Mindfulness Matters: Examining the Role of Dispositional Mindfulness in Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Functioning in Long-Distance Relationships

Abstract

Long-distance relationships (LDR) are increasingly common among postsecondary students, yet few studies have examined how dispositional mindfulness (DM) supports relational and health functioning in this context. This study tested: (a) the differential contribution of DM facets to interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes, and (b) the mediating role of DM facets in the association between relationship satisfaction and health. Participants (N = 97) were postsecondary students or romantic partners of postsecondary students (aged 18–35) who completed an online survey. FDR-corrected stepwise linear regressions examined facet-level predictors, and parallel multiple mediation tested indirect effects between relationship satisfaction and health through DM facets. The nonjudging facet uniquely predicted higher satisfaction and trust, and lower romantic distress, whereas observing predicted sexual functioning. Nonjudging was also associated with fewer physical and mental health symptoms. Nonreacting and describing explained smaller effects for select psychological outcomes. Mediation analyses revealed that nonjudging mediated the link between satisfaction and health. Findings highlight nonjudging as a central predictor of overall functioning in LDR. Facet-level patterns diverged from the general relationship literature, suggesting greater reliance on cognitive-oriented facets in LDR. Mediation results advance the theoretical understanding of partnership-health associations. Considering the cross-sectional design, future longitudinal studies are needed to clarify temporal pathways.

Keywords

long-distance relationships dispositional mindfulness mindfulness nonjudging relationship satisfaction health partnership-health association

Long-distance relationships (LDR) are increasingly prevalent, with up to 40% of college students engaged in these arrangements (Merolla, 2010). Compared to proximal relationships (PR), LDR involve unique challenges, including financial strain, relational uncertainty, and communication difficulties (Maguire & Kinney, 2010; Weber et al., 2024). Preliminary evidence from cross-sectional studies challenges the bleak narrative around interpersonal (relational) and intrapersonal (health) outcomes in LDR. The literature on LDR functioning across both these domains is still emerging, with no meta-analyses conducted to date.

Contemporary research has found comparable levels, and in some cases higher, levels of relationship and sexual satisfaction, relative to those in PR (Du Bois et al., 2016; Kelmer et al., 2013). Individuals in LDR often engage in more maintenance behaviors to sustain intimacy (Goldsmith & Byers, 2020), yet experience higher romantic distress (Du Bois et al., 2016) and lower trust (Taneja & Goyal, 2020). Intrapersonal outcomes are mixed: individuals in LDR report worse physical functioning and comparable pain and sleep disturbances, but better overall health and increased health practices (Du Bois et al., 2016; Kumaria et al., 2024). They also report fewer anxious and depressive symptomatologies, but higher individual stress (Du Bois et al., 2016).

Scholarship has increasingly highlighted the interconnection between inter- and intrapersonal functioning. High-quality romantic relationships are reliably associated with better health, a pattern traditionally described as the marriage-health association (e.g., see Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017 for review; and Robles et al., 2014 for meta-analysis), and more recently reframed as the “partnership-health association,” with similar health benefits observed in good quality LDR (Du Bois et al., 2022). Despite these findings, LDR routinely contend with relational uncertainty and limited in-person contact, leading to fluctuations in relationship appraisals across separation-reunion cycles (Weber et al., 2024). Since relational quality is tied to health, variability in satisfaction may carry health consequences (Du Bois et al., 2022). Although this framework underscores the relevance of relationship satisfaction for individual health, less is known about the mechanisms explaining this link. Dispositional mindfulness (DM), with its dual relevance to interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning, is a promising pathway through which relationship quality may cascade into health outcomes.

Mindfulness

The term “mindfulness” is a broad construct encompassing a range of concepts and phenomena that can be operationalized in many ways. Mindfulness can be broadly defined as deliberate, nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). DM, the propensity to be mindful in daily life, is typically assessed across five facets: observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging, and nonreacting (Baer et al., 2006).

Traditionally conceptualized as an intrapersonal (embodied) construct, DM has been consistently associated with enhanced physical and psychological health (see Carpenter et al., 2019; Sala et al., 2020 for meta-analyses). Mechanistically, mindfulness may promote health through enhanced emotion-regulation and stress-buffering capacities, processes that collectively mitigate stress reactivity and support physiological recovery (see Creswell et al., 2019 for review). While mindfulness-based interventions broadly improve physical and psychological health in romantic contexts (see Winter et al., 2021 for review), no studies to date have examined facet-level intrapersonal effects within such contexts. Meta-analytic findings converge on acting with awareness and nonjudging as the facets most strongly associated with health-promoting behaviors and psychological well-being in general populations (Carpenter et al., 2019; Sala et al., 2020).

