairment and help-seeking. Social psychiatry and
psychiatric epidemiology, 45(2), 189-199.
Vickery, C., & Dorjee, D. (2015). Mindfulness Training in Primary Schools
Decreases Negative Affect and Increases Meta-Cognition in Children.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6(603), 2025.
Vinci, C., Peltier, M., Shah, S., Kinsaul, J., Waldo, K., McVay, M., & Copeland, A.
(2014). Effects of a brief mindfulness intervention on negative affect and urge
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 111
to drink among college student drinkers. Behaviour research and therapy, 59,
82-93.
Wang, G., Grone, B., Colas, D., Appelbaum, L., & Mourrain, P. (2011). Synaptic
plasticity in sleep: learning, homeostasis and disease. Trends in neurosciences,
34(9), 452-463.
Wang, Y., & Yang, L. (2014). Suppression (but Not Reappraisal) Impairs subsequent
error detection: An ERP study of emotion regulation's resource-depleting
effect. PloS one, 9(4), e96339.
Wang, Z., & Tchernev, J. (2012). The “myth” of media multitasking: Reciprocal
dynamics of media multitasking, personal needs, and gratifications. Journal of
Communication, 62(3), 493-513.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & 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.
Watson, J., & Strayer, D. (2010). Supertaskers: Profiles in extraordinary multitasking
ability. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 17(4), 479-485.
Wickrama, K., O’Neal, C., & Lott, R. (2012). Early community contexts,
race/ethnicity and young adult CVD risk factors: the protective role of
education. Journal of community health, 37(4), 781-790.
Williams, H., & Lubin, A. (1967). Speeded addition and sleep loss. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 73(2), 313-317.
Wolfson, A., & Carskadon, M. (2003). Understanding adolescent's sleep patterns and
school performance: a critical appraisal. Sleep medicine reviews, 7(6), 491-
506.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 112
Worringer, B., Langner, R., Koch, I., Eickhoff, S., Rottschy, C., & Binkofski, F.
(2015). Investigating Neural Correlates of Dual-Tasking and Task-Switching:
A Meta-Analytic Approach. Conference Abstract: XII International
Conference on Cognitive Neuroscience (ICON-XII). Frontiers of Human
Neuroscience. doi:10.3389/conf.fnhum.2015.217.00033
Yahoo! Newsroom. (2013, April 24). NUS scholar found dead in UTown campus.
Retrieved from Yahoo! News: https://sg.news.yahoo.com/nus-scholar-found-
dead-in-utown-campus-185329134.html
Yuan, J., Liu, Y., Ding, N., & Yang, J. (2014). The regulation of induced depression
during a frustrating situation: Benefits of expressive suppression in Chinese
individuals. PloS one, 9(5), e97420.
Yuan, J., Long, Q., Ding, N., Lou, Y., Liu, Y., & Yang, J. (2015). Suppression
dampens unpleasant emotion faster than reappraisal: Neural dynamics in a
Chinese sample. Science China Life Sciences, 58(5), 480-491.
Zeidan, F., Martucci, K., Kraft, R., Gordon, N., McHaffie, J., & Coghill, R. (2011).
Brain mechanisms supporting the modulation of pain by mindfulness
meditation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31(14), 5540-5548.
Zenner, C., Herrnleben-Kurz, S., & Walach, H. (2013). Mindfulness-based
interventions in schools-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in
psychology, 5, 603-603.
Zhai, L., Zhang, H., & Zhang, D. (2015). Sleep duration and depression among adults:
a meta-analysis of prospective studies. Depression and anxiety, 32(9), 664-
670.
Zhang, W. (2015). Learning variables, in-class laptop multitasking and academic
performance: A path analysis. Computers & Education, 81, 82-88.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 113
Appendices
Appendix A: Participation Information Sheet
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 114
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 115
Appendix B: Consent Form
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 116
Appendix C: Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)
This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then select the number from
the scale below next to each word. Indicate to what extent you have felt this way over the past week.
1
Very Slightly or
Not at All
2
A Little
3
Moderately
4
Quite a Bit
5
Extremely
1) Interested ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 2) Distressed ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
3) Excited ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4) Upset ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
5) Strong ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
6) Guilty ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
7) Scared ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
8) Hostile ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
9) Enthusiastic ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
10) Proud ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 117
1
Very Slightly or
Not at All
2
A Little
3
Moderately
4
Quite a Bit
5
Extremely
11) Irritable ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 12) Alert ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
13) Ashamed ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
14) Inspired ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
15) Nervous ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
16) Determined ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
17) Attentive ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
18) Jittery ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
19) Active ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
20) Afraid ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Scoring Instructions:
Positive Affect Score: Add the scores on items 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19. Scores can range from 10 – 50, with higher scores
representing higher levels of positive affect.
Negative Affect Score: Add the scores on items 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 18, and 20. Scores can range from 10 – 50, with lower scores
representing lower levels of negative affect.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 118
Appendix D: Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)
(Gross & John, 2003)
We would like to ask you some questions about your emotional life, in particular, how you control (that is, regulate and manage) your
emotions. The questions below involve two distinct aspects of your emotional life.
One is your emotional experience, or what you feel like inside.
The other is your emotional expression, or how you show your emotions in the way you talk, gesture, or behave.
Although some of the following questions may seem similar to one another, they differ in important ways. For each item, please answer
using the following scale:
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6 7
Strongly
Agree
1) When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as
joy or amusement), I change what I’m thinking about. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
2) I keep my emotions to myself. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
3) When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as
sadness or anger), I change what I’m thinking about. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4) When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not
to express them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 119
1
Strongly
Disagree
2
3
4
Neutral
5
6
7
Strongly
Agree
5) When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make
myself think about it in a way that helps me stay calm. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
6) I control my emotions by not expressing them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
7) When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change
the way I’m thinking about the situation. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
8) I control my emotions by changing the way I think
about the situation I’m in. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
9) When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not
to express them. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
10) When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change
the way I’m thinking about the situation. ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Scoring (no reversals):
Reappraisal Items: 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10
Suppression Items: 2, 4, 6, 9.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 120
Appendix E: Depression Anxiety Stress Scales - 21 (DASS-21)
(Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995)
Please read each statement and select a number 0, 1, 2 or 3 which indicates how much the statement applied to you over the past week.
There are no right or wrong answers. Do not spend too much time on any statement.
0
Did not
apply
to me at
all
1
Applied to me
to some degree,
or some of the
time
2
Applied to me to
a considerable
degree, or a good
part of time
3
Applied to me
very much, or
most of the
time
1) I found it hard to wind down ○ ○ ○ ○
2) I was aware of dryness of my mouth ○ ○ ○ ○
3) I couldn't seem to experience any positive feeling at all ○ ○ ○ ○
4) I experienced breathing difficulty (eg, excessively rapid breathing, breathlessness in the absence of physical exertion)
○ ○ ○ ○
5) I found it difficult to work up the initiative to do things ○ ○ ○ ○
6) I tended to over-react to situations ○ ○ ○ ○
7) I experienced trembling (eg, in the hands) ○ ○ ○ ○
8) I felt that I was using a lot of nervous energy ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 121
0
Did not
apply
to me at
all
1
Applied to me
to some degree,
or some of the
time
2
Applied to me to
a considerable
degree, or a good
part of time
3
Applied to me
very much, or
most of the
time
9) I was worried about situations in which I might panic and make a fool of myself
○ ○ ○ ○
10) I felt that I had nothing to look forward to ○ ○ ○ ○
11) I found myself getting agitated ○ ○ ○ ○
12) I found it difficult to relax ○ ○ ○ ○
13) I felt down-hearted and blue ○ ○ ○ ○
14) I was intolerant of anything that kept me from getting on with what I was doing
○ ○ ○ ○
15) I felt I was close to panic ○ ○ ○ ○
16) I was unable to become enthusiastic about anything ○ ○ ○ ○
17) I felt I wasn't worth much as a person ○ ○ ○ ○
18) I felt that I was rather touchy ○ ○ ○ ○
19) I was aware of the action of my heart in the absence of physical exertion (eg, sense of heart rate increase, heart missing a beat)
○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 122
0
Did not
apply
to me at
all
1
Applied to me
to some degree,
or some of the
time
2
Applied to me to
a considerable
degree, or a good
part of time
3
Applied to me
very much, or
most of the
time
20) I felt scared without any good reason ○ ○ ○ ○
21) I felt that life was meaningless ○ ○ ○ ○
Scoring Instructions:
Depression: Add the scores on items 2, 4, 7, 9, 15, 19, 20; and multiply the sum by 2. Scores can range from 0 – 42, with higher scores
representing higher levels of depression.
Anxiety: Add the scores on items 3, 5, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21; and multiply the sum by 2. Scores can range from 0 – 42, with lower scores
representing lower levels of anxiety.
Stress: Add the scores on items 1, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 18; and multiply the sum by 2. Scores can range from 0 – 42, with higher scores representing
higher levels of stress.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 123
Appendix F: Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale - Revised (CAMS-R)
(Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007)
This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item and then select the number from
the scale below next to each word. Indicate to what extent you have felt this way over the past week.
1
Rarely/Not at All
2
Sometimes
3
Often
4
Almost Always
1) It is easy for me to concentrate on what I
am doing. ○ ○ ○ ○
2) I can tolerate emotional pain. ○ ○ ○ ○
3) I can accept things I cannot change. ○ ○ ○ ○
4) I can usually describe how I feel at the
moment in considerable detail. ○ ○ ○ ○
5) I am easily distracted. (R) ○ ○ ○ ○
6) It’s easy for me to keep track of my
thoughts and feelings. ○ ○ ○ ○
7) I try to notice my thoughts without
judging them. ○ ○ ○ ○
8) I am able to accept the thoughts and
feeling I have. ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 124
1
Rarely/Not at All
2
Sometimes
3
Often
4
Almost Always
9) I am able to focus on the present moment. ○ ○ ○ ○
10) I am able to pay close attention to one
thing for a long time. ○ ○ ○ ○
Scoring instructions:
Item 5 is reverse scored.
Sum of all scores reflect extent of mindful qualities.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 125
Appendix G: Mindful Lifestyle Habits Questionnaire
Knowledge check (pre-test only).
1. Do you know what mindfulness is?
a. Yes
b. No
2. What is mindfulness?
Habits.
3. Do you practice mindfulness? (meditation is considered mindfulness practice)
a. Yes
b. No
If yes, carry on to question 4, if no, end of questionnaire.
4. Currently, how many days a week do you practice mindfulness?
a. 1 e. 5
b. 2 f. 6
c. 3 g. 7
d. 4
5. During the day(s) you practice mindfulness, what is the average duration (mins) of
your practice?
mins
6. What are the main mindful practices that you have?
a. Breathing d. Eating
b. Meditation e. Others: _______________________
c. Yoga
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 126
Appendix H: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI)
(Buysse, Reynolds, Monk, Berman, & Kupfer, 1989)
1. During the past week, what time have you usually gone to bed at night?
BED TIME (0000 – 2359)
2. During the past week, how long (in minutes) has it usually taken you to fall asleep
each night?
NUMBER OF MINUTES
3. During the past week, what time have you usually gotten up in the morning?
GETTING UP TIME (0000 – 2359)
4. During the past week, how many hours of actual sleep did you get at night? (This
may be different than the number of hours you spent in bed.)
HOURS OF SLEEP PER NIGHT (0000 – 2359)
5. During the past week, how often have you had trouble sleeping because you . . .
0
Not
during
the past
week
1
Less
than
once
2
Once or
twice
3
Three
or more
times
a) Cannot get to sleep within 30
minutes ○ ○ ○ ○
b) Wake up in the middle of the
night or early morning ○ ○ ○ ○
c) Have to get up to use the
bathroom ○ ○ ○ ○
d) Cannot breathe comfortably ○ ○ ○ ○
e) Cough or snore loudly ○ ○ ○ ○
f) Feel too cold ○ ○ ○ ○
g) Feel too hot ○ ○ ○ ○
h) Had bad dreams ○ ○ ○ ○
i) Have pain ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 127
0
Not
during
the past
week
1
Less
than
once
2
Once or
twice
3
Three
or more
times
j) Other reason(s), please
describe
__________________________________
How often during the past
month have you had trouble
sleeping because of this?
○ ○ ○ ○
6. During the past month, how would you rate your sleep quality overall?
0
Very good
1
Fairly good
2
Fairly bad
3
Very Bad
○ ○ ○ ○
7. During the past month, how often have you taken medicine to help you sleep
(prescribed or "over the counter")?
0
Not during the
past week
1
Less than
once
2
Once or
twice
3
Three or
more times
○ ○ ○ ○
8. During the past month, how often have you had trouble staying awake while
driving, eating meals, or engaging in social activity?
0
Not during the
past week
1
Less than
once
2
Once or
twice
3
Three or
more times
○ ○ ○ ○
9. During the past month, how much of a problem has it been for you to keep up
enough enthusiasm to get things done?
0
No problem at
all
1
Only a very
slight
problem
2
Somewhat
of a
problem
3
A very big
problem
○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 128
Scoring:
For each question / subscale, minimum score = 0 (better); maximum score = 3
(worse).
Duration of sleep (PSQIDURAT).
IF Q4 ≥ 7, THEN set value to 0.
IF Q4 < 7 and ≥ 6, THEN set value to 1.
IF Q4 < 6 and ≥ 5, THEN set value to 2.
IF Q4 < 5, THEN set value to 3.
Sleep disturbance (PSQIDISTB).
Sum of Q5b to Q5j. If no response for Q5j, set value of Q5j to 0.
IF sum = 0, THEN set value to 0.
IF sum ≥ 1 and ≤ 9, THEN set value to 1.
IF sum > 9 and ≤ 18, THEN set value to 2.
IF sum > 18, THEN set value to 3.
Sleep latency (PSQILATENT).
Firstly, recode Q2 into Q2new as follows:
IF Q2 ≥ 0 and ≤ 15, THEN set value to 0.
IF Q2 > 15 and ≤ 30, THEN set value to 1.
IF Q2 > 30 and ≤ 60, THEN set value to 2.
IF Q2 > 60, THEN set value to 3.
Next, sum Q5a and Q2new:
IF Q5a + Q2new = 0, THEN set value to 0.
IF Q5a + Q2new ≥ 1 and ≤ 2, THEN set value to 1.
IF Q5a + Q2new ≥ 3 and ≤ 4, THEN set value to 2.
IF Q5a + Q2new ≥ 5 and ≤ 6, THEN set value to 3.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 129
Day dysfunction due to sleepiness (PSQIDAYDYS).
IF Q8 + Q9 = 0, THEN set value to 0.
IF Q8 + Q9 ≥ 1 and ≤ 2, THEN set value to 1.
IF Q8 + Q9 ≥ 3 and ≤ 4, THEN set value to 2.
IF Q8 + Q9 ≥ 5 and ≤ 6, THEN set value to 3.
Sleep efficiency (PSQIHSE).
newtib = number of hours (ratio to the seconds) between Q1 and Q3, BED
TIME and GETTING UP TIME.
tmphse = (Q4 / newtib) * 100
IF tmphse ≤ 85, THEN set value to 0.
IF tmphse < 85 and ≥ 75, THEN set value to 1.
IF tmphse < 75 and ≥ 65, THEN set value to 2.
IF tmphse < 65, THEN set value to 3.
Overall sleep quality (PSQISLPQUAL).
Q6, actual value 0 – 3.
Need medication to sleep (PSQIMEDS).
Q7, actual value 0 – 3.
PSQI total.
PSQIDURAT + PSQIDISTB + PSQILATEN + PSQIDAYDYS + PSQIHSE +
PSQISLPQUAL + PSQIMEDS = PSQI total score
PSQI ≤ 5 associated with good sleep quality.
PSQI > 5 associated with poor sleep quality.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 130
Appendix I: Media Multitasking Index (MMI)
(Ophir, Nass, & Wagner, 2009)
Kindly record the number of hours you spent the past week on the following
mediums (hi):
1. Print media __________ hours
(reading, like newspapers, digital texts etc.)
2. Television __________ hours
3. Computer-/device-based video __________ hours
(YouTube, online television episodes etc.)
4. Music __________ hours
5. Video/computer/mobile games __________ hours
6. Telephone/mobile phone/internet calls __________ hours
(SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook chat, Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.)
7. Text/instant messaging __________ hours
8. Email __________ hours
9. Web surfing/social media browsing __________ hours
(Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag, Pinterest etc.)
10. Other computer-based applications __________ hours
(Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 131
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Print media (reading, like newspapers, digital texts etc.):
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Television ○ ○ ○ ○
Computer-based video (YouTube, online television episodes etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Music ○ ○ ○ ○
Video / Computer / Mobile games ○ ○ ○ ○
Telephone / Mobile phone voice calls ○ ○ ○ ○
Text / Instant messaging (SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook
chat, Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Email ○ ○ ○ ○
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 132
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Television:
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Computer-based video (YouTube, online television episodes etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Music ○ ○ ○ ○
Video / Computer / Mobile games ○ ○ ○ ○
Telephone / Mobile phone voice calls ○ ○ ○ ○
Text / Instant messaging (SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook
chat, Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Email ○ ○ ○ ○
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 133
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Computer-based video (YouTube, online television episodes etc.):
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Music ○ ○ ○ ○
Video / Computer / Mobile games ○ ○ ○ ○
Telephone / Mobile phone voice calls ○ ○ ○ ○
Text / Instant messaging (SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook
chat, Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Email ○ ○ ○ ○
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Music:
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Video / Computer / Mobile games ○ ○ ○ ○
Telephone / Mobile phone voice calls ○ ○ ○ ○
Text / Instant messaging (SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook
chat, Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Email ○ ○ ○ ○
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 134
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Video / Computer games:
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Telephone / Mobile phone voice calls ○ ○ ○ ○
Text / Instant messaging (SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook
chat, Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Email ○ ○ ○ ○
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Telephone / Mobile phone voice calls:
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Text / Instant messaging (SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook
chat, Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Email ○ ○ ○ ○
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 135
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Text / Instant messaging (SMS, WhatsApp, WeChat, Line, Facebook chat,
Google chat, QQ, IRC, etc.):
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Email ○ ○ ○ ○
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Email:
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Please indicate how often you concurrently use the following media concurrently with
Web surfing / Social Media browsing (Facebook, Instagram, Reddit, 9gag,
Pinterest etc.):
1
Most of
the time
0.67
Some of
the time
0.33
A little of
the time
0
Never
Other computer-based applications (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Photoshop etc.) ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 136
Scoring:
hi: total number of hours in the past week for each media form.
htotal: total number of hours in the past week across all 10 media forms.
mi: mean number of 9 other media used while engaging in medium in question
= sum of scores of the 9 other media while engaging in the medium in question.