Increasingly, modern perspectives highlight the interpersonal dimensions of DM (e.g., Pratscher et al., 2019), framing it as embedded within one's social world (Khoury, 2018). Adaptive relational benefits are derived from dispositional and/or intervention-based mindfulness in romantic settings, including relationship and sexual satisfaction, trust, emotion skillfulness, and reduced romantic distress (Barnes et al., 2007; Khalifian & Barry, 2016; see Kozlowski, 2013, for review; and refer to Quinn-Nilas, 2020, for meta-analysis). These effects are theorized to arise from the heightened awareness, improved emotion regulation and executive control, and enhanced social connectedness (e.g., empathy/perspective taking) derived from being mindful (Karremans et al., 2017). To date, however, research on DM and interpersonal functioning has focused almost exclusively on PR, leaving LDR comparatively underexplored. Facet literature has been largely variable in mapping facets with relationship outcomes (Khaddouma et al., 2015, 2017). However, a recent machine learning study found that acting with awareness and observing were relevant for relationship and sexual satisfaction, respectively (Dias Martins et al., 2025).

Since DM is conceptualized as both embodied (intrapersonal) and embedded (interpersonal), it represents a viable pathway to bridge these domains of functioning. Recent frameworks identify DM as a unifying mechanism that connects inter- and intrapersonal functioning through emotion regulation and social connectedness (Khoury & Vergara, 2025). This aligns with the partnership–health association model, where the quality of close relationships cascades into individual health and well-being across relationship arrangements (Du Bois et al., 2022). Relational quality has been found to affect health through stress regulation, shared health behaviors, and partner support (Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017). Within this framework, DM may operate as an additional explanatory mechanism for LDR who lack proximity-based support, mediating how interpersonal dynamics (e.g., relationship satisfaction) extend into intrapersonal outcomes (e.g., global health). Although this pathway has not been directly tested, the conceptual overlap suggests that DM could complement established mediators linking relational quality and individual health.

Mind the Distance: Mindfulness in LDR

There is a paucity in research examining mindfulness within LDR, with no studies addressing how DM facets shape inter- and intrapersonal functioning. Extant literature has primarily used dyadic designs. In one study, greater DM predicted higher partner, but not individual, relationship satisfaction (Manser, 2023), while others found mutual gains in marital quality (Pandya, 2025; Zamir et al., 2017). Beyond dyadic designs, weak but significant correlations were observed between DM, marital satisfaction, and intimacy in LDR, with stronger predictive effects found for relationship-specific mindfulness measures (Tashkeh et al., 2024).

Taken together, these findings offer preliminary evidence suggesting that DM benefits relationship functioning in LDR, but also highlight a narrow focus on global interpersonal outcomes (e.g., satisfaction), with intrapersonal domains largely overlooked. Far less is known about how DM facets contribute to additional dimensions of functioning, such as trust, romantic distress, maintenance behaviors, and health. Given this gap, it is important to examine individual-level pathways that may later inform dyadic frameworks in this nascent field. Within this context, DM may also help explain mechanisms that underlie the partnership-health benefit model in LDR (Du Bois et al., 2022). Together, this underscores the need for nuanced investigations into how specific facets both predict and bridge inter- and intrapersonal functioning in LDR.

Study Objective

This study aims to integrate literature on mindfulness, relationships, and health to: (a) examine the differential contribution of DM facets to interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning in LDR; and (b) test whether DM facets mediate the association between relationship satisfaction and global health in LDR. Given the exploratory nature of this work, no facet-specific hypotheses were proposed. Broadly, we expected positive associations between DM facets and both inter- and intrapersonal outcomes, consistent with evidence from non-LDR samples (Carpenter et al., 2019; Quinn-Nilas, 2020). We further hypothesized that DM would be positively associated with both relationship satisfaction and global health, aligning with frameworks identifying mindfulness as a mechanism that bridges relational and health outcomes (Khoury & Vergara, 2025). In line with the multiple explanatory pathways linking relationship quality to health within the partnership-health association model, we anticipated a partial mediation, such that DM will explain a meaningful proportion, but not the entirety, of the relationship between relational quality and health.

Methods

Participants

Participants (N = 97) in LDR were recruited through flyers, chain referrals, word-of-mouth, classroom visits, and online resources (e.g., social media). Using GPower 3.1, we estimated needing at least 92 participants to detect a medium effect at an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.80 (Faul et al., 2009). This sample size also aligns with recommendations for detecting medium indirect effects in mediation models (Fritz & MacKinnon, 2007). LDR were operationalized in our study as any type of romantic relationship, where partners lived at least 50 miles apart and were unable to see each other most days. This study represents a cross-university collaboration within a larger dyadic project (e.g., Manser, 2023) that originally aimed to recruit both members of couples. However, the present study includes only individuals whose partners did not complete the survey. Consequently, the dataset contains no partner-reported data and no matched couple data. All analyses were therefore conducted strictly at the individual level. A subset of participants in the present sample was also included in a previous publication that addressed different research questions and analytic models (Du Bois et al., 2022). Eligible participants were: between the ages of 18 and 35, able to speak and write in English, current postsecondary students or their romantic partners, in a romantic relationship for at least 6 months, and in an LDR for at least 3 months.

Procedure

Ethical approval was obtained from select universities’ respective Institutional Review Boards prior to research initiation. Participants accessed the survey via the online platform Qualtrics, where they first completed a pre-screener to ensure eligibility. Eligible participants were then automatically directed to the consent form. Consenting participants had the option to complete the survey immediately or receive an email with a link to complete the survey later. The survey included various “attention-checks,” directing participants to endorse specific answers (e.g., “Please select strongly disagree”). Participants who completed the survey and provided valid data—missing no more than one attention check and generally not providing patterns of responses that were incongruent—received $5.00 USD Amazon gift card credits.