MMI = ∑𝑚𝑖 × ℎ𝑖
ℎ𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙
10
𝑖=1
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 137
Appendix J: Stroop Test Stimuli
(Stroop, 1935) http://www.psytoolkit.org/experiment-library/stroop.html
Instructions.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 138
Word stimuli.
White fixation cross.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 139
Accuracy feedback.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 140
Appendix K: Psychoeducation Materials
Holistic Strategies for Effective Students; Mindfulness, Mind Wandering, Multitasking & Sleep (begins on the next page).
The following contains the low resolution version due to space constraints. For a higher resolution, kindly visit the following link:
Holistic Strategies for Effective Students; Mindfulness, Mind Wandering, Multitasking & Sleep
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 141
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 142
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 143
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 144
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 145
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 146
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 147
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 148
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 149
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 150
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 151
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 152
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 153
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 154
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 155
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 156
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 157
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 158
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 159
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 160
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 161
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 162
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 163
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 164
Appendix L: 10-Day Challenge Worksheet
(Begins on the next page)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 165
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 166
Appendix M: Psychoeducation Test
Correct options are bolded.
7. How often does our mind wander?
a. 19% of the time c. 58.6% of the time
b. 46.9% of the time d. 10% of the time
8. How is mind wandering related to happiness?
a. Even if I have happy thoughts while mind wandering, I will be unhappier
in the long run.
b. Mind wandering helps to improve happiness as it relieves stress.
c. Mind wandering will make people unhappy as they are wasting time.
d. Mind wandering improves happiness as it triggers our creative aspect.
9. Mind wandering and depression are related through the process of
a. Rumination. c. Lack of sensitivity to the
environment.
b. Creativity leading to reduced
depressive symptoms.
d. None of the above.
10. Using electronic devices before sleeping will cause me to take longer to fall
asleep.
a. True b. False
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 167
11. Why is it so?
Light suppresses melatonin which regulates sleep / tells your body it’s not time to
sleep yet.
Answers must demonstrate knowledge of the causation (light – 0.5 marks),
mechanism (hormones / melatonin – 0.5 marks) and effect (sleep regulation /
not time to sleep / or any reasonable variation of this).
12. List 3 ways that you can get a better night’s sleep:
1 mark for each correct answer up to a maximum 3 marks:
“Not worrying about getting
insufficient sleep.”
“Following a routine to “tell” my body it
is time to fall asleep.”
“Practicing mindfulness.” “Worrying more about not getting
enough sleep.” “Darkening my bedroom.”
“Avoiding exercise before bed time”
Or any other reasonable changes to behaviour or environment in service of
better sleep.
13. People are generally good at multitasking.
a. True b. False
14. If I multitask, I can do tasks more efficiently and better
a. True b. False
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 168
15. Name 3 problems associated with multitasking:
1 mark for each correct answer up to a maximum 3 marks:
“Feel more stress.” “Unable to apply what I have learnt.”
“Less creative.” “Finish my work slower.”
“Produce worse work.” “May get significantly lower test
results.”
Or any other reasonable problems.
16. What is mindfulness?
“Awareness that arises through paying attention, on purpose, in the present
moment, non-judgementally.”
Answers must demonstrate knowledge of the mechanism (attention / paying
attention / awareness / or any reasonable variation of this – 0.5 marks),
temporality (moment-to-moment / in the moment / immediate experience / or
any reasonable variation of this – 0.5 marks) and attitudes (any one of the 7
attitudes).
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 169
17. Name 3 attitudes of mindfulness:
1 mark for each correct answer up to a maximum 3 marks:
“Non-judging.” “Non-striving.”
“Patience.” “Acceptance.”
“Beginner’s mind.” “Letting go.”
“Trust.”
18. Name 3 benefits of mindfulness:
1 mark for each correct answer up to a maximum 3 marks:
“Less stress.” “Increased empathy.”
“Improve relationships.” “Rational decision making.”
“Positive emotions.” “Reduce mind wandering.”
“Memory improvements.” “Immune system boost.”
“Grey matter increases.” “Reduce pain.”
Or any other reasonable variations.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 170
Appendix N: Program Evaluation (Psychoeducation and Practice Conditions
Only)
1. Answer this question honestly. Did you read all of the material in the book
provided at the beginning of the study?
1
Not at all
2
Less than half of it
3
More than half of it
4
Yes, all of it
○ ○ ○ ○
2. Answer this question honestly. How useful did you find the daily reminders in
helping you achieve the desired habits? (Practice condition only.)
1
Not at all
useful
2
Not
useful
3
Slightly
not useful
4
No
difference
5
Slightly
useful
6
Useful
7
Very
useful
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
3. Comparing right now to just before this program (11 days ago), how much did
your workload change?
1
Much
less than
before
2
Less than
before
3
Slightly
less than
before
4
The same
as before
5
Slightly
more than
before
6
More
than
before
7
Much
more than
before
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
4. Over the past 10 days, how much sleep did you get?
1
Much
less than
usual
2
Less than
usual
3
Slightly
less than
usual
4
The same
as usual
5
Slightly
more than
usual
6
More
than
usual
7
Much
more than
usual
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
If Q4 ≤ 4, proceed to Q5, if Q4 > 4, proceed to Q6.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 171
5. Do you feel you need to make changes to improve your sleep habits (for the
better)?
1
I do not
need to
change
2
3
4
5
6
7
I intend
to change
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
6. Do you plan to maintain the changes you have made in your sleep habits?
Yes No
○ ○
7. Over the past 10 days, how much did you multitask (less is better)?
7
Much
less than
usual
6
Less than
usual
5
Slightly
less than
usual
4
The same
as usual
3
Slightly
more than
usual
2
More
than
usual
1
Much
more than
usual
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Scoring here reflects reversed scores.
If Q7 ≥ 4, proceed to Q8, if Q7 < 4, proceed to Q9.
8. Do you feel you need to make changes to improve your multitasking habits (for
the better)?
1
I do not
need to
change
2
3
4
5
6
7
I intend
to change
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 172
9. Do you plan to maintain the changes you have made in your multitasking habits?
Yes No
○ ○
10. Over the past 10 days, how much mindfulness practice did you get?
1
Much
less than
usual
2
Less than
usual
3
Slightly
less than
usual
4
The same
as usual
5
Slightly
more than
usual
6
More
than
usual
7
Much
more than
usual
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
If Q10 ≤ 4, proceed to Q11, if Q10 > 4, proceed to Q12.
11. Do you feel you need to make changes to improve your mindfulness habits (for
the better)?
1
I do not
need to
change
2
3
4
5
6
7
I intend
to change
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
12. Do you plan to maintain the changes you have made in your mindfulness habits?
Yes No
○ ○
13. Over the past 10 days, how has your mood changed?
1
Much
worse
2
Worse
3
Slightly
worse
4
The same
5
Slightly
better
6
Better
7
Much
better
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 173
14. Over the past 10 days, how has your cognitive functioning changed?
1
Much
worse
2
Worse
3
Slightly
worse
4
The same
5
Slightly
better
6
Better
7
Much
better
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
15. Over the past 10 days, how has your mindfulness / awareness changed?
1
Much
worse
2
Worse
3
Slightly
worse
4
The same
5
Slightly
better
6
Better
7
Much
better
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
16. Over the past 10 days, how do you feel the program has benefitted you overall?
1
I am truly
worse off
2
I am
worse off
3
I am
slightly
worse off
4
I am the
same
5
I have
benefitted
slightly
6
I have
benefitted
7
I have
benefitted
a lot
○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○
17. Do you believe that the strategies provided will change your life for the better?
Yes No
○ ○
18. What were some challenges with regards to changing your sleep habits?
19. What were some challenges with regards to changing your multitasking habits?
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 174
20. What were some challenges with regards to changing your mindfulness habits?
21. Suggestions for improvement:
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 175
Appendix O: Schedule of Text Reminders
Day 1 (Psychoeducation condition).
Hi name,
Thank you for taking the time today to go through the Psychoeducation
Module. You are strongly encouraged to put into practice the various strategies you
have learnt.
Over the next 10 days, starting today, do try and ensure you minimize your
multitasking, get at least 8 hours of sleep and also just engage in just 10 minutes of
mindful meditation every day! (Instructions in book.)
I wish you the best of luck on your journey!
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Day 1 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Welcome to Day 1 of your 10 Day Challenge!
Thank you for taking the time today to go through the Psychoeducation
Module.
Over the next 10 days, starting today, you are strongly encouraged to put into
practice the various strategies you have learnt.
Do try and ensure you minimize your multitasking, get at least 8 hours of
sleep and also just engage in just 10 minutes of mindful meditation every day! (The
Headspace app will guide you along in your meditation practice)
I wish you the best of luck on your journey!
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 176
Day 2 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Welcome to Day 2 of your 10 Day Challenge!
As you go about your day, be mindful of your body and feelings. Remember,
it is not about judging them, but just being aware that they are there. It would be good
to minimize your multitasking and to engage in a simple 10 minute mindful
meditation to boost your day.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Day 3 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Welcome to Day 3 of your 10 Day Challenge!
I hope you got a good night’s rest. While you are going about your tasks
today, be mindful of what you are doing. If you notice yourself multitasking, it might
be useful to take a step back and ask yourself, is that really helping?
Maybe taking a step back to reorganize and redirect your efforts and attention
can help you be more effective at your tasks. Remember, multitasking is just task
switching and it comes at a cost!
As always, just a simple 10 minute mindful meditation will help you start the
day.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 177
Day 4 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Welcome to Day 4 of your 10 Day Challenge!
Sleep is an integral part of our lives. It helps you reduce stress, rest and repair
your body. Our daily use of devices can interfere with our sleep. Do be mindful to
avoid checking your phone, emails etc. just before you sleep as that means you’ll take
longer to fall asleep!
Remember, falling asleep is like letting go, one of the 7 attitudes in
Mindfulness, so your daily 10 minutes of mindful meditation will be really useful in
practicing that.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Day 5 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Congratulations, you have reached Day 5 of your 10 Day Challenge!
As you go through your day, it will be natural to find your mind wandering
about. That’s okay. Just be mindful and aware of it, and gently and kindly bring your
mind back to focus on your tasks. No need to judge or change anything, just notice it
and bring your attention back.
As always, your daily mindful meditation will help you get on track.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 178
Day 6 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Welcome to Day 6 of your 10 Day Challenge!
You’ve completed 5 days of mindful meditation thus far and you might be
thinking, maybe it’s okay to skip one day. Indeed, you might be rather busy and you
may not have the time. But taking a pause from the rush-rush-rush might actually just
help you use your time better!
Mindfulness is not a goal-seeking activity. It is non-striving. Approach your
daily 10 minutes of mindful meditation with a beginner’s mind. Each session is a new
experience; no moment is exactly the same and can offer new learnings within you
every time.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 179
Day 7 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
So far, you have learnt much about sleep and multitasking as well as
mindfulness. Integrating these habit changes in you daily life may be a little challenge
but with time and practice, you will be able to get use to forming these habits.
Being mindful while you go about your day will be very useful in helping you
cultivate a habit of mindfulness, to be fully aware and present in the immediate
experience. As with your daily 10 minutes of mindful meditation, it may be useful to
ground yourself to the immediate experience by returning to your breath before
exploring other aspects of your experience; the sensations in your body, the emotions
you feel, the thoughts you have etc.
As always, remember to practice your daily 10 minutes of mindful meditation.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 180
Day 8 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Welcome to Day 8 of your 10 Day Challenge!
Hopefully, you have been getting your 8 hours of sleep daily and are feeling
the effects of a good night’s rest. By now, you should have a better grasp on your
multitasking behaviors to improve your focus and experience on your immediate tasks
at hand.
Remember to trust yourself in your own experience, and to have patience with
your feelings and emotions. These are some of the attitudes in practicing a more
mindful lifestyle. This will of course be bolstered by your daily 10 minutes of mindful
meditation, so do remember to practice.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 181
Day 9 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Welcome to Day 9 of your 10 Day Challenge!
As you go about your day, your mind may wander or you may start to
multitask. All this is normal, there is no need to judge yourself over it. As you have
practiced in your daily mindful meditation, just bring your attention back to the
present and carry on. You may even find it useful to bring your focus back on the
breath before you carry on with your tasks, bringing even greater focus and attention
to the task after that.
Also, do remember to get your 8 hours of sleep tonight. Your rest is important
for your body and brain function.
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 182
Day 10 (Practice condition).
Hi name,
Congratulations, you have reached the Final Day of your 10 Day Challenge!
You have come so far since you first started out, making changes to your sleep
habits, multitasking habits and also improving the mindfulness of your immediate
experience. I hope that you have felt and experienced for yourself the benefits from
this program.
As you come to the end of this 10 Day Challenge, do take a moment to give
gratitude and thanks to yourself for coming this far, and for all the benefits that you
have gifted to yourself. Your efforts over the past 10 days have definitely been
fruitful.
The challenge may end today, but your journey will still go on. So do
remember to engage in your daily 10 minutes of mindful meditation daily, get enough
sleep and avoid multitasking.
I wish you the best of luck in your journey ahead! :)
Sincerely yours,
Hans Chung
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 183
Appendix P.1: Sleep Duration (PSQI) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest Sleep
Duration
Control
Male 6.3864 .87581 11
Female 6.2589 1.53402 9
Total 6.3290 1.18269 20
Psychoeducation
Male 6.5769 1.32045 13
Female 6.8080 1.89730 10
Total 6.6774 1.56122 23
Practice
Male 6.2969 1.28847 16
Female 6.2037 1.42863 8
Total 6.2658 1.30610 24
Total
Male 6.4125 1.17745 40
Female 6.4459 1.61251 27
Total 6.4260 1.35787 67
Posttest Sleep
Duration
Control
Male 6.7273 1.08082 11
Female 6.7500 .94491 9
Total 6.7375 .99544 20
Psychoeducation
Male 7.0000 1.77951 13
Female 7.4170 1.71432 10
Total 7.1813 1.72459 23
Practice
Male 7.1544 1.39785 16
Female 6.9963 .83056 8
Total 7.1017 1.22069 24
Total
Male 6.9868 1.43387 40
Female 7.0700 1.24947 27
Total 7.0203 1.35337 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 184
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeSleepDuration
Sphericity Assumed 10.900 1 10.900 11.506* .001
Greenhouse-Geisser 10.900 1.000 10.900 11.506* .001
Huynh-Feldt 10.900 1.000 10.900 11.506* .001
Lower-bound 10.900 1.000 10.900 11.506* .001
timeSleepDuration
* Condition
Sphericity Assumed .951 2 .475 .502 .608
Greenhouse-Geisser .951 2.000 .475 .502 .608
Huynh-Feldt .951 2.000 .475 .502 .608
Lower-bound .951 2.000 .475 .502 .608
timeSleepDuration
* Gender
Sphericity Assumed .065 1 .065 .068 .794
Greenhouse-Geisser .065 1.000 .065 .068 .794
Huynh-Feldt .065 1.000 .065 .068 .794
Lower-bound .065 1.000 .065 .068 .794
timeSleepDuration
* Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed .099 2 .050 .052 .949
Greenhouse-Geisser .099 2.000 .050 .052 .949
Huynh-Feldt .099 2.000 .050 .052 .949
Lower-bound .099 2.000 .050 .052 .949
Error(timeSleepDur
ation)
Sphericity Assumed 57.791 61 .947
Greenhouse-Geisser 57.791 61.000 .947
Huynh-Feldt 57.791 61.000 .947
Lower-bound 57.791 61.000 .947
*. Significant at the .01 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 185
Appendix P.2: Media-Multitasking (MMI) Analyses
A three-way within-subjects interaction effect of condition*gender*time did
approach significance (F (2, 61) = 2.69, p = .076).
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest MMI
Control
Male 3.7408 1.43036 11
Female 2.9693 1.15242 9
Total 3.3936 1.33831 20
Psychoeducation
Male 3.3650 1.06923 13
Female 3.5884 1.54321 10
Total 3.4621 1.26912 23
Practice
Male 3.3807 1.21256 16
Female 2.9889 1.42639 8
Total 3.2501 1.27032 24
Total
Male 3.4746 1.21222 40
Female 3.2044 1.36781 27
Total 3.3657 1.27405 67
Posttest MMI
Control
Male 2.9405 2.10090 11
Female 2.7555 1.03624 9
Total 2.8572 1.66856 20
Psychoeducation
Male 2.9685 2.15745 13
Female 2.0301 1.46982 10
Total 2.5605 1.91020 23
Practice
Male 2.4052 1.50344 16
Female 2.5609 1.46074 8
Total 2.4571 1.45916 24
Total
Male 2.7355 1.87296 40
Female 2.4292 1.32519 27
Total 2.6120 1.66962 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 186
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeMMI
Sphericity Assumed 16.875 1 16.875 16.643* .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 16.875 1.000 16.875 16.643* .000
Huynh-Feldt 16.875 1.000 16.875 16.643* .000
Lower-bound 16.875 1.000 16.875 16.643* .000
timeMMI *
Condition
Sphericity Assumed 1.190 2 .595 .587 .559
Greenhouse-Geisser 1.190 2.000 .595 .587 .559
Huynh-Feldt 1.190 2.000 .595 .587 .559
Lower-bound 1.190 2.000 .595 .587 .559
timeMMI * Gender
Sphericity Assumed .001 1 .001 .001 .979
Greenhouse-Geisser .001 1.000 .001 .001 .979
Huynh-Feldt .001 1.000 .001 .001 .979
Lower-bound .001 1.000 .001 .001 .979
timeMMI *
Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 5.448 2 2.724 2.687 .076
Greenhouse-Geisser 5.448 2.000 2.724 2.687 .076
Huynh-Feldt 5.448 2.000 2.724 2.687 .076
Lower-bound 5.448 2.000 2.724 2.687 .076
Error(timeMMI)
Sphericity Assumed 61.852 61 1.014
Greenhouse-Geisser 61.852 61.000 1.014
Huynh-Feldt 61.852 61.000 1.014
Lower-bound 61.852 61.000 1.014
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 187
Appendix P.3: Sleep Quality (PSQI) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest PSQI
Control
Male 5.27 2.284 11
Female 6.56 4.613 9
Total 5.85 3.483 20
Psychoeducation
Male 5.38 2.468 13
Female 5.10 2.424 10
Total 5.26 2.397 23
Practice
Male 6.38 3.096 16
Female 5.50 1.852 8
Total 6.08 2.733 24
Total
Male 5.75 2.677 40
Female 5.70 3.148 27
Total 5.73 2.853 67
Posttest PSQI
Control
Male 4.27 2.149 11
Female 4.89 2.028 9
Total 4.55 2.064 20
Psychoeducation
Male 4.85 1.994 13
Female 3.50 2.068 10
Total 4.26 2.094 23
Practice
Male 4.06 2.081 16
Female 4.50 2.000 8
Total 4.21 2.021 24
Total
Male 4.38 2.047 40
Female 4.26 2.049 27
Total 4.33 2.033 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 188
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timePSQI
Sphericity Assumed 58.166 1 58.166 16.386* .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 58.166 1.000 58.166 16.386* .000
Huynh-Feldt 58.166 1.000 58.166 16.386* .000
Lower-bound 58.166 1.000 58.166 16.386* .000
timePSQI *
Condition
Sphericity Assumed 1.894 2 .947 .267 .767
Greenhouse-Geisser 1.894 2.000 .947 .267 .767
Huynh-Feldt 1.894 2.000 .947 .267 .767
Lower-bound 1.894 2.000 .947 .267 .767
timePSQI * Gender
Sphericity Assumed .153 1 .153 .043 .836
Greenhouse-Geisser .153 1.000 .153 .043 .836
Huynh-Feldt .153 1.000 .153 .043 .836
Lower-bound .153 1.000 .153 .043 .836
timePSQI *
Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 8.712 2 4.356 1.227 .300
Greenhouse-Geisser 8.712 2.000 4.356 1.227 .300
Huynh-Feldt 8.712 2.000 4.356 1.227 .300
Lower-bound 8.712 2.000 4.356 1.227 .300
Error(timePSQI)
Sphericity Assumed 216.534 61 3.550
Greenhouse-Geisser 216.534 61.000 3.550
Huynh-Feldt 216.534 61.000 3.550
Lower-bound 216.534 61.000 3.550
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 189
Appendix P.4: Weekly Mindful Practice Duration Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest Weekly
Mindful Practice
Total
Control
Male 30.64 66.802 11
Female 16.67 40.000 9
Total 24.35 55.436 20
Psychoeducation
Male 83.08 181.723 13
Female 22.40 35.164 10
Total 56.70 139.515 23
Practice
Male 6.56 19.725 16
Female 66.25 185.371 8
Total 26.46 107.415 24
Total
Male 38.05 112.040 40
Female 33.48 103.186 27
Total 36.21 107.783 67
Posttest Weekly
Mindful Practice
Total
Control
Male 14.636 33.4911 11
Female 21.389 56.7185 9
Total 17.675 44.2351 20
Psychoeducation
Male 19.492 47.9571 13
Female 42.000 38.7291 10
Total 29.278 44.7018 23
Practice
Male 40.031 31.3563 16
Female 133.875 202.0300 8
Total 71.312 122.9050 24
Total
Male 26.372 38.7890 40
Female 62.352 121.7053 27
Total 40.872 83.9067 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 190
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice
Sphericity Assumed 1854.125 1 1854.125 .529 .470
Greenhouse-Geisser 1854.125 1.000 1854.125 .529 .470
Huynh-Feldt 1854.125 1.000 1854.125 .529 .470
Lower-bound 1854.125 1.000 1854.125 .529 .470
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 31306.630 2 15653.315 4.467* .015
Greenhouse-Geisser 31306.630 2.000 15653.315 4.467* .015
Huynh-Feldt 31306.630 2.000 15653.315 4.467* .015
Lower-bound 31306.630 2.000 15653.315 4.467* .015
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice * Gender
Sphericity Assumed 16825.529 1 16825.529 4.801* .032
Greenhouse-Geisser 16825.529 1.000 16825.529 4.801* .032
Huynh-Feldt 16825.529 1.000 16825.529 4.801* .032
Lower-bound 16825.529 1.000 16825.529 4.801* .032
timeWeeklyMindful
Practice * Condition
* Gender
Sphericity Assumed 5848.100 2 2924.050 .834 .439
Greenhouse-Geisser 5848.100 2.000 2924.050 .834 .439
Huynh-Feldt 5848.100 2.000 2924.050 .834 .439
Lower-bound 5848.100 2.000 2924.050 .834 .439
Error(timeWeeklyM
indfulPractice)
Sphericity Assumed 213757.991 61 3504.229
Greenhouse-Geisser 213757.991 61.000 3504.229
Huynh-Feldt 213757.991 61.000 3504.229
Lower-bound 213757.991 61.000 3504.229
*. Significant at the .05 level.
Pairwise comparisons (condition x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeWeeklyMindful
Practice
Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control 1 23.652 24.266 -24.871 72.175
2 18.013 17.703 -17.386 53.412
Psychoeducation 1 52.738 22.709 7.329 98.148
2 30.746 16.567 -2.381 63.873
Practice 1 36.406 23.378 -10.340 83.153
2 86.953 17.055 52.850 121.056
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 191
Pairwise comparisons (different condition-pairs at each time level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeWeekly
MindfulPract
ice
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
Control Psychoeducation -29.087 33.234 .385 -95.543 37.370
Practice -12.755 33.695 .706 -80.132 54.623
Psychoeduca
tion
Control 29.087 33.234 .385 -37.370 95.543
Practice 16.332 32.592 .618 -48.839 81.503
Practice Control 12.755 33.695 .706 -54.623 80.132
Psychoeducation -16.332 32.592 .618 -81.503 48.839
2
Control Psychoeducation -12.734 24.246 .601 -61.215 35.748
Practice -68.940* 24.582 .007 -118.094 -19.787
Psychoeduca
tion
Control 12.734 24.246 .601 -35.748 61.215
Practice -56.207* 23.776 .021 -103.751 -8.663
Practice Control 68.940* 24.582 .007 19.787 118.094
Psychoeducation 56.207* 23.776 .021 8.663 103.751
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeWeeklyMindfulPractice Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Contrast 9038.118 2 4519.059 .388 .680
Error 711203.306 61 11659.071
2
Contrast 56539.087 2 28269.543 4.556 .014
Error 378511.653 61 6205.109
Each F tests the simple effects of Condition within each level combination of the other effects shown.
These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated
marginal means.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 192
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each condition level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition (I)
timeWeekl
yMindfulPr
actice
(J)
timeWeekl
yMindfulPr
actice
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Control 1
2
2 5.639 18.814 .765 -31.982 43.260
1 -5.639 18.814 .765 -43.260 31.982
Psychoeducation 1
2
2 21.992 17.607 .216 -13.214 57.199
1 -21.992 17.607 .216 -57.199 13.214
Practice 1 2 -50.547* 18.125 .007 -86.790 -14.303
2 1 50.547* 18.125 .007 14.303 86.790
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Multivariate Tests
Condition Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Control
Pillai's trace .001 .090a 1.000 61.000 .765
Wilks' lambda .999 .090a 1.000 61.000 .765
Hotelling's trace .001 .090a 1.000 61.000 .765
Roy's largest root .001 .090a 1.000 61.000 .765
Psychoeducation
Pillai's trace .025 1.560a 1.000 61.000 .216
Wilks' lambda .975 1.560a 1.000 61.000 .216
Hotelling's trace .026 1.560a 1.000 61.000 .216
Roy's largest root .026 1.560a 1.000 61.000 .216
Practice
Pillai's trace .113 7.777a 1.000 61.000 .007
Wilks' lambda .887 7.777a 1.000 61.000 .007
Hotelling's trace .127 7.777a 1.000 61.000 .007
Roy's largest root .127 7.777a 1.000 61.000 .007
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeWeeklyMindfulPractice within each level
combination of the other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise
comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 193
Pairwise comparisons (gender x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeWeeklyMindful
Practice
Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Male 1 40.092 17.274 5.551 74.633
2 24.720 12.602 -.479 49.919
Female 1 35.106 20.867 -6.620 76.831
2 65.755 15.223 35.315 96.195
Pairwise comparisons (different gender-pairs at each time level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeWeekly
MindfulPract
ice
(I) Gender (J) Gender Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1 Male
Female
Female 4.986 27.089 .855 -49.181 59.154
Male -4.986 27.089 .855 -59.154 49.181
2 Male
Female
Female -41.035* 19.762 .042 -80.551 -1.518
Male 41.035* 19.762 .042 1.518 80.551
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni).
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeWeeklyMindfulPractice Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Contrast 395.053 1 395.053 .034 .855
Error 711203.306 61 11659.071
2
Contrast 26753.935 1 26753.935 4.312 .042
Error 378511.653 61 6205.109
Each F tests the simple effects of Gender within each level combination of the other effects shown.
These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated
marginal means.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 194
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each gender level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Gender (I)
timeWeekl
yMindfulPr
actice
(J)
timeWeekl
yMindfulPr
actice
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Male 1
2
2 15.372 13.393 .256 -11.408 42.152
1 -15.372 13.393 .256 -42.152 11.408
Female 1 2 -30.649 16.178 .063 -62.999 1.701
2 1 30.649 16.178 .063 -1.701 62.999
Based on estimated marginal means
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Multivariate Tests
Gender Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Male
Pillai's trace .021 1.317a 1.000 61.000 .256
Wilks' lambda .979 1.317a 1.000 61.000 .256
Hotelling's trace .022 1.317a 1.000 61.000 .256
Roy's largest root .022 1.317a 1.000 61.000 .256
Female
Pillai's trace .056 3.589a 1.000 61.000 .063
Wilks' lambda .944 3.589a 1.000 61.000 .063
Hotelling's trace .059 3.589a 1.000 61.000 .063
Roy's largest root .059 3.589a 1.000 61.000 .063
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeWeeklyMindfulPractice within each level
combination of the other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise
comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 195
Pairwise comparisons (condition x gender x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition Gender timeWeeklyM
indfulPractice
Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control
Male 1 30.636 32.556 -34.464 95.737
2 14.636 23.751 -32.856 62.129
Female 1 16.667 35.992 -55.305 88.638
2 21.389 26.258 -31.116 73.894
Psychoeducation
Male 1 83.077 29.947 23.193 142.961
2 19.492 21.848 -24.195 63.179
Female 1 22.400 34.145 -45.878 90.678
2 42.000 24.910 -7.811 91.811
Practice
Male 1 6.563 26.994 -47.416 60.541
2 40.031 19.693 .652 79.410
Female 1 66.250 38.176 -10.087 142.587
2 133.875 27.850 78.185 189.565
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 196
Pairwise comparisons (different condition-pairs at each gender & time
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Gender timeWeek
lyMindful
Practice
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Differenc
e (I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for
Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Male
1
Control Psychoeducation -52.441 44.235 .721 -161.339 56.458
Practice 24.074 42.292 1.000 -80.040 128.188
Psychoeducation Control 52.441 44.235 .721 -56.458 161.339
Practice 76.514 40.318 .187 -22.740 175.769
Practice Control -24.074 42.292 1.000 -128.188 80.040
Psychoeducation -76.514 40.318 .187 -175.769 22.740
2
Control Psychoeducation -4.856 32.271 1.000 -84.300 74.589
Practice -25.395 30.853 1.000 -101.349 50.559
Psychoeducation Control 4.856 32.271 1.000 -74.589 84.300
Practice -20.539 29.413 1.000 -92.948 51.870
Practice Control 25.395 30.853 1.000 -50.559 101.349
Psychoeducation 20.539 29.413 1.000 -51.870 92.948
Female
1
Control Psychoeducation -5.733 49.612 1.000 -127.868 116.401
Practice -49.583 52.467 1.000 -178.747 79.581
Psychoeducation Control 5.733 49.612 1.000 -116.401 127.868
Practice -43.850 51.218 1.000 -169.938 82.238
Practice Control 49.583 52.467 1.000 -79.581 178.747
Psychoeducation 43.850 51.218 1.000 -82.238 169.938
2
Control
Psychoeducation -20.611 36.193 1.000 -109.712 68.490
Practice -
112.486* 38.277 .014 -206.715 -18.257
Psychoeducation Control 20.611 36.193 1.000 -68.490 109.712
Practice -91.875 37.365 .050 -183.860 .110
Practice Control 112.486* 38.277 .014 18.257 206.715
Psychoeducation 91.875 37.365 .050 -.110 183.860
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 197
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
Gender timeWeeklyMindfulPractice Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Male
1 Contrast 42824.494 2 21412.247 1.837 .168
Error 711203.306 61 11659.071
2 Contrast 5115.471 2 2557.735 .412 .664
Error 378511.653 61 6205.109
Female
1 Contrast 12362.841 2 6181.420 .530 .591
Error 711203.306 61 11659.071
2 Contrast 60168.144 2 30084.072 4.848 .011
Error 378511.653 61 6205.109
Each F tests the simple effects of Condition within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests
are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each condition & gender
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition Gender (I)
timeWeeklyM
indfulPractice
(J)
timeWeeklyM
indfulPractice
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Control
Male 1 2 16.000 25.241 .529 -34.473 66.473
2 1 -16.000 25.241 .529 -66.473 34.473
Female 1 2 -4.722 27.906 .866 -60.523 51.078
2 1 4.722 27.906 .866 -51.078 60.523
Psychoedu
cation
Male 1 2 63.585* 23.219 .008 17.156 110.013
2 1 -63.585* 23.219 .008 -110.013 -17.156
Female 1 2 -19.600 26.473 .462 -72.537 33.337
2 1 19.600 26.473 .462 -33.337 72.537
Practice
Male 1 2 -33.469 20.929 .115 -75.319 8.382
2 1 33.469 20.929 .115 -8.382 75.319
Female 1 2 -67.625* 29.598 .026 -126.810 -8.440
2 1 67.625* 29.598 .026 8.440 126.810
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 198
Multivariate Tests
Condition Gender Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Control
Male
Pillai's trace .007 .402a 1.000 61.000 .529
Wilks' lambda .993 .402a 1.000 61.000 .529
Hotelling's trace .007 .402a 1.000 61.000 .529
Roy's largest root .007 .402a 1.000 61.000 .529
Female
Pillai's trace .000 .029a 1.000 61.000 .866
Wilks' lambda 1.000 .029a 1.000 61.000 .866
Hotelling's trace .000 .029a 1.000 61.000 .866
Roy's largest root .000 .029a 1.000 61.000 .866
Psychoeducation
Male
Pillai's trace .109 7.499a 1.000 61.000 .008
Wilks' lambda .891 7.499a 1.000 61.000 .008
Hotelling's trace .123 7.499a 1.000 61.000 .008
Roy's largest root .123 7.499a 1.000 61.000 .008
Female
Pillai's trace .009 .548a 1.000 61.000 .462
Wilks' lambda .991 .548a 1.000 61.000 .462
Hotelling's trace .009 .548a 1.000 61.000 .462
Roy's largest root .009 .548a 1.000 61.000 .462
Practice
Male
Pillai's trace .040 2.557a 1.000 61.000 .115
Wilks' lambda .960 2.557a 1.000 61.000 .115
Hotelling's trace .042 2.557a 1.000 61.000 .115
Roy's largest root .042 2.557a 1.000 61.000 .115
Female
Pillai's trace .079 5.220a 1.000 61.000 .026
Wilks' lambda .921 5.220a 1.000 61.000 .026
Hotelling's trace .086 5.220a 1.000 61.000 .026
Roy's largest root .086 5.220a 1.000 61.000 .026
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeWeeklyMindfulPractice within each level combination of the
other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the
estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 199
Pairwise comparisons (different gender-pairs at each condition & time
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeWeeklyM
indfulPractice
(I) Gender (J) Gender Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for
Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Control
1 Male Female 13.970 48.532 .774 -83.076 111.016
Female Male -13.970 48.532 .774 -111.016 83.076
2 Male Female -6.753 35.406 .849 -77.550 64.045
Female Male 6.753 35.406 .849 -64.045 77.550
Psychoedu
cation
1 Male Female 60.677 45.418 .187 -30.141 151.495
Female Male -60.677 45.418 .187 -151.495 30.141
2 Male Female -22.508 33.133 .500 -88.762 43.747
Female Male 22.508 33.133 .500 -43.747 88.762
Practice
1 Male Female -59.687 46.755 .207 -153.181 33.806
Female Male 59.687 46.755 .207 -33.806 153.181
2 Male Female -93.844* 34.109 .008 -162.050 -25.638
Female Male 93.844* 34.109 .008 25.638 162.050
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 200
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeWeeklyMindfulPractice Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Control
1 Contrast 966.005 1 966.005 .083 .774
Error 711203.306 61 11659.071
2 Contrast 225.703 1 225.703 .036 .849
Error 378511.653 61 6205.109
Psychoeducation
1 Contrast 20809.546 1 20809.546 1.785 .187
Error 711203.306 61 11659.071
2 Contrast 2863.370 1 2863.370 .461 .500
Error 378511.653 61 6205.109
Practice
1 Contrast 19000.521 1 19000.521 1.630 .207
Error 711203.306 61 11659.071
2 Contrast 46968.797 1 46968.797 7.569 .008
Error 378511.653 61 6205.109
Each F tests the simple effects of Gender within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests
are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 201
Appendix P.5: Depression (DASS-21) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest DASS-21
(Depression)
Control
Male 10.36 12.452 11
Female 17.56 15.420 9
Total 13.60 13.971 20
Psychoeducation
Male 10.15 6.706 13
Female 10.60 12.002 10
Total 10.35 9.138 23
Practice
Male 14.13 10.570 16
Female 16.25 10.873 8
Total 14.83 10.483 24
Total
Male 11.80 10.013 40
Female 14.59 12.840 27
Total 12.93 11.229 67
Posttest DASS-21
(Depression)
Control
Male 8.55 8.768 11
Female 17.11 16.526 9
Total 12.40 13.212 20
Psychoeducation
Male 9.85 5.625 13
Female 5.20 5.827 10
Total 7.83 6.058 23
Practice
Male 8.13 9.135 16
Female 11.00 12.282 8
Total 9.08 10.112 24
Total
Male 8.80 7.881 40
Female 10.89 12.738 27
Total 9.64 10.084 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 202
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeDepressionDA
SS21
Sphericity Assumed 326.088 1 326.088 8.632 .005
Greenhouse-Geisser 326.088 1.000 326.088 8.632 .005
Huynh-Feldt 326.088 1.000 326.088 8.632 .005
Lower-bound 326.088 1.000 326.088 8.632 .005
timeDepressionDA
SS21 * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 106.380 2 53.190 1.408 .252
Greenhouse-Geisser 106.380 2.000 53.190 1.408 .252
Huynh-Feldt 106.380 2.000 53.190 1.408 .252
Lower-bound 106.380 2.000 53.190 1.408 .252
timeDepressionDA
SS21 * Gender
Sphericity Assumed 7.779 1 7.779 .206 .652
Greenhouse-Geisser 7.779 1.000 7.779 .206 .652
Huynh-Feldt 7.779 1.000 7.779 .206 .652
Lower-bound 7.779 1.000 7.779 .206 .652
timeDepressionDA
SS21 * Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 69.309 2 34.655 .917 .405
Greenhouse-Geisser 69.309 2.000 34.655 .917 .405
Huynh-Feldt 69.309 2.000 34.655 .917 .405
Lower-bound 69.309 2.000 34.655 .917 .405
Error(timeDepressio
nDASS21)
Sphericity Assumed 2304.264 61 37.775
Greenhouse-Geisser 2304.264 61.000 37.775
Huynh-Feldt 2304.264 61.000 37.775
Lower-bound 2304.264 61.000 37.775
*. Significant at the .01 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 203
Appendix P.6: Anxiety (DASS-21) Analyses
A between-subjects condition*gender interaction effect was also found (F (2,
61) = 5.93, p < .005). Levene’s test was revealed to be violated for the pre-test (F (5,
61) = 4.84, p < .005), but not the post-test (F (5, 61) = 2.04, p > .05). No other
significant effects were found.