Measures

Mindfulness

DM was measured with the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire-15 (FFMQ-15; Gu et al., 2016), a 15-item short-form adaptation of the original FFMQ (Baer et al., 2006). The measure includes five 3-item subscales assessing the facets: Observing* (e.g., I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face), Describing (e.g., I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings), Acting with Awareness (e.g., I find myself doing things without paying attention; reverse phrased), Nonjudging (e.g., I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling; reverse phrased), and Nonreacting (e.g., When I have distressing thoughts or images I just notice them and let them go), rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never or very rarely true to 5 = very often or always true). Higher scores indicate greater DM at the total or subscale level. Subscale reliabilities ranged from α = .65–.89, consistent with prior research (Gu et al., 2016). The total DM scores demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .71).

Interpersonal Measures

Relationship Satisfaction

The Couple Satisfaction Index-16 (CSI-16; Funk & Rogge, 2007) assessed global relationship satisfaction. Participants rated 16-items on two 6-point scales (e.g., 0 = not at all true, 5 = completely true). First, on the accuracy of statements pertaining to their relationship (e.g., I have a warm and comfortable relationship with my partner). Then, their feelings about their relationship with dichotomous word pairs (e.g., 0 = miserable, 5 = enjoyable). Higher total scores indicate greater satisfaction. Internal consistency was excellent (α = .95), consistent with prior LDR samples (α = .81; Du Bois et al., 2016).

Trust

Trust was measured with the Trust in Close Relationships Scale-Faith Subscale (TCR; Rempel et al., 1985), a 7-item measure capturing confidence in partner responsiveness and relational stability. Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating more trust (e.g., When I am with my partner, I feel secure facing unknown new situations). The subscale demonstrated high reliability (α = .86).

Relationship Maintenance

The Relationship Continuity Constructional Unit-Introspective Subscale (RCCU; Gilbertson et al., 1998) is an 11-item measure assessing how often individuals engage in maintenance behaviors during non-copresence (e.g., calling or displaying photos of their partners). Items were rated across a 7-point Likert Scale from (1 = not at all, to 7 = always). Reliability was acceptable (α = .71).

Romantic Distress

The three-part Romantic Relationship Stress Scale (RRSS; Du Bois et al., 2023) assessed relational stress in LDR across 29-items rated on 5–7-point Likert scales. A sample item includes “My partner and I argue about the same topics frequently.” Higher scores reflect higher distress. Subscale reliability was acceptable to excellent (αs = .75–.89),

Sexual Functioning

Sexual functioning was evaluated by a brief composite of sexual satisfaction on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = very unsatisfying to 7 = very satisfying) and past-month frequency of sexual activity and communication across in-person and cybersexual modalities (e.g., sexual communication on a phone through text message) rated on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = never to 4 = very often). Higher scores reflect greater sexual functioning. The composite demonstrated good internal consistency (α = .76).

Intrapersonal Variables

Health

The Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29, version 2.1 (PROMIS-29 v2.1; Cella et al., 2019) assessed global health (α = .93) and seven subdomains (αs = .79–.94): physical function (e.g., Are you able to go for a walk for at least 15 min?), pain interference (e.g., How much did pain interfere with your day to day activities?), pain intensity (e.g., How would you rate your pain on average?), fatigue (e.g., During the past 7 days, I feel fatigued), sleep disturbances (e.g., in the past 7 days I had difficulty falling asleep), social role participation (e.g., I have trouble doing all of my regular leisure activities with others), depression (e.g., in the past 7 days I felt worthless), and anxiety (e.g., in the past 7 days my worries overwhelmed me). Items were rated on 5-point Likert scales, except pain intensity (single 10-point item). Higher global health scores indicate better functioning, whereas higher symptom subscale scores indicate greater levels of the measured construct (e.g., higher physical function reflects better functioning, while higher anxiety scores reflect greater anxiety).

Individual Stress

The Perceived Stress Scale-14 (PSS; Cohen et al., 1983) evaluated perceived stress in daily life (e.g., in the past 7 days, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?). Items were rated on 5-point Likert scales (0 = never to 4 = very often), with higher scores indicating more perceived stress. Reliability was good (α = .83), consistent with prior LDR research (e.g., Du Bois et al., 2016).

Data Preparation and Analyses

Data were screened for invalid responding and procedural irregularities. Participants were excluded for failing multiple attention checks, inconsistent response patterns (e.g., responding “all the time” on all items, including reverse-coded items), mismatches between reported and geolocated location, or multiple survey attempts from the same IP address. Missing data were minimal (<1%) and addressed using listwise deletion.

Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS (Version 29). Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were used to characterize the sample and examine associations among study variables. Stepwise multiple linear regressions were conducted to examine the unique contributions of DM facets on interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes. This procedure allows for ranking predictors by importance and exclusion of redundant predictors (Siegling et al., 2018). To account for multiple