Paired comparisons of t-tests revealed that in the Psychoeducation condition
only, males had significantly higher average anxiety scores (equal variances assumed,
t (21) = 2.51, p < .05). The reverse was approaching significance in the Practice
condition where females had higher anxiety scores than males (equal variances not
assumed, t (9.65) = 1.88, p = .091). Between the Control and Psychoeducation
conditions, females in the Control condition had higher Anxiety scores that
approached significance (equal variances not assumed, t (10.32) = 2.09, p = .063).
Females in the Practice condition had significantly higher average anxiety scores than
those in the Psychoeducation condition (equal variances not assumed, t (7.95) = 2.59,
p < .05). This evidence suggest that female subjects in the Psychoeducation condition
had much lower Anxiety scores than males in the same condition and females in the
other two conditions (although comparison with the Control condition females only
approached significance). Caution was noted regarding the Levene’s violation in the
univariate between-subjects analysis when understanding these implications.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 204
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest DASS-21
(Anxiety)
Control
Male 7.64 5.427 11
Female 11.56 7.535 9
Total 9.40 6.589 20
Psychoeducation
Male 9.85 6.189 13
Female 5.00 4.643 10
Total 7.74 5.979 23
Practice
Male 7.50 6.673 16
Female 16.75 13.090 8
Total 10.58 10.052 24
Total
Male 8.30 6.136 40
Female 10.67 9.751 27
Total 9.25 7.815 67
Posttest DASS-21
(Anxiety)
Control
Male 3.64 3.075 11
Female 6.89 7.491 9
Total 5.10 5.600 20
Psychoeducation
Male 8.15 6.805 13
Female 2.60 2.836 10
Total 5.74 6.039 23
Practice
Male 4.63 6.270 16
Female 10.00 8.816 8
Total 6.42 7.483 24
Total
Male 5.50 5.953 40
Female 6.22 7.111 27
Total 5.79 6.402 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 205
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeAnxietyDASS2
1
Sphericity Assumed 442.271 1 442.271 30.036* .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 442.271 1.000 442.271 30.036* .000
Huynh-Feldt 442.271 1.000 442.271 30.036* .000
Lower-bound 442.271 1.000 442.271 30.036* .000
timeAnxietyDASS2
1 * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 48.083 2 24.041 1.633 .204
Greenhouse-Geisser 48.083 2.000 24.041 1.633 .204
Huynh-Feldt 48.083 2.000 24.041 1.633 .204
Lower-bound 48.083 2.000 24.041 1.633 .204
timeAnxietyDASS2
1 * Gender
Sphericity Assumed 24.324 1 24.324 1.652 .204
Greenhouse-Geisser 24.324 1.000 24.324 1.652 .204
Huynh-Feldt 24.324 1.000 24.324 1.652 .204
Lower-bound 24.324 1.000 24.324 1.652 .204
timeAnxietyDASS2
1 * Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 18.016 2 9.008 .612 .546
Greenhouse-Geisser 18.016 2.000 9.008 .612 .546
Huynh-Feldt 18.016 2.000 9.008 .612 .546
Lower-bound 18.016 2.000 9.008 .612 .546
Error(timeAnxietyD
ASS21)
Sphericity Assumed 898.210 61 14.725
Greenhouse-Geisser 898.210 61.000 14.725
Huynh-Feldt 898.210 61.000 14.725
Lower-bound 898.210 61.000 14.725
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 206
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Pretest DASS-21 (Anxiety) 4.835 5 61 .001
Posttest DASS-21 (Anxiety) 2.037 5 61 .086
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across
groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition * Gender
Within Subjects Design: timeAnxietyDASS21
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Intercept 7831.468 1 7831.468 102.142 .000
Condition 251.032 2 125.516 1.637 .203
Gender 114.650 1 114.650 1.495 .226
Condition * Gender 909.402 2 454.701 5.930 .004
Error 4677.027 61 76.673
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 207
Pairwise comparisons (gender, split by condition).
Group Statistics (AverageAnxiety)
Condition Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Control Male 11 5.6364 3.52910 1.06406
Female 9 9.2222 7.27629 2.42543
Psychoeducation Male 13 9.0000 6.00000 1.66410
Female 10 3.8000 2.93636 .92856
Practice Male 16 6.0625 6.12611 1.53153
Female 8 13.3750 10.12687 3.58039
Independent Samples Test (AverageAnxiety)
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Control
Equal
variances
assumed
10.389 .005 -1.446 18 .165 -3.58586 2.48023 -8.79662 1.62491
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-1.354 11.048 .203 -3.58586 2.64857 -9.41222 2.24050
Psychoe
ducatio
n
Equal
variances
assumed
2.919 .102 2.510 21 .020 5.20000 2.07204 .89097 9.50903
Equal
variances
not
assumed
2.729 18.274 .014 5.20000 1.90564 1.20070 9.19930
Practice
Equal
variances
assumed
5.872 .024 -2.213 22 .038 -7.31250 3.30394 -14.16445 -.46055
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-1.878 9.645 .091 -7.31250 3.89420 -16.03276 1.40776
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 208
Pairwise comparisons (condition, split by gender).
Control and psychoeducation.
Group Statistics (AverageAnxiety)
Gender Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male Control 11 5.6364 3.52910 1.06406
Psychoeducation 13 9.0000 6.00000 1.66410
Female Control 9 9.2222 7.27629 2.42543
Psychoeducation 10 3.8000 2.93636 .92856
Independent Samples Test (AverageAnxiety)
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Male
Equal
variances
assumed
1.594 .220 -1.632 22 .117 -3.36364 2.06052 -7.63689 .90962
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-1.703 19.839 .104 -3.36364 1.97521 -7.48600 .75873
Female
Equal
variances
assumed
14.067 .002 2.174 17 .044 5.42222 2.49469 .15888 10.68557
Equal
variances
not
assumed
2.088 10.320 .063 5.42222 2.59710 -.34026 11.18470
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 209
Control and practice.
Group Statistics (AverageAnxiety)
Gender Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male Control 11 5.6364 3.52910 1.06406
Practice 16 6.0625 6.12611 1.53153
Female Control 9 9.2222 7.27629 2.42543
Practice 8 13.3750 10.12687 3.58039
Independent Samples Test (AverageAnxiety)
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Male
Equal
variances
assumed
.555 .463 -.207 25 .837 -.42614 2.05393 -4.65629 3.80402
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-.229 24.436 .821 -.42614 1.86489 -4.27145 3.41917
Female
Equal
variances
assumed
1.818 .198 -.980 15 .343 -4.15278 4.23875 -13.18745 4.88189
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-.960 12.581 .355 -4.15278 4.32457 -13.52721 5.22165
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 210
Psychoeducation and practice.
Group Statistics (AverageAnxiety)
Gender Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Male Psychoeducation 13 9.0000 6.00000 1.66410
Practice 16 6.0625 6.12611 1.53153
Female Psychoeducation 10 3.8000 2.93636 .92856
Practice 8 13.3750 10.12687 3.58039
Independent Samples Test (AverageAnxiety)
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Male
Equal
variances
assumed
.100 .754 1.296 27 .206 2.93750 2.26664 -1.71327 7.58827
Equal
variances
not
assumed
1.299 26.009 .205 2.93750 2.26159 -1.71119 7.58619
Female
Equal
variances
assumed
19.305 .000 -2.863 16 .011 -9.57500 3.34460 -16.66524 -2.48476
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-2.589 7.945 .032 -9.57500 3.69884 -18.11476 -1.03524
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 211
Appendix P.7: Stress (DASS-21) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest DASS-21
(Stress)
Control
Male 13.82 9.009 11
Female 11.11 9.333 9
Total 12.60 9.017 20
Psychoeducation
Male 13.23 6.954 13
Female 13.00 9.104 10
Total 13.13 7.765 23
Practice
Male 15.25 8.575 16
Female 22.75 10.416 8
Total 17.75 9.696 24
Total
Male 14.20 8.049 40
Female 15.26 10.483 27
Total 14.63 9.047 67
Posttest DASS-21
(Stress)
Control
Male 10.36 8.286 11
Female 11.33 10.100 9
Total 10.80 8.907 20
Psychoeducation
Male 10.92 7.193 13
Female 8.20 6.215 10
Total 9.74 6.777 23
Practice
Male 9.13 9.605 16
Female 16.25 11.536 8
Total 11.50 10.604 24
Total
Male 10.05 8.345 40
Female 11.63 9.576 27
Total 10.69 8.825 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 212
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeStressDASS21
Sphericity Assumed 465.529 1 465.529 13.737* .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 465.529 1.000 465.529 13.737* .000
Huynh-Feldt 465.529 1.000 465.529 13.737* .000
Lower-bound 465.529 1.000 465.529 13.737* .000
timeStressDASS21
* Condition
Sphericity Assumed 115.054 2 57.527 1.698 .192
Greenhouse-Geisser 115.054 2.000 57.527 1.698 .192
Huynh-Feldt 115.054 2.000 57.527 1.698 .192
Lower-bound 115.054 2.000 57.527 1.698 .192
timeStressDASS21
* Gender
Sphericity Assumed .578 1 .578 .017 .896
Greenhouse-Geisser .578 1.000 .578 .017 .896
Huynh-Feldt .578 1.000 .578 .017 .896
Lower-bound .578 1.000 .578 .017 .896
timeStressDASS21
* Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 51.248 2 25.624 .756 .474
Greenhouse-Geisser 51.248 2.000 25.624 .756 .474
Huynh-Feldt 51.248 2.000 25.624 .756 .474
Lower-bound 51.248 2.000 25.624 .756 .474
Error(timeStressDA
SS21)
Sphericity Assumed 2067.201 61 33.889
Greenhouse-Geisser 2067.201 61.000 33.889
Huynh-Feldt 2067.201 61.000 33.889
Lower-bound 2067.201 61.000 33.889
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 213
Appendix P.8: Negative Affect (PANAS) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest PANAS
(Negative Affect)
Control
Male 26.18 6.322 11
Female 26.56 10.678 9
Total 26.35 8.312 20
Psychoeducation
Male 25.54 6.359 13
Female 26.40 9.204 10
Total 25.91 7.543 23
Practice
Male 26.13 9.010 16
Female 27.87 8.626 8
Total 26.71 8.735 24
Total
Male 25.95 7.348 40
Female 26.89 9.213 27
Total 26.33 8.097 67
Posttest PANAS
(Negative Affect)
Control
Male 22.09 8.179 11
Female 24.00 8.832 9
Total 22.95 8.306 20
Psychoeducation
Male 23.00 5.354 13
Female 23.30 7.379 10
Total 23.13 6.159 23
Practice
Male 18.94 9.263 16
Female 22.38 9.899 8
Total 20.08 9.408 24
Total
Male 21.12 7.897 40
Female 23.26 8.346 27
Total 21.99 8.088 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 214
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeNAPANAS
Sphericity Assumed 550.472 1 550.472 17.248* .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 550.472 1.000 550.472 17.248* .000
Huynh-Feldt 550.472 1.000 550.472 17.248* .000
Lower-bound 550.472 1.000 550.472 17.248* .000
timeNAPANAS *
Condition
Sphericity Assumed 78.119 2 39.060 1.224 .301
Greenhouse-Geisser 78.119 2.000 39.060 1.224 .301
Huynh-Feldt 78.119 2.000 39.060 1.224 .301
Lower-bound 78.119 2.000 39.060 1.224 .301
timeNAPANAS *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 6.252 1 6.252 .196 .660
Greenhouse-Geisser 6.252 1.000 6.252 .196 .660
Huynh-Feldt 6.252 1.000 6.252 .196 .660
Lower-bound 6.252 1.000 6.252 .196 .660
timeNAPANAS *
Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 8.663 2 4.332 .136 .873
Greenhouse-Geisser 8.663 2.000 4.332 .136 .873
Huynh-Feldt 8.663 2.000 4.332 .136 .873
Lower-bound 8.663 2.000 4.332 .136 .873
Error(timeNAPAN
AS)
Sphericity Assumed 1946.850 61 31.916
Greenhouse-Geisser 1946.850 61.000 31.916
Huynh-Feldt 1946.850 61.000 31.916
Lower-bound 1946.850 61.000 31.916
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 215
Appendix P.9: Incongruent Trials Mean Response Time (Stroop) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest Incongruent
Mean Response
Time
Control
Male 777.9155 82.92885 11
Female 842.4333 176.68877 9
Total 806.9485 133.59955 20
Psychoeducation
Male 853.6331 136.58525 13
Female 826.2040 139.46668 10
Total 841.7074 135.37446 23
Practice
Male 758.8656 122.34788 16
Female 809.6413 113.94286 8
Total 775.7908 119.63097 24
Total
Male 794.9038 122.57564 40
Female 826.7063 141.45523 27
Total 807.7197 130.41420 67
Posttest Incongruent
Mean Response
Time
Control
Male 730.5818 68.61727 11
Female 786.4067 139.05367 9
Total 755.7030 106.91780 20
Psychoeducation
Male 800.1846 85.39391 13
Female 779.3210 173.22922 10
Total 791.1135 127.92772 23
Practice
Male 732.9775 104.36930 16
Female 759.1100 111.94878 8
Total 741.6883 105.24591 24
Total
Male 754.1610 93.20708 40
Female 775.6944 140.85658 27
Total 762.8387 114.29257 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 216
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeMeanResponse
TimeIncongruent
Sphericity Assumed 69258.700 1 69258.700 23.656* .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 69258.700 1.000 69258.700 23.656* .000
Huynh-Feldt 69258.700 1.000 69258.700 23.656* .000
Lower-bound 69258.700 1.000 69258.700 23.656* .000
timeMeanResponse
TimeIncongruent *
Condition
Sphericity Assumed 1150.094 2 575.047 .196 .822
Greenhouse-Geisser 1150.094 2.000 575.047 .196 .822
Huynh-Feldt 1150.094 2.000 575.047 .196 .822
Lower-bound 1150.094 2.000 575.047 .196 .822
timeMeanResponse
TimeIncongruent *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 632.605 1 632.605 .216 .644
Greenhouse-Geisser 632.605 1.000 632.605 .216 .644
Huynh-Feldt 632.605 1.000 632.605 .216 .644
Lower-bound 632.605 1.000 632.605 .216 .644
timeMeanResponse
TimeIncongruent *
Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 1336.345 2 668.173 .228 .797
Greenhouse-Geisser 1336.345 2.000 668.173 .228 .797
Huynh-Feldt 1336.345 2.000 668.173 .228 .797
Lower-bound 1336.345 2.000 668.173 .228 .797
Error(timeMeanRes
ponseTimeIncongru
ent)
Sphericity Assumed 178591.150 61 2927.724
Greenhouse-Geisser 178591.150 61.000 2927.724
Huynh-Feldt 178591.150 61.000 2927.724
Lower-bound 178591.150 61.000 2927.724
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 217
Appendix P.10: Congruent Trials Mean Response Time (Stroop) Analyses
No other significant effects were found, although the between-subjects main
effect of gender approached significance, where female subjects had higher MRT on
congruent trials (F (1, 61) = 3.14, p = .082).
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest Congruent
Mean Response
Time
Control
Male 666.0436 65.45248 11
Female 724.8167 147.08461 9
Total 692.4915 110.74151 20
Psychoeducation
Male 755.2515 153.02242 13
Female 763.8110 152.14643 10
Total 758.9730 149.20110 23
Practice
Male 662.0563 109.38000 16
Female 730.7438 160.39062 8
Total 684.9521 129.32909 24
Total
Male 693.4413 121.63146 40
Female 741.0152 148.04963 27
Total 712.6128 133.90085 67
Posttest Congruent
Mean Response
Time
Control
Male 634.1418 36.72324 11
Female 714.0300 126.54791 9
Total 670.0915 95.47457 20
Psychoeducation
Male 675.4577 86.03524 13
Female 710.5560 162.49142 10
Total 690.7178 123.10726 23
Practice
Male 638.1575 85.07968 16
Female 686.1200 114.87392 8
Total 654.1450 96.28292 24
Total
Male 649.1758 75.83675 40
Female 704.4737 133.30200 27
Total 671.4600 105.57155 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 218
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeMeanResponseTime
Congruent
Sphericity Assumed 52664.465 1 52664.465 16.128 .000
Greenhouse-Geisser 52664.465 1.000 52664.465 16.128 .000
Huynh-Feldt 52664.465 1.000 52664.465 16.128 .000
Lower-bound 52664.465 1.000 52664.465 16.128 .000
timeMeanResponseTime
Congruent * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 11658.698 2 5829.349 1.785 .176
Greenhouse-Geisser 11658.698 2.000 5829.349 1.785 .176
Huynh-Feldt 11658.698 2.000 5829.349 1.785 .176
Lower-bound 11658.698 2.000 5829.349 1.785 .176
timeMeanResponseTime
Congruent * Gender
Sphericity Assumed 640.109 1 640.109 .196 .660
Greenhouse-Geisser 640.109 1.000 640.109 .196 .660
Huynh-Feldt 640.109 1.000 640.109 .196 .660
Lower-bound 640.109 1.000 640.109 .196 .660
timeMeanResponseTime
Congruent * Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 3588.800 2 1794.400 .550 .580
Greenhouse-Geisser 3588.800 2.000 1794.400 .550 .580
Huynh-Feldt 3588.800 2.000 1794.400 .550 .580
Lower-bound 3588.800 2.000 1794.400 .550 .580
Error(timeMeanResponse
TimeCongruent)
Sphericity Assumed 199194.861 61 3265.490
Greenhouse-Geisser 199194.861 61.000 3265.490
Huynh-Feldt 199194.861 61.000 3265.490
Lower-bound 199194.861 61.000 3265.490
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 219
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Pretest Congruent
Mean Response
Time
1.993 5 61 .092
Posttest Congruent
Mean Response
Time
3.270 5 61 .011
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition *
Gender
Within Subjects Design:
timeMeanResponseTimeCongruent
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Intercept 61709116.738 1 61709116.738 2452.945 .000
Condition 58031.777 2 29015.889 1.153 .322
Gender 78897.972 1 78897.972 3.136 .082
Condition * Gender 13363.894 2 6681.947 .266 .768
Error 1534586.743 61 25157.160
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 220
Appendix P.11: Stroop Effect Analyses
The assumption of equality of error variances (Levene’s test) was not violated
(Pre-test: F (5, 61) = .55, p > .05; Post-test: F (5, 61) = 1.51, p > .05). No other
significant effects were found, although the within-subjects condition*time effect did
approach significance (F (2, 61) = 2.73, p = .073).
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest Stroop
Effect
Control
Male 111.8718 54.36916 11
Female 117.6167 81.16335 9
Total 114.4570 65.86403 20
Psychoeducation
Male 98.3815 80.84477 13
Female 62.3930 52.09484 10
Total 82.7343 70.76720 23
Practice
Male 96.8094 56.68093 16
Female 78.8975 58.94222 8
Total 90.8388 56.80682 24
Total
Male 101.4625 63.61810 40
Female 85.6911 66.91398 27
Total 95.1069 64.93204 67
Posttest Stroop
Effect
Control
Male 96.4400 58.69390 11
Female 72.3767 65.62821 9
Total 85.6115 61.46137 20
Psychoeducation
Male 124.7269 46.25919 13
Female 68.7650 48.38615 10
Total 100.3957 54.12572 23
Practice
Male 94.8200 42.85344 16
Female 72.9900 45.09524 8
Total 87.5433 43.89856 24
Total
Male 104.9853 49.40623 40
Female 71.2207 51.83551 27
Total 91.3787 52.71920 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 221
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Pretest Stroop
Effect .549 5 61 .739
Posttest Stroop
Effect 1.514 5 61 .199
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition *
Gender
Within Subjects Design: timeStroopEffect
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Intercept 1060485.682 1 1060485.682 225.908 .000
Condition 4298.291 2 2149.146 .458 .635
Gender 19863.636 1 19863.636 4.231 .044
Condition * Gender 7717.751 2 3858.876 .822 .444
Error 286354.423 61 4694.335
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 222
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeStroopEffect
Sphericity Assumed 1134.550 1 1134.550 .538 .466
Greenhouse-Geisser 1134.550 1.000 1134.550 .538 .466
Huynh-Feldt 1134.550 1.000 1134.550 .538 .466
Lower-bound 1134.550 1.000 1134.550 .538 .466
timeStroopEffect *
Condition
Sphericity Assumed 11523.554 2 5761.777 2.731 .073
Greenhouse-Geisser 11523.554 2.000 5761.777 2.731 .073
Huynh-Feldt 11523.554 2.000 5761.777 2.731 .073
Lower-bound 11523.554 2.000 5761.777 2.731 .073
timeStroopEffect *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 2545.407 1 2545.407 1.206 .276
Greenhouse-Geisser 2545.407 1.000 2545.407 1.206 .276
Huynh-Feldt 2545.407 1.000 2545.407 1.206 .276
Lower-bound 2545.407 1.000 2545.407 1.206 .276
timeStroopEffect *
Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 883.952 2 441.976 .209 .812
Greenhouse-Geisser 883.952 2.000 441.976 .209 .812
Huynh-Feldt 883.952 2.000 441.976 .209 .812
Lower-bound 883.952 2.000 441.976 .209 .812
Error(timeStroopEff
ect)
Sphericity Assumed 128708.644 61 2109.978
Greenhouse-Geisser 128708.644 61.000 2109.978
Huynh-Feldt 128708.644 61.000 2109.978
Lower-bound 128708.644 61.000 2109.978
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 223
Appendix P.12: Mindfulness (CAMS-R) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest CAMS-R
Control
Male 26.36 5.182 11
Female 27.89 5.667 9
Total 27.05 5.316 20
Psychoeducation
Male 24.54 4.034 13
Female 21.60 4.402 10
Total 23.26 4.361 23
Practice
Male 22.00 4.351 16
Female 22.50 5.782 8
Total 22.17 4.752 24
Total
Male 24.02 4.742 40
Female 23.96 5.808 27
Total 24.00 5.155 67
Posttest CAMS-R
Control
Male 24.91 4.527 11
Female 27.56 7.073 9
Total 26.10 5.803 20
Psychoeducation
Male 23.46 2.570 13
Female 21.20 4.756 10
Total 22.48 3.764 23
Practice
Male 23.63 4.319 16
Female 24.38 7.855 8
Total 23.87 5.574 24
Total
Male 23.93 3.852 40
Female 24.26 6.870 27
Total 24.06 5.234 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 224
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeCAMSR
Sphericity Assumed .049 1 .049 .005 .943
Greenhouse-Geisser .049 1.000 .049 .005 .943
Huynh-Feldt .049 1.000 .049 .005 .943
Lower-bound .049 1.000 .049 .005 .943
timeCAMSR *
Condition
Sphericity Assumed 46.675 2 23.337 2.487 .092
Greenhouse-Geisser 46.675 2.000 23.337 2.487 .092
Huynh-Feldt 46.675 2.000 23.337 2.487 .092
Lower-bound 46.675 2.000 23.337 2.487 .092
timeCAMSR *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 3.703 1 3.703 .395 .532
Greenhouse-Geisser 3.703 1.000 3.703 .395 .532
Huynh-Feldt 3.703 1.000 3.703 .395 .532
Lower-bound 3.703 1.000 3.703 .395 .532
timeCAMSR *
Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed .974 2 .487 .052 .949
Greenhouse-Geisser .974 2.000 .487 .052 .949
Huynh-Feldt .974 2.000 .487 .052 .949
Lower-bound .974 2.000 .487 .052 .949
Error(timeCAMSR)
Sphericity Assumed 572.338 61 9.383
Greenhouse-Geisser 572.338 61.000 9.383
Huynh-Feldt 572.338 61.000 9.383
Lower-bound 572.338 61.000 9.383
*. Significant at the .001 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 225
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Pretest CAMS-R .426 5 61 .829
Posttest CAMS-R 4.318 5 61 .002
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across
groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition * Gender
Within Subjects Design: timeCAMSR
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Intercept 74243.938 1 74243.938 1855.859 .000
Condition 392.575 2 196.288 4.907 .011
Gender .043 1 .043 .001 .974
Condition * Gender 123.522 2 61.761 1.544 .222
Error 2440.315 61 40.005
Multiple Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Bonferroni
Control Psychoeducation 3.71* 1.367 .026 .34 7.07
Practice 3.55* 1.354 .033 .22 6.89
Psychoeduca
tion
Control -3.71* 1.367 .026 -7.07 -.34
Practice -.15 1.305 1.000 -3.36 3.06
Practice Control -3.55* 1.354 .033 -6.89 -.22
Psychoeducation .15 1.305 1.000 -3.06 3.36
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square(Error) = 20.003
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 226
Pairwise comparisons (condition).
Control and psychoeducation.
Group Statistics (AverageCAMSR)
Gender Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
AverageCAMSR Control 20 26.5750 5.14596 1.15067
Psychoeducation 23 22.8696 3.30708 .68957
Independent Samples Test (AverageCAMSR)
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Averag
eCAMS
R
Equal
variances
assumed
3.187 .082 2.846 41 .007 3.70543 1.30219 1.07560 6.33527
Equal
variances
not
assumed
2.762 31.580 .009 3.70543 1.34148 .97151 6.43936
Control and practice.
Group Statistics (AverageCAMSR)
Gender Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
AverageCAMSR Control 20 26.5750 5.14596 1.15067
Practice 24 23.0208 4.83753 .98746
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 227
Independent Samples Test (MeanCAMSR)
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Averag
eCAMS
R
Equal
variances
assumed
.002 .964 2.358 42 .023 3.55417 1.50760 .51171 6.59662
Equal
variances
not
assumed
2.344 39.564 .024 3.55417 1.51628 .48859 6.61974
Psychoeducation and practice.
Group Statistics (AverageCAMSR)
Gender Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
AverageCAMSR Psychoeducation 23 22.8696 3.30708 .68957
Practice 24 23.0208 4.83753 .98746
Independent Samples Test (AverageCAMSR)
Levene’s Test
for Equality
of Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-
tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Averag
eCAMS
R
Equal
variances
assumed
4.734 .035 -.125 45 .901 -.15127 1.21395 -2.59628 2.29375
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-.126 40.767 .901 -.15127 1.20440 -2.58403 2.28149
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 228
Pairwise comparisons (condition x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeCAMSR Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control 1 27.126 1.082 24.963 29.289
2 26.232 1.151 23.931 28.534
Psychoeducation 1 23.069 1.012 21.045 25.093
2 22.331 1.077 20.177 24.484
Practice 1 22.250 1.042 20.166 24.334
2 24.000 1.109 21.783 26.217
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 229
Pairwise comparisons (different condition-pairs at each time level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeCAMSR (I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
Control Psychoeducation 4.057* 1.481 .024 .410 7.704
Practice 4.876* 1.502 .006 1.179 8.574
Psychoeduca
tion
Control -4.057* 1.481 .024 -7.704 -.410
Practice .819 1.453 1.000 -2.757 4.396
Practice Control -4.876* 1.502 .006 -8.574 -1.179
Psychoeducation -.819 1.453 1.000 -4.396 2.757
2
Control Psychoeducation 3.902* 1.576 .048 .021 7.782
Practice 2.232 1.598 .502 -1.702 6.166
Psychoeduca
tion
Control -3.902* 1.576 .048 -7.782 -.021
Practice -1.669 1.546 .853 -5.474 2.136
Practice Control -2.232 1.598 .502 -6.166 1.702
Psychoeducation 1.669 1.546 .853 -2.136 5.474
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeCAMSR Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Contrast 278.241 2 139.120 6.006 .004
Error 1413.065 61 23.165
2 Contrast 161.009 2 80.505 3.070 .054
Error 1599.587 61 26.223
Each F tests the simple effects of Condition within each level combination of the other effects shown.
These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated
marginal means.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 230
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each condition level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition (I)
timeCAMS
R
(J)
timeCAMS
R
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Control 1
2
2 .894 .974 .362 -1.053 2.841
1 -.894 .974 .362 -2.841 1.053
Psychoeducation 1
2
2 .738 .911 .421 -1.083 2.560
1 -.738 .911 .421 -2.560 1.083
Practice 1 2 -1.750 .938 .067 -3.625 .125
2 1 1.750 .938 .067 -.125 3.625
Based on estimated marginal means
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Multivariate Tests
Condition Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Control
Pillai's trace .014 .843a 1.000 61.000 .362
Wilks' lambda .986 .843a 1.000 61.000 .362
Hotelling's trace .014 .843a 1.000 61.000 .362
Roy's largest root .014 .843a 1.000 61.000 .362
Psychoeducation
Pillai's trace .011 .657a 1.000 61.000 .421
Wilks' lambda .989 .657a 1.000 61.000 .421
Hotelling's trace .011 .657a 1.000 61.000 .421
Roy's largest root .011 .657a 1.000 61.000 .421
Practice
Pillai's trace .054 3.482a 1.000 61.000 .067
Wilks' lambda .946 3.482a 1.000 61.000 .067
Hotelling's trace .057 3.482a 1.000 61.000 .067
Roy's largest root .057 3.482a 1.000 61.000 .067
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeCAMSR within each level combination of the other
effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the
estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 231
Appendix P.13: Reappraisal (ERQ) Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest ERQ
(Reappraisal)
Control
Male 4.7727 1.17231 11
Female 5.1111 1.23705 9
Total 4.9250 1.18215 20
Psychoeducation
Male 5.2315 .94716 13
Female 4.7650 .73013 10
Total 5.0287 .87369 23
Practice
Male 4.7813 .77336 16
Female 4.8950 1.19028 8
Total 4.8192 .90788 24
Total
Male 4.9252 .95120 40
Female 4.9189 1.02903 27
Total 4.9227 .97560 67
Posttest ERQ
(Reappraisal)
Control
Male 4.8027 1.17160 11
Female 4.6667 1.45497 9
Total 4.7415 1.27225 20
Psychoeducation
Male 4.8469 .64405 13
Female 4.7490 .95420 10
Total 4.8043 .77537 23
Practice
Male 4.7288 .65877 16
Female 5.8313 .70778 8
Total 5.0963 .84696 24
Total
Male 4.7875 .80571 40
Female 5.0422 1.17255 27
Total 4.8901 .97008 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 232
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeReappraisalER
Q
Sphericity Assumed .004 1 .004 .010 .919
Greenhouse-Geisser .004 1.000 .004 .010 .919
Huynh-Feldt .004 1.000 .004 .010 .919
Lower-bound .004 1.000 .004 .010 .919
timeReappraisalER
Q * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 2.956 2 1.478 3.720* .030
Greenhouse-Geisser 2.956 2.000 1.478 3.720* .030
Huynh-Feldt 2.956 2.000 1.478 3.720* .030
Lower-bound 2.956 2.000 1.478 3.720* .030
timeReappraisalER
Q * Gender
Sphericity Assumed .688 1 .688 1.732 .193
Greenhouse-Geisser .688 1.000 .688 1.732 .193
Huynh-Feldt .688 1.000 .688 1.732 .193
Lower-bound .688 1.000 .688 1.732 .193
timeReappraisalER
Q * Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 2.761 2 1.381 3.474* .037
Greenhouse-Geisser 2.761 2.000 1.381 3.474* .037
Huynh-Feldt 2.761 2.000 1.381 3.474* .037
Lower-bound 2.761 2.000 1.381 3.474* .037
Error(timeReapprais
alERQ)
Sphericity Assumed 24.240 61 .397
Greenhouse-Geisser 24.240 61.000 .397
Huynh-Feldt 24.240 61.000 .397
Lower-bound 24.240 61.000 .397
*. Significant at the .05 level.
Pairwise comparisons (condition x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReappraisalERQ Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control 1 4.942 .224 4.495 5.389
2 4.735 .211 4.312 5.157
Psychoeducation 1 4.998 .209 4.580 5.417
2 4.798 .198 4.403 5.193
Practice 1 4.838 .216 4.407 5.269
2 5.280 .203 4.873 5.687
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 233
Pairwise comparisons (different condition-pairs at each time level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeReappra
isalERQ
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
Control Psychoeducation -.056 .306 .855 -.669 .556
Practice .104 .311 .739 -.517 .725
Psychoeduca
tion
Control .056 .306 .855 -.556 .669
Practice .160 .300 .596 -.441 .761
Practice Control -.104 .311 .739 -.725 .517
Psychoeducation -.160 .300 .596 -.761 .441
2
Control Psychoeducation -.063 .289 .828 -.642 .515
Practice -.545 .293 .068 -1.132 .041
Psychoeduca
tion
Control .063 .289 .828 -.515 .642
Practice -.482 .284 .094 -1.049 .085
Practice Control .545 .293 .068 -.041 1.132
Psychoeducation .482 .284 .094 -.085 1.049
Based on estimated marginal means
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeReappraisalERQ Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Contrast .288 2 .144 .145 .865
Error 60.437 61 .991
2
Contrast 3.757 2 1.878 2.128 .128
Error 53.850 61 .883
Each F tests the simple effects of Condition within each level combination of the other effects shown.
These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated
marginal means.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 234
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each condition level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition (I)
timeReapp
raisalERQ
(J)
timeReapp
raisalERQ
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Control 1
2
2 .207 .200 .305 -.193 .608
1 -.207 .200 .305 -.608 .193
Psychoeducation 1
2
2 .200 .187 .290 -.175 .575
1 -.200 .187 .290 -.575 .175
Practice 1 2 -.442* .193 .026 -.828 -.056
2 1 .442* .193 .026 .056 .828
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Least Significant Difference (equivalent to no adjustments).
Multivariate Tests
Condition Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Control
Pillai's trace .017 1.070a 1.000 61.000 .305
Wilks' lambda .983 1.070a 1.000 61.000 .305
Hotelling's trace .018 1.070a 1.000 61.000 .305
Roy's largest root .018 1.070a 1.000 61.000 .305
Psychoeducation
Pillai's trace .018 1.141a 1.000 61.000 .290
Wilks' lambda .982 1.141a 1.000 61.000 .290
Hotelling's trace .019 1.141a 1.000 61.000 .290
Roy's largest root .019 1.141a 1.000 61.000 .290
Practice
Pillai's trace .079 5.241a 1.000 61.000 .026
Wilks' lambda .921 5.241a 1.000 61.000 .026
Hotelling's trace .086 5.241a 1.000 61.000 .026
Roy's largest root .086 5.241a 1.000 61.000 .026
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeReappraisalERQ within each level combination of
the other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among
the estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 235
Pairwise comparisons (condition x gender x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReapprais
alERQ
Gender Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control
1 Male 4.773 .300 4.173 5.373
Female 5.111 .332 4.448 5.775
2 Male 4.803 .283 4.236 5.369
Female 4.667 .313 4.040 5.293
Psychoeducation
1 Male 5.232 .276 4.680 5.784
Female 4.765 .315 4.136 5.394
2 Male 4.847 .261 4.326 5.368
Female 4.749 .297 4.155 5.343
Practice
1 Male 4.781 .249 4.284 5.279
Female 4.895 .352 4.191 5.599
2 Male 4.729 .235 4.259 5.198
Female 5.831 .332 5.167 6.496
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 236
Pairwise comparisons (different condition-pairs at each gender & time
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeRe
apprais
alERQ
Gender (I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Differenc
e (I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for
Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
Male
Control Psychoeducation -.459 .408 .795 -1.463 .545
Practice -.009 .390 1.000 -.968 .951
Psychoeducation Control .459 .408 .795 -.545 1.463
Practice .450 .372 .691 -.465 1.365
Practice Control .009 .390 1.000 -.951 .968
Psychoeducation -.450 .372 .691 -1.365 .465
Female
Control Psychoeducation .346 .457 1.000 -.780 1.472
Practice .216 .484 1.000 -.975 1.407
Psychoeducation Control -.346 .457 1.000 -1.472 .780
Practice -.130 .472 1.000 -1.292 1.032
Practice Control -.216 .484 1.000 -1.407 .975
Psychoeducation .130 .472 1.000 -1.032 1.292
2
Male
Control Psychoeducation -.044 .385 1.000 -.992 .903
Practice .074 .368 1.000 -.832 .980
Psychoeducation Control .044 .385 1.000 -.903 .992
Practice .118 .351 1.000 -.745 .982
Practice Control -.074 .368 1.000 -.980 .832
Psychoeducation -.118 .351 1.000 -.982 .745
Female
Control Psychoeducation -.082 .432 1.000 -1.145 .980
Practice -1.165* .457 .040 -2.289 -.041
Psychoeducation Control .082 .432 1.000 -.980 1.145
Practice -1.082 .446 .054 -2.179 .015
Practice Control 1.165* .457 .040 .041 2.289
Psychoeducation 1.082 .446 .054 -.015 2.179
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 237
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeReappraisal
ERQ
Gender Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Male Contrast 1.807 2 .904 .912 .407
Error 60.437 61 .991
Female Contrast .574 2 .287 .290 .750
Error 60.437 61 .991
2
Male Contrast .104 2 .052 .059 .943
Error 53.850 61 .883
Female Contrast 7.110 2 3.555 4.027 .023
Error 53.850 61 .883
Each F tests the simple effects of Condition within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests
are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each condition & gender
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition Gender (I)
timeReapprais
alERQ
(J)
timeReapprais
alERQ
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Control
Male 1 2 -.030 .269 .911 -.567 .507
2 1 .030 .269 .911 -.507 .567
Female 1 2 .444 .297 .140 -.150 1.039
2 1 -.444 .297 .140 -1.039 .150
Psychoedu
cation
Male 1 2 .385 .247 .125 -.110 .879
2 1 -.385 .247 .125 -.879 .110
Female 1 2 .016 .282 .955 -.548 .580
2 1 -.016 .282 .955 -.580 .548
Practice
Male 1 2 .052 .223 .815 -.393 .498
2 1 -.052 .223 .815 -.498 .393
Female 1 2 -.936* .315 .004 -1.567 -.306
2 1 .936* .315 .004 .306 1.567
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 238
Multivariate Tests
Condition Gender Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Control
Male
Pillai's trace .000 .012a 1.000 61.000 .911
Wilks' lambda 1.000 .012a 1.000 61.000 .911
Hotelling's trace .000 .012a 1.000 61.000 .911
Roy's largest root .000 .012a 1.000 61.000 .911
Female
Pillai's trace .035 2.237a 1.000 61.000 .140
Wilks' lambda .965 2.237a 1.000 61.000 .140
Hotelling's trace .037 2.237a 1.000 61.000 .140
Roy's largest root .037 2.237a 1.000 61.000 .140
Psychoeducation
Male
Pillai's trace .038 2.420a 1.000 61.000 .125
Wilks' lambda .962 2.420a 1.000 61.000 .125
Hotelling's trace .040 2.420a 1.000 61.000 .125
Roy's largest root .040 2.420a 1.000 61.000 .125
Female
Pillai's trace .000 .003a 1.000 61.000 .955
Wilks' lambda 1.000 .003a 1.000 61.000 .955
Hotelling's trace .000 .003a 1.000 61.000 .955
Roy's largest root .000 .003a 1.000 61.000 .955
Practice
Male
Pillai's trace .001 .055a 1.000 61.000 .815
Wilks' lambda .999 .055a 1.000 61.000 .815
Hotelling's trace .001 .055a 1.000 61.000 .815
Roy's largest root .001 .055a 1.000 61.000 .815
Female
Pillai's trace .126 8.824a 1.000 61.000 .004
Wilks' lambda .874 8.824a 1.000 61.000 .004
Hotelling's trace .145 8.824a 1.000 61.000 .004
Roy's largest root .145 8.824a 1.000 61.000 .004
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeReappraisalERQ within each level combination of the other
effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated
marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 239
Pairwise comparisons (different gender-pairs at each condition & time
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReapprais
alERQ
(I) Gender (J) Gender Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for
Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Control
1 Male Female -.338 .447 .452 -1.233 .556
Female Male .338 .447 .452 -.556 1.233
2 Male Female .136 .422 .748 -.708 .981
Female Male -.136 .422 .748 -.981 .708
Psychoedu
cation
1 Male Female .467 .419 .270 -.371 1.304
Female Male -.467 .419 .270 -1.304 .371
2 Male Female .098 .395 .805 -.692 .888
Female Male -.098 .395 .805 -.888 .692
Practice
1 Male Female -.114 .431 .793 -.976 .748
Female Male .114 .431 .793 -.748 .976
2 Male Female -1.103* .407 .009 -1.916 -.289
Female Male 1.103* .407 .009 .289 1.916
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 240
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReappraisalERQ Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Control
1 Contrast .567 1 .567 .572 .452
Error 60.437 61 .991
2 Contrast .092 1 .092 .104 .748
Error 53.850 61 .883
Psychoeducation
1 Contrast 1.230 1 1.230 1.242 .270
Error 60.437 61 .991
2 Contrast .054 1 .054 .061 .805
Error 53.850 61 .883
Practice
1 Contrast .069 1 .069 .070 .793
Error 60.437 61 .991
2 Contrast 6.483 1 6.483 7.343 .009
Error 53.850 61 .883
Each F tests the simple effects of Gender within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests
are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 241
Appendix P.14: Suppression (ERQ) Analyses
A marginally significant between-subjects interaction effect of
condition*gender was found (F (2, 61) = 3.04, p = .055). The assumption of equality
of error variances (Levene’s test) was not violated (Pre-test: F (5, 61) = .66, p > .05;
Post-test: F (5, 61) = 1.01, p > .05).
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest ERQ
(Suppression)
Control
Male 4.4318 .80693 11
Female 3.9167 1.03078 9
Total 4.2000 .92694 20
Psychoeducation
Male 4.3077 1.33913 13
Female 4.1000 1.15590 10
Total 4.2174 1.23928 23
Practice
Male 3.8750 1.17969 16
Female 4.5625 1.38712 8
Total 4.1042 1.26602 24
Total
Male 4.1688 1.14688 40
Female 4.1759 1.17427 27
Total 4.1716 1.14912 67
Posttest ERQ
(Suppression)
Control
Male 4.6364 .85413 11
Female 3.9167 1.13192 9
Total 4.3125 1.02878 20
Psychoeducation
Male 4.1923 .85485 13
Female 4.2500 .79057 10
Total 4.2174 .80941 23
Practice
Male 3.9063 1.20718 16
Female 5.0313 1.26376 8
Total 4.2812 1.31528 24
Total
Male 4.2000 1.03031 40
Female 4.3704 1.11883 27
Total 4.2687 1.06183 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 242
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
F df1 df2 Sig.
Pretest ERQ (Suppression) .662 5 61 .653
Posttest ERQ (Suppression) 1.008 5 61 .421
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across
groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition * Gender
Within Subjects Design: timeSupressionERQ
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Transformed Variable: Average
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Intercept 2307.310 1 2307.310 1132.705 .000
Condition .449 2 .224 .110 .896
Gender .161 1 .161 .079 .779
Condition * Gender 12.368 2 6.184 3.036 .055
Error 124.256 61 2.037
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 243
Appendix P.15: Positive Affect (PANAS) Analyses
A marginally significant within-subjects interaction effect of gender*time was
found (F (1, 61) = 3.90, p = .053).
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest PANAS
(Positive Affect)
Control
Male 32.09 6.715 11
Female 27.33 11.779 9
Total 29.95 9.383 20
Psychoeducation
Male 31.31 4.854 13
Female 27.80 8.548 10
Total 29.78 6.775 23
Practice
Male 25.50 8.198 16
Female 27.75 6.798 8
Total 26.25 7.685 24
Total
Male 29.20 7.356 40
Female 27.63 8.971 27
Total 28.57 8.017 67
Posttest PANAS
(Positive Affect)
Control
Male 29.45 9.059 11
Female 27.67 13.019 9
Total 28.65 10.742 20
Psychoeducation
Male 28.69 2.869 13
Female 31.30 5.293 10
Total 29.83 4.207 23
Practice
Male 28.00 8.877 16
Female 29.88 6.578 8
Total 28.63 8.085 24
Total
Male 28.63 7.365 40
Female 29.67 8.713 27
Total 29.04 7.888 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 244
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timePAPANAS
Sphericity Assumed 9.076 1 9.076 .529 .470
Greenhouse-Geisser 9.076 1.000 9.076 .529 .470
Huynh-Feldt 9.076 1.000 9.076 .529 .470
Lower-bound 9.076 1.000 9.076 .529 .470
timePAPANAS *
Condition
Sphericity Assumed 61.911 2 30.956 1.804 .173
Greenhouse-Geisser 61.911 2.000 30.956 1.804 .173
Huynh-Feldt 61.911 2.000 30.956 1.804 .173
Lower-bound 61.911 2.000 30.956 1.804 .173
timePAPANAS *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 66.967 1 66.967 3.903 .053
Greenhouse-Geisser 66.967 1.000 66.967 3.903 .053
Huynh-Feldt 66.967 1.000 66.967 3.903 .053
Lower-bound 66.967 1.000 66.967 3.903 .053
timePAPANAS *
Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 57.797 2 28.899 1.684 .194
Greenhouse-Geisser 57.797 2.000 28.899 1.684 .194
Huynh-Feldt 57.797 2.000 28.899 1.684 .194
Lower-bound 57.797 2.000 28.899 1.684 .194
Error(timePAPANA
S)
Sphericity Assumed 1046.499 61 17.156
Greenhouse-Geisser 1046.499 61.000 17.156
Huynh-Feldt 1046.499 61.000 17.156
Lower-bound 1046.499 61.000 17.156
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 245
Appendix P.16: Psychoeducation Test Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Immediate
Psychoeducation
Total
Psychoeducation
Male 14.769 3.0112 13
Female 17.300 2.0710 10
Total 15.870 2.8889 23
Practice
Male 16.344 1.8323 16
Female 16.563 2.2271 8
Total 16.417 1.9262 24
Total
Male 15.638 2.5139 29
Female 16.972 2.1107 18
Total 16.149 2.4337 47
Posttest
Psychoeducation
Total
Psychoeducation
Male 15.500 3.2275 13
Female 16.250 2.6484 10
Total 15.826 2.9488 23
Practice
Male 16.094 2.5963 16
Female 15.625 1.5295 8
Total 15.937 2.2713 24
Total
Male 15.828 2.8576 29
Female 15.972 2.1860 18
Total 15.883 2.5964 47
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 246
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeTotalPsychoed
Sphericity Assumed 3.115 1 3.115 .907 .346
Greenhouse-Geisser 3.115 1.000 3.115 .907 .346
Huynh-Feldt 3.115 1.000 3.115 .907 .346
Lower-bound 3.115 1.000 3.115 .907 .346
timeTotalPsychoed
* Condition
Sphericity Assumed 1.034 1 1.034 .301 .586
Greenhouse-Geisser 1.034 1.000 1.034 .301 .586
Huynh-Feldt 1.034 1.000 1.034 .301 .586
Lower-bound 1.034 1.000 1.034 .301 .586
timeTotalPsychoed
* Gender
Sphericity Assumed 8.359 1 8.359 2.435 .126
Greenhouse-Geisser 8.359 1.000 8.359 2.435 .126
Huynh-Feldt 8.359 1.000 8.359 2.435 .126
Lower-bound 8.359 1.000 8.359 2.435 .126
timeTotalPsychoed
* Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 1.640 1 1.640 .478 .493
Greenhouse-Geisser 1.640 1.000 1.640 .478 .493
Huynh-Feldt 1.640 1.000 1.640 .478 .493
Lower-bound 1.640 1.000 1.640 .478 .493
Error(timeTotalPsyc
hoed)
Sphericity Assumed 147.626 43 3.433
Greenhouse-Geisser 147.626 43.000 3.433
Huynh-Feldt 147.626 43.000 3.433
Lower-bound 147.626 43.000 3.433
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 247
Appendix P.17: Programme Evaluation Analyses
Analyses in this section only involve either one or both the Psychoeducation
and Practice conditions as the following variables are specific to their respective
experimental manipulations. Univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used as
these variables were measured at post-test only. Attitudes to the programme were
obtained. Scores ranged from 1 to 7 where 4 was set as the baseline attitude of no
change and higher scores represented better attitudes (except for workload change).
For binary yes or no questions, responses of no were given a value of 1 and responses
of yes a value of 2.
Reminders’ Usefulness.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Practice
Male 5.19 1.642 16
Female 5.00 1.069 8
Total 5.13 1.454 24
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 248
Workload change. No significant effects were found between the conditions.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.69 1.377 13
Female 3.80 1.619 10
Total 4.30 1.521 23
Practice
Male 4.37 1.928 16
Female 4.63 1.506 8
Total 4.46 1.769 24
Total
Male 4.52 1.682 29
Female 4.17 1.581 18
Total 4.38 1.636 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Workload Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
.886 3 43 .456
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Workload Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 5.112a 3 1.704 .621 .605
Intercept 839.631 1 839.631 305.982 .000
Condition .707 1 .707 .258 .614
Gender 1.132 1 1.132 .413 .524
Condition * Gender 3.581 1 3.581 1.305 .260
Error 117.994 43 2.744
Total 1026.000 47
Corrected Total 123.106 46
a. R Squared = .042 (Adjusted R Squared = -.025)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 249
Behaviour change. There was significant main effect of condition for
attitudes on changes in mindfulness practice. Subjects in the Practice condition rated
their changes in mindfulness practice behaviours significantly higher than those in the
Psychoeducation condition (F (1, 43) = 18.58, p < .001). Females also rated their
change as higher than males (F (1, 43) = 2.93, p = .094) but this main effect of gender
only approached significance. Equality of error variances was assumed (F (3, 43) =
1.31, p > .05). Attitudes on sleep and multitasking behavioural changes were not
significant.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 250
Mindfulness practice behaviour change.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.00 .816 13
Female 4.70 1.059 10
Total 4.30 .974 23
Practice
Male 5.56 1.153 16
Female 6.00 1.414 8
Total 5.71 1.233 24
Total
Male 4.86 1.274 29
Female 5.28 1.364 18
Total 5.02 1.310 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mindfulness Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
1.307 3 43 .284
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mindfulness Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 26.941a 3 8.980 7.421 .000
Intercept 1126.627 1 1126.627 930.963 .000
Condition 22.485 1 22.485 18.580 .000
Gender 3.551 1 3.551 2.934 .094
Condition * Gender .189 1 .189 .156 .695
Error 52.037 43 1.210
Total 1264.000 47
Corrected Total 78.979 46
a. R Squared = .341 (Adjusted R Squared = .295)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 251
Sleep behaviour change.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.38 .768 13
Female 4.00 1.247 10
Total 4.22 .998 23
Practice
Male 4.38 1.025 16
Female 4.75 1.035 8
Total 4.50 1.022 24
Total
Male 4.38 .903 29
Female 4.33 1.188 18
Total 4.36 1.009 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Sleep Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
.786 3 43 .508
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Sleep Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 2.524a 3 .841 .816 .492
Intercept 841.293 1 841.293 816.109 .000
Condition 1.504 1 1.504 1.459 .234
Gender .000 1 .000 .000 .988
Condition * Gender 1.583 1 1.583 1.536 .222
Error 44.327 43 1.031
Total 941.000 47
Corrected Total 46.851 46
a. R Squared = .054 (Adjusted R Squared = -.012)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 252
Multitasking behaviour change.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.62 1.044 13
Female 5.40 1.075 10
Total 4.96 1.107 23
Practice
Male 5.19 1.109 16
Female 5.25 1.035 8
Total 5.21 1.062 24
Total
Male 4.93 1.100 29
Female 5.33 1.029 18
Total 5.09 1.080 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Multitasking Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
.069 3 43 .976
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Multitasking Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 4.245a 3 1.415 1.231 .310
Intercept 1147.898 1 1147.898 998.891 .000
Condition .489 1 .489 .425 .518
Gender 1.969 1 1.969 1.714 .197
Condition * Gender 1.431 1 1.431 1.245 .271
Error 49.414 43 1.149
Total 1269.000 47
Corrected Total 53.660 46
a. R Squared = .079 (Adjusted R Squared = .015)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 253
Outcome change. Attitudes on outcome changes showed a significant main
effect of condition only on changes in mood (F (1, 43) = 4.79, p < .05) and
mindfulness level (F (1, 43) = 15.29, p < .001), with subjects in the Practice condition
giving significantly higher ratings. Levene’s test for mood changes was not violated
(F (3, 43) = 2.79, p > .05). However, caution should be taken when interpreting the
results for attitudes on mindfulness level change as the Levene’s test was violated (F
(3, 43) = 3.49, p = .024). Independent-samples t-tests revealed that Levene’s adjusted
(equal variances not assumed) values for attitudes of mindfulness level change
revealed a significant t-statistic (t (35.07) = 3.97, p < .001) assuring that these
attitudinal differences held up after adjustment.
Attitudes on cognitive functioning and overall program benefits did not
demonstrate the same main effect of condition, although this was approaching
significance for attitudes on the overall program benefits. In a binary yes or no
question on whether subjects believed these strategies would change their life for the
better, there was also no significant main effect of condition.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 254
Mood outcome change.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.23 .439 13
Female 4.40 .699 10
Total 4.30 .559 23
Practice
Male 5.06 .929 16
Female 4.63 1.061 8
Total 4.92 .974 24
Total
Male 4.69 .850 29
Female 4.50 .857 18
Total 4.62 .848 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mood Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
2.786 3 43 .052
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mood Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 5.586a 3 1.862 2.909 .045
Intercept 920.795 1 920.795 1438.732 .000
Condition 3.064 1 3.064 4.788 .034
Gender .197 1 .197 .309 .581
Condition * Gender 1.010 1 1.010 1.578 .216
Error 27.520 43 .640
Total 1035.000 47
Corrected Total 33.106 46
a. R Squared = .169 (Adjusted R Squared = .111)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 255
Mindfulness level outcome change.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.38 .506 13
Female 4.70 .483 10
Total 4.52 .511 23
Practice
Male 5.31 .946 16
Female 5.63 1.061 8
Total 5.42 .974 24
Total
Male 4.90 .900 29
Female 5.11 .900 18
Total 4.98 .897 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mindfulness Level
Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
3.486 3 43 .024
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mindfulness Level Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 10.489a 3 3.496 5.676 .002
Intercept 1100.054 1 1100.054 1785.706 .000
Condition 9.421 1 9.421 15.293 .000
Gender 1.082 1 1.082 1.756 .192
Condition * Gender 2.283E-005 1 2.283E-005 .000 .995
Error 26.489 43 .616
Total 1202.000 47
Corrected Total 36.979 46
a. R Squared = .284 (Adjusted R Squared = .234)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 256
Pairwise comparisons (condition).
Group Statistics
Source Condition N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Self Report Mindfulness
Level Change
Psychoeducation 23 4.52 .511 .106
Practice 24 5.42 .974 .199
Independent Samples Test
Levene’s
Test for
Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means
F Sig. t df
Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Self
Report
Mindful
ness
Level
Change
Equal
variances
assumed
9.471 .004 -3.918 45 .000 -.895 .228 -1.355 -.435
Equal
variances
not
assumed
-3.967 35.067 .000 -.895 .226 -1.353 -.437
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 257
Cognitive functioning outcome change.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.23 .439 13
Female 4.50 .527 10
Total 4.35 .487 23
Practice
Male 4.50 .966 16
Female 4.63 .916 8
Total 4.54 .932 24
Total
Male 4.38 .775 29
Female 4.56 .705 18
Total 4.45 .746 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Cognitive
Functioning Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
2.588 3 43 .065
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Cognitive Functioning Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model .934a 3 .311 .543 .656
Intercept 874.886 1 874.886 1524.148 .000
Condition .426 1 .426 .743 .393
Gender .426 1 .426 .743 .393
Condition * Gender .057 1 .057 .099 .754
Error 24.683 43 .574
Total 955.000 47
Corrected Total 25.617 46
a. R Squared = .036 (Adjusted R Squared = -.031)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 258
Overall benefit received.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.69 .480 13
Female 5.00 .667 10
Total 4.83 .576 23
Practice
Male 5.19 .834 16
Female 5.25 .463 8
Total 5.21 .721 24
Total
Male 4.97 .731 29
Female 5.11 .583 18
Total 5.02 .675 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Overall Program
Benefit
F df1 df2 Sig.
.414 3 43 .744
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Overall Program Benefit
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 2.272a 3 .757 1.741 .173
Intercept 1111.920 1 1111.920 2555.900 .000
Condition 1.524 1 1.524 3.503 .068
Gender .376 1 .376 .864 .358
Condition * Gender .165 1 .165 .379 .541
Error 18.707 43 .435
Total 1206.000 47
Corrected Total 20.979 46
a. R Squared = .108 (Adjusted R Squared = .046)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 259
Change your life for the better.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 1.77 .439 13
Female 2.00 .000 10
Total 1.87 .344 23
Practice
Male 1.94 .250 16
Female 1.88 .354 8
Total 1.92 .282 24
Total
Male 1.86 .351 29
Female 1.94 .236 18
Total 1.89 .312 47
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Belief Program
Changes Life for Better
F df1 df2 Sig.
6.075 3 43 .002
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Belief Program Changes Life for Better
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model .348a 3 .116 1.210 .317
Intercept 157.736 1 157.736 1646.197 .000
Condition .005 1 .005 .054 .818
Gender .078 1 .078 .811 .373
Condition * Gender .236 1 .236 2.463 .124
Error 4.120 43 .096
Total 173.000 47
Corrected Total 4.468 46
a. R Squared = .078 (Adjusted R Squared = .014)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 260
Behavioural maintenance. Only those who rated above 4 for their self-report
on behaviour change (independent across respective self-reported behaviours)
answered questions about behavioural maintenance. Subjects rated in a binary yes or
no their intention to maintain their behaviours. No significant effects were found
between the conditions.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 261
Mindfulness practice.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 2.00 .000 3
Female 2.00 .000 8
Total 2.00 .000 11
Practice
Male 1.77 .439 13
Female 2.00 .000 7
Total 1.85 .366 20
Total
Male 1.81 .403 16
Female 2.00 .000 15
Total 1.90 .301 31
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Self Report Mindfulness Maintain Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
12.798 3 27 .000
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Self Report Mindfulness Maintain Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model .402a 3 .134 1.568 .220
Intercept 89.013 1 89.013 1041.453 .000
Condition .079 1 .079 .919 .346
Gender .079 1 .079 .919 .346
Condition * Gender .079 1 .079 .919 .346
Error 2.308 27 .085
Total 115.000 31
Corrected Total 2.710 30
a. R Squared = .148 (Adjusted R Squared = .054)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 262
Sleep.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 1.60 .548 5
Female 1.75 .500 4
Total 1.67 .500 9
Practice
Male 1.71 .488 7
Female 1.75 .500 4
Total 1.73 .467 11
Total
Male 1.67 .492 12
Female 1.75 .463 8
Total 1.70 .470 20
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Sleep Maintain
Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
.266 3 16 .849
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Sleep Maintain Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model .071a 3 .024 .092 .963
Intercept 55.092 1 55.092 213.504 .000
Condition .015 1 .015 .060 .810
Gender .041 1 .041 .159 .696
Condition * Gender .015 1 .015 .060 .810
Error 4.129 16 .258
Total 62.000 20
Corrected Total 4.200 19
a. R Squared = .017 (Adjusted R Squared = -.167)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 263
Multitasking.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 2.00 .000 8
Female 2.00 .000 8
Total 2.00 .000 16
Practice
Male 2.00 .000 13
Female 2.00 .000 7
Total 2.00 .000 20
Total
Male 2.00 .000 21
Female 2.00 .000 15
Total 2.00 .000 36
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 264
Future behaviour change. Only those who rated 4 and below for their self-
report on behaviour change (independent across respective self-reported behaviours)
answered questions about future behaviour change. No significant effects were found
between the conditions.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 265
Mindfulness practice.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.50 1.841 10
Female 5.50 .707 2
Total 4.67 1.723 12
Practice
Male 5.33 .577 3
Female 6.00 . 1
Total 5.50 .577 4
Total
Male 4.69 1.653 13
Female 5.67 .577 3
Total 4.87 1.544 16
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mindfulness Need to
Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
2.385 3 12 .120
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Mindfulness Need to Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 4.083a 3 1.361 .516 .679
Intercept 235.402 1 235.402 89.205 .000
Condition .920 1 .920 .348 .566
Gender 1.437 1 1.437 .544 .475
Condition * Gender .057 1 .057 .022 .885
Error 31.667 12 2.639
Total 416.000 16
Corrected Total 35.750 15
a. R Squared = .114 (Adjusted R Squared = -.107)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 266
Sleep.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.50 2.204 8
Female 5.00 1.095 6
Total 4.71 1.773 14
Practice
Male 4.78 1.563 9
Female 4.50 2.380 4
Total 4.69 1.750 13
Total
Male 4.65 1.835 17
Female 4.80 1.619 10
Total 4.70 1.728 27
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Sleep Need to
Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
2.881 3 23 .058
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Sleep Need to Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 1.074a 3 .358 .108 .955
Intercept 540.161 1 540.161 162.283 .000
Condition .076 1 .076 .023 .881
Gender .076 1 .076 .023 .881
Condition * Gender .927 1 .927 .278 .603
Error 76.556 23 3.329
Total 675.000 27
Corrected Total 77.630 26
a. R Squared = .014 (Adjusted R Squared = -.115)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 267
Multitasking.
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Psychoeducation
Male 4.00 2.449 5
Female 2.50 .707 2
Total 3.57 2.149 7
Practice
Male 4.00 1.732 3
Female 7.00 . 1
Total 4.75 2.062 4
Total
Male 4.00 2.070 8
Female 4.00 2.646 3
Total 4.00 2.098 11
Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variancesa
Dependent Variable: Self Report Multitasking Need to
Change
F df1 df2 Sig.
2.689 3 7 .127
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the
dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Condition + Gender + Condition
* Gender
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: Self Report Multitasking Need to Change
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 13.500a 3 4.500 1.033 .435
Intercept 150.615 1 150.615 34.567 .001
Condition 9.959 1 9.959 2.286 .174
Gender 1.107 1 1.107 .254 .630
Condition * Gender 9.959 1 9.959 2.286 .174
Error 30.500 7 4.357
Total 220.000 11
Corrected Total 44.000 10
a. R Squared = .307 (Adjusted R Squared = .010)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 268
Appendix P.18: Further Analyses
Descriptive Statistics
Condition Gender Mean Std. Deviation N
Pretest ERQ
(Reappraisal)
Control
Male 4.7727 1.17231 11
Female 5.1111 1.23705 9
Total 4.9250 1.18215 20
Psychoeducation
Male 5.2315 .94716 13
Female 4.7650 .73013 10
Total 5.0287 .87369 23
Practice
Male 4.7813 .77336 16
Female 4.8950 1.19028 8
Total 4.8192 .90788 24
Total
Male 4.9252 .95120 40
Female 4.9189 1.02903 27
Total 4.9227 .97560 67
Posttest ERQ
(Reappraisal)
Control
Male 4.8027 1.17160 11
Female 4.6667 1.45497 9
Total 4.7415 1.27225 20
Psychoeducation
Male 4.8469 .64405 13
Female 4.7490 .95420 10
Total 4.8043 .77537 23
Practice
Male 4.7288 .65877 16
Female 5.8313 .70778 8
Total 5.0963 .84696 24
Total
Male 4.7875 .80571 40
Female 5.0422 1.17255 27
Total 4.8901 .97008 67
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 269
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE_1
Source Type III Sum of
Squares
df Mean Square F Sig.
timeReappraisalER
Q
Sphericity Assumed .001 1 .001 .003 .955
Greenhouse-Geisser .001 1.000 .001 .003 .955
Huynh-Feldt .001 1.000 .001 .003 .955
Lower-bound .001 1.000 .001 .003 .955
timeReappraisalER
Q *
WeeklyPracticeTota
lChange
Sphericity Assumed .092 1 .092 .229 .634
Greenhouse-Geisser .092 1.000 .092 .229 .634
Huynh-Feldt .092 1.000 .092 .229 .634
Lower-bound .092 1.000 .092 .229 .634
timeReappraisalER
Q * Condition
Sphericity Assumed 2.269 2 1.134 2.819 .068
Greenhouse-Geisser 2.269 2.000 1.134 2.819 .068
Huynh-Feldt 2.269 2.000 1.134 2.819 .068
Lower-bound 2.269 2.000 1.134 2.819 .068
timeReappraisalER
Q * Gender
Sphericity Assumed .514 1 .514 1.276 .263
Greenhouse-Geisser .514 1.000 .514 1.276 .263
Huynh-Feldt .514 1.000 .514 1.276 .263
Lower-bound .514 1.000 .514 1.276 .263
timeReappraisalER
Q * Condition *
Gender
Sphericity Assumed 2.715 2 1.358 3.373* .041
Greenhouse-Geisser 2.715 2.000 1.358 3.373* .041
Huynh-Feldt 2.715 2.000 1.358 3.373* .041
Lower-bound 2.715 2.000 1.358 3.373* .041
Error(timeReapprais
alERQ)
Sphericity Assumed 24.148 60 .402
Greenhouse-Geisser 24.148 60.000 .402
Huynh-Feldt 24.148 60.000 .402
Lower-bound 24.148 60.000 .402
*. Significant at the .05 level.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 270
Pairwise comparisons (condition x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReappraisalERQ Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control 1 4.927a .224 4.478 5.376
2 4.727a .213 4.301 5.153
Psychoeducation 1 4.960a .213 4.533 5.387
2 4.777a .202 4.372 5.182
Practice 1 4.904a .227 4.450 5.358
2 5.316a .215 4.885 5.746
a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Change Score Weekly Mindful
Practice Total = 4.663.
Pairwise comparisons (different condition-pairs at each time level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeReappra
isalERQ
(I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
Control Psychoeducation -.033 .308 1.000 -.791 .725
Practice .023 .322 1.000 -.771 .817
Psychoeduca
tion
Control .033 .308 1.000 -.725 .791
Practice .056 .320 1.000 -.733 .845
Practice Control -.023 .322 1.000 -.817 .771
Psychoeducation -.056 .320 1.000 -.845 .733
2
Control Psychoeducation -.051 .292 1.000 -.769 .668
Practice -.589 .306 .177 -1.342 .164
Psychoeduca
tion
Control .051 .292 1.000 -.668 .769
Practice -.538 .304 .245 -1.287 .210
Practice Control .589 .306 .177 -.164 1.342
Psychoeducation .538 .304 .245 -.210 1.287
Based on estimated marginal means
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 271
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeReappraisalERQ Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Contrast .031 2 .016 .016 .984
Error 59.557 60 .993
2
Contrast 3.982 2 1.991 2.229 .116
Error 53.592 60 .893
Each F tests the simple effects of Condition within each level combination of the other effects shown.
These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated
marginal means.
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each condition level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition (I)
timeReapp
raisalERQ
(J)
timeReapp
raisalERQ
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower Bound Upper
Bound
Control 1
2
2 .200 .202 .325 -.204 .605
1 -.200 .202 .325 -.605 .204
Psychoeducation 1
2
2 .183 .192 .345 -.202 .567
1 -.183 .192 .345 -.567 .202
Practice 1 2 -.412* .204 .048 -.820 -.003
2 1 .412* .204 .048 .003 .820
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 272
Multivariate Tests
Condition Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Control
Pillai's trace .016 .984a 1.000 60.000 .325
Wilks' lambda .984 .984a 1.000 60.000 .325
Hotelling's trace .016 .984a 1.000 60.000 .325
Roy's largest root .016 .984a 1.000 60.000 .325
Psychoeducation
Pillai's trace .015 .905a 1.000 60.000 .345
Wilks' lambda .985 .905a 1.000 60.000 .345
Hotelling's trace .015 .905a 1.000 60.000 .345
Roy's largest root .015 .905a 1.000 60.000 .345
Practice
Pillai's trace .063 4.066a 1.000 60.000 .048
Wilks' lambda .937 4.066a 1.000 60.000 .048
Hotelling's trace .068 4.066a 1.000 60.000 .048
Roy's largest root .068 4.066a 1.000 60.000 .048
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeReappraisalERQ within each level combination of
the other effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among
the estimated marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Pairwise comparisons (condition x gender x time).
Estimates
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReapprais
alERQ
Gender Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Control
1 Male 4.743a .302 4.139 5.347
Female 5.111a .332 4.447 5.775
2 Male 4.787a .287 4.214 5.360
Female 4.667a .315 4.037 5.297
Psychoeducation
1 Male 5.134a .295 4.543 5.724
Female 4.786a .316 4.155 5.418
2 Male 4.794a .280 4.234 5.354
Female 4.761a .300 4.161 5.360
Practice
1 Male 4.823a .253 4.317 5.328
Female 4.985a .365 4.255 5.716
2 Male 4.751a .240 4.271 5.231
Female 5.880a .346 5.187 6.573
a. Covariates appearing in the model are evaluated at the following values: Change Score Weekly Mindful Practice
Total = 4.663.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 273
Pairwise comparisons (different condition-pairs at each gender & time
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeRe
apprais
alERQ
Gender (I) Condition (J) Condition Mean
Differenc
e (I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for
Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
1
Male
Control Psychoeducation -.391 .415 1.000 -1.412 .630
Practice -.079 .397 1.000 -1.058 .899
Psychoeducation Control .391 .415 1.000 -.630 1.412
Practice .311 .400 1.000 -.675 1.297
Practice Control .079 .397 1.000 -.899 1.058
Psychoeducation -.311 .400 1.000 -1.297 .675
Female
Control Psychoeducation .325 .458 1.000 -.804 1.454
Practice .126 .494 1.000 -1.090 1.341
Psychoeducation Control -.325 .458 1.000 -1.454 .804
Practice -.199 .478 1.000 -1.377 .979
Practice Control -.126 .494 1.000 -1.341 1.090
Psychoeducation .199 .478 1.000 -.979 1.377
2
Male
Control Psychoeducation -.007 .393 1.000 -.976 .961
Practice .036 .377 1.000 -.893 .964
Psychoeducation Control .007 .393 1.000 -.961 .976
Practice .043 .380 1.000 -.893 .978
Practice Control -.036 .377 1.000 -.964 .893
Psychoeducation -.043 .380 1.000 -.978 .893
Female
Control Psychoeducation -.094 .435 1.000 -1.165 .977
Practice -1.213* .468 .036 -2.367 -.060
Psychoeducation Control .094 .435 1.000 -.977 1.165
Practice -1.120* .454 .049 -2.237 -.002
Practice Control 1.213* .468 .036 .060 2.367
Psychoeducation 1.120* .454 .049 .002 2.237
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 274
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
timeReappraisal
ERQ
Gender Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Male Contrast .990 2 .495 .499 .610
Error 59.557 60 .993
Female Contrast .511 2 .255 .257 .774
Error 59.557 60 .993
2
Male Contrast .013 2 .007 .007 .993
Error 53.592 60 .893
Female Contrast 7.367 2 3.684 4.124 .021
Error 53.592 60 .893
Each F tests the simple effects of Condition within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests
are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Pairwise comparisons (different time-pairs at each condition & gender
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition Gender (I)
timeReapprais
alERQ
(J)
timeReapprais
alERQ
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error
Sig.b 95% Confidence Interval
for Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Control
Male 1 2 -.044 .272 .873 -.588 .500
2 1 .044 .272 .873 -.500 .588
Female 1 2 .444 .299 .142 -.154 1.043
2 1 -.444 .299 .142 -1.043 .154
Psychoedu
cation
Male 1 2 .340 .266 .206 -.192 .872
2 1 -.340 .266 .206 -.872 .192
Female 1 2 .026 .284 .928 -.543 .595
2 1 -.026 .284 .928 -.595 .543
Practice
Male 1 2 .071 .228 .755 -.384 .527
2 1 -.071 .228 .755 -.527 .384
Female 1 2 -.895* .329 .008 -1.552 -.237
2 1 .895* .329 .008 .237 1.552
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 275
Multivariate Tests
Condition Gender Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.
Control
Male
Pillai's trace .000 .026a 1.000 60.000 .873
Wilks' lambda 1.000 .026a 1.000 60.000 .873
Hotelling's trace .000 .026a 1.000 60.000 .873
Roy's largest root .000 .026a 1.000 60.000 .873
Female
Pillai's trace .036 2.209a 1.000 60.000 .142
Wilks' lambda .964 2.209a 1.000 60.000 .142
Hotelling's trace .037 2.209a 1.000 60.000 .142
Roy's largest root .037 2.209a 1.000 60.000 .142
Psychoeducation
Male
Pillai's trace .026 1.633a 1.000 60.000 .206
Wilks' lambda .974 1.633a 1.000 60.000 .206
Hotelling's trace .027 1.633a 1.000 60.000 .206
Roy's largest root .027 1.633a 1.000 60.000 .206
Female
Pillai's trace .000 .008a 1.000 60.000 .928
Wilks' lambda 1.000 .008a 1.000 60.000 .928
Hotelling's trace .000 .008a 1.000 60.000 .928
Roy's largest root .000 .008a 1.000 60.000 .928
Practice
Male
Pillai's trace .002 .098a 1.000 60.000 .755
Wilks' lambda .998 .098a 1.000 60.000 .755
Hotelling's trace .002 .098a 1.000 60.000 .755
Roy's largest root .002 .098a 1.000 60.000 .755
Female
Pillai's trace .110 7.410a 1.000 60.000 .008
Wilks' lambda .890 7.410a 1.000 60.000 .008
Hotelling's trace .123 7.410a 1.000 60.000 .008
Roy's largest root .123 7.410a 1.000 60.000 .008
Each F tests the multivariate simple effects of timeReappraisalERQ within each level combination of the other
effects shown. These tests are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated
marginal means.
a. Exact statistic
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 276
Pairwise comparisons (different gender-pairs at each condition & time
level).
Pairwise Comparisons
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReapprais
alERQ
(I) Gender (J) Gender Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std. Error Sig.b 95% Confidence
Interval for
Differenceb
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Control
1 Male Female -.368 .449 .415 -1.266 .530
Female Male .368 .449 .415 -.530 1.266
2 Male Female .120 .426 .779 -.732 .972
Female Male -.120 .426 .779 -.972 .732
Psychoedu
cation
1 Male Female .347 .438 .431 -.529 1.223
Female Male -.347 .438 .431 -1.223 .529
2 Male Female .033 .415 .936 -.797 .864
Female Male -.033 .415 .936 -.864 .797
Practice
1 Male Female -.163 .435 .709 -1.032 .706
Female Male .163 .435 .709 -.706 1.032
2 Male Female -1.129* .412 .008 -1.954 -.305
Female Male 1.129* .412 .008 .305 1.954
Based on estimated marginal means
*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 277
Univariate Tests
Measure: MEASURE_1
Condition timeReappraisalERQ Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Control
1 Contrast .667 1 .667 .672 .415
Error 59.557 60 .993
2 Contrast .071 1 .071 .079 .779
Error 53.592 60 .893
Psychoeducation
1 Contrast .624 1 .624 .629 .431
Error 59.557 60 .993
2 Contrast .006 1 .006 .006 .936
Error 53.592 60 .893
Practice
1 Contrast .139 1 .139 .140 .709
Error 59.557 60 .993
2 Contrast 6.701 1 6.701 7.502 .008
Error 53.592 60 .893
Each F tests the simple effects of Gender within each level combination of the other effects shown. These tests
are based on the linearly independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 278
Appendix Q: Challenges Faced
1. What were some challenges with regards to changing your sleep habits?
I had to shift my bed time forward slightly each day as I had a habit of sleeping
late.
Had a lot of things to do so it was hard to get at least 8 hours of sleep
When you have to do work, you have to do work, no matter how much you'd like to
change your sleep habits... Change can't just be accomplished in 10 days,
particularly as time-sensitive a 10 days as the ones towards the end of the semester
and into reading week, haha.
Some of the challenges included wanting to complete some work before I sleep. If I
were to complete the work, I would sleep later so I had to force myself to stop and
wake up the next morning to continue.
I could not sleep more as I had the same amount of things to do but the day did not
get any longer :(
Returning home later than usual and having assignments to finish
Habit to still use the phone to check social media before sleep
Exam period, hence there is a need to stay up for revision
I get bored without my phone so I'm not very good at trying to sleep early
social activities late at night, and fixed time for waking up
exam period coming
The existing workload
The amount of assignments/project deadlines at the end meant rushing for them as
a priority before sleep. Student mentality, I guess?
Also habitual late sleeping is very hard to get rid of.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 279
I somehow still woke up in the middle of the night, although I made sure there were
changes to my environment (not too hot for example), and kept a good routine
before sleep.
Perhaps its just that I produce too much body heat when I sleep, causing me to
wake up in the middle of the night.
didn't do anything
inability to tune in to the new routine immediately
Had to stay up to meet deadlines
Sleeping on time. Stretch more.
Mind drift to things happening in the day
I had assignments to do.
The demands of school and other responsibilities need to be met
because of school workload, an early night seems impossible at this stage
- Studying for a test or completing a paper often requires me to work beyond
midnight.
- CCA responsibilities prevent me from starting my work early so that I can finish
early and sleep.
- No time to catch up in the morning because of early class.
Not being able to use electronics were a bit difficult
Trying to sleep at least 8 hours or more when I usually get lesser sleep.
I sleep later than usual but I wake up later than usual as well. This is because I'm
trying to finish the work I have set for the day.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 280
Impossible to change the schedule so suddenly
Some days I nap in the afternoon, so I fall asleep a little later at night (2am). But
when I don't nap i usually sleep around 12am
work commitments
Social activites/htht with friends happen late at night. I like bonding with my
friends whom I do not get to interact with during office hours
wasn't able to get full 8hrs of sleep as this was done during exams period
Sleeping pattern was habitual therefore it was hard to change. I has several
instances when I had to wake up earlier than usual so that decreased the amount of
sleep I had for the day
Too much work to do to actually find time to sleep early.
Sharing rooms with siblings makes it difficult for everyone to sleep at the same
time. Therefore, I had to discipline myself to ensure I get to bed early even if the
rest have not yet.
Assignment rushing and deadlines.
not using phone before sleeping.
- One hour before bed time not looking at my phone or computer.
No challenges actually. I had all the time in the world to sleep.
Too hooked onto devices
I think one main challenge is when I have friends who talk to me about their
troubles. This usually happens late at night and so in order to give them a listening
ear I'll also have to stay up late with them.
Having lots of work and revision to complete still
I think generally it was difficult to get an increased amount of sleep with an
increased workload
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 281
Staying awake in the afternoons (not taking naps)
there are more distractions in the day, so night is still the best time to do things
clash with finals. poor timing
I simply had too many obligations to fulfill in the later half of the 10 days. I had
work to complete within a limited span of time, and I had various project meetings
to attend to. Within the limited span of time, I had to sacrifice my sleep to ensure
that I met deadlines.
I was used to using my phone before sleeping and it was hard to kick that habit.
it's a long term issue, difficult to change with a ten day exercise
2. What were some challenges with regards to your changing multitasking
habits?
I multi-tasked out of habit, but gently reminded myself to stop and focus anon one
thing at a time.
Not much since I don't really multitask but one challenge would probably be that I
feel less productive
Old habits die hard -- also the feeling of being more productive since you're
technically trying to finish two things at once, however fallacious that is.
It was tempting to use my electronic devices while I was studying but I
remembered reading that multitasking would decrease the efficiency of performing
those multiple tasks, so I decided against that.
Work got more and more mundane that if i did not do something else while doing
work, I would have fallen asleep.
hmm. Do not really multi-task.
Too many things to do in a short period of time
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 282
same as the above
I get anxious when doing one thing, afraid that I'd forget something else.
lack of discipline
Having the will to focus on the task
Habits. After a while boredom sets in from just doing one thing that it's tempting to
multitask instead.
I don't usually multi-task to begin with, so its not too bad.
didn't do anything
habitual actions are hard to overcome. it comes naturally. needs abit more effort in
doing it
Distractions are always prsent
Distractions. Laptop. Phone.
Time pressure. Distractions on the computer
I had different submissions due.
Inability to focus long doing the same thing over and over
my phone. very hard to not multitask when im so addicted to my phone
- Well, habit would be the biggest challenge. But I'm very aware now and try to
avoid it all costs.
No difficulties; no reason to multitask
I had to be consciously aware to stop multi-tasking and stop being so distracted. I
did not even realise that I was multi-tasking at times and I had to stop it.
When I use the computer I like to have a lot of tabs open and I still have the habit
of clicking another tab when I get bored.
Felt like not enough time for everything
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 283
There are distractions everywhere. While doing one thing, I might suddenly get
reminded of another thing and have the urge to do it at the same, in case I forget
about it later. So it's been challenging to force myself not to attend to the other
thing.
it is essential in work to multitask e.g. writing minutes while in meeting. answering
calls while doing other work. it is difficult to not multitask. also, listening to songs
while reading a book/exercising
It's a habit difficult to shake because I will jump onto a task the moment my mind
worries about it
hard to stop using electronic devices while eating when I'm alone
I get distracted by electronic devices, and it is hard to overcome the temptation of
switching tabs while using the laptop to do work. Lack of sleep on some days didn't
help as well, it made me sluggish and more prone to multitasking
Feeling constantly like I should be making better use of my time (i.e. multitasking),
feeling guilty, restless (but yes I know it's not actually better I guess)
During eating, I will feel extremely tempted to reach for my laptop or phone just to
have something to watch while I finish my meal. But keeping in mind the benefits
of doing just one thing at a time, I managed to hold it off for the most part. The
only exception made was when I was on the toilet, but I aim to try and do the same
for that as well in the future.
None
trying not to use phone while doing school work.
- It's a very compulsive, habitual, automatic behavior. Hard to change.
Very difficult. My phone called to me constantly. Very hard to change multitasking
Still too hooked onto devices
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 284
When work is heavy I tend to want to switch to some entertainment frequently.
Also, because it can be quite weird to be on a bus but be looking around I will
unwittingly pick up my phone to look at it instead and end up multitasking on it.
Having lots of work and revision to complete still
There were many distractions and I had to constantly keep myself in check
The addiction to multitasking. Just don't want to work/study
not much problem in the first place
clash with finals. poor timing
I was using the multi-tasking to escape my stress anxiety relating to my tasks at
hand.
I usually listen to songs while working and it was hard to not to do it this time.
it's a long term issue, difficult to change with a ten day exercise
3. What were some challenges with regards to your changing mindfulness
habits?
I had to change my mindset about having some quiet alone time. Mindfulness can
be done with a small window of time, and does not take much time.
It was hard especially when finals are nearing and I have a lot to get done and I
tend to plan ahead and it gets stressful sometimes I can't focus
Again, old habits die hard -- this needs to be a conscious change to be undertaken,
and sometimes there's the restlessness that there might be something else you
should be doing.
I increased the amount of time I meditated everyday but I usually meditate at night
so after a certain threshold, e.g. about 7 minutes, I would start falling asleep. I
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 285
started to try to mediate in the morning or afternoon when I am less tired (and when
my melatonin levels are lower!).
It was hard not to get distracted by the multiple things happening at once.
trying to find a peaceful time and place to meditate,
Need self-reminders
couldnt find time to practice
Nothing.
-
Setting time aside to practise it
No reminders (sorry! :/), and no incentive to actually practice it every day. At the
same time, shortly after the pre-test study were massive project deadlines that the
task to practice mindfulness was pretty much neglected, opting to continue with
what I've been doing to achieve my goals.
Setting aside a time to really stop and do so. Without a particular guide/follow-up
from the education component of mindfulness, it felt easy for me to slip back to my
past habits (and very difficult to maintain my new habits of mindfulness)
didn't do anything
Nil
Hard at the start
Studies.
Not enough practice
Lack of time and space
Mindfulness is more unconscious thought; to change it requires conscious effort,
which takes time
sometimes i forget to take time off to practice mindulness.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 286
- Having to constantly remind myself to be mindful.
- Catching myself multi tasking more than I admit to.
- The horror of how much my mind wanders!!
However, the breathing practices helped me sleep better.
Having to focus on my work, without allowing my mind to wander
Being more aware and less judgemental is very hard as I think I tend to be very
harsh on myself. Trying to let go is another challenge as I feel weird trying to 'let
go'
Sometimes I don't feel like practicing so I stop before the 10 mins are up.
It is a very abrupt change
It takes alot of discipline. I try to do it the moment I wake up, but some days I get
lazy and push it to a later time... and I've forgotten to do it on a few days.
not used to it so a little challenging to be entirely mindful
Not really challenging with the take 10 program - though after that I won't know
what to do
on some days it was especially hard to sit still for 10min
Set aside 10minutes on most days to do the exercise on the app. Most of the time I
fell asleep in the middle of it.
Feelings of unease and gotta be constantly aware of being focused
Sometimes I find myself forcing my mind not to think. In my mind, I will be
constantly repeating the lyrics and rhythms to songs over and over and over again,
and I found that forcing myself to stop just makes it even worse. I have found
however that it only happens if I dont do the meditation session earlier in the day, it
will affect my mood for the rest of the day.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 287
Commitment of time to remember to find time and sit down to do the practice
maintaining my focus.
trying to stay awake and focused when I'm very tired.
- To find a good place to do it. My room has mosquitoes and they drive me nuts!
Erm, I skipped maybe one day only? Not too much of a challenge
Spending the time for it
Some challenges are religious, I think it didn't take me long to realise that
mindfulness has some roots in buddhism or hinduism and this made me slightly
uncomfortable and wary of the practice.
Also, sometimes the instructions are just unclear, for instance, I'm not certain
whether I'm supposed to just let my thoughts flow or not, since the narrator says to
let the thoughts come but to focus when the mind starts wandering. Yet, it seems
that a wandering mind= letting your thoughts flow for me.
Having lots of work and revision to complete still
I think it took abit of discipline at the start to stick to the 10mins everyday, it got
much easier once I got into the swing of things
Too little patience for that
lack of discipline
clash with finals. poor timing
I like using the app, but on occasions I forgot my earphones and thus I could not do
the take-10 session in private. I was also on the move a lot the past 10 days.
I used to daydream quite abit and it was difficult to get it back on track during the
sessions.
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 288
it's a long term issue, difficult to change with a ten day exercise
4. Suggestions for improvement:
NIL
The timing of the exercise, though I think this has more to do with me than with
your experiment -- you probably arranged for it to be at precisely a period where
we'd be a bit more stressed out than usual... I thought I would be able to balance
mindfulness practice/self-care with trying to finish my own work, but in weighing
one against the other academics clearly won, unfortunately. But that might be my
own issue.
My suggestions for improvement are included in the questions above.
The process of learning mindfulness could be done in a video/audio form instead of
word form that had to be read.
-
NIL
-
I need to have better sleeping habits
Some reminders or follow-ups would be good.
Nil
Focus more on early completion.
Nil
-
NIL
-
-
A buddy system within the participants/with my friends will be great
Perhaps not to do it at the end of the day when I am too tired.
I think the sleep part is truly quite impossible. There's honestly too much work to
do.
None I have in mind. Good luck for your thesis! :)
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 289
- I think mindful eating is a good way to get used to mindfulness.
Erm... Tell us explicitly how to manage multitasking
I think that mindfulness is a really difficult discipline and should be pursued in a
group where members keep each other accountable. Alternatively, it'd be ideal if
the experimenter had an easy way of monitoring our mindspace accounts to see if
we've been doing the mediations daily, at a consistent timing etc.
NIL
NA
really appreciate this Hans. It was quite timely.
No idea. Haha I'm doing this just before the deadline. I have another assignment
I'm attending to at the moment, so I'm taking a break from that.
NIL
a more long drawn process would be more accurate
Effectiveness of a brief sleep, media-multitasking and mindfulness intervention. 290
Appendix R: Gratitude Expression
“really appreciate this Hans. It was quite timely.”
- Quote from subject in Practice condition in the suggestions response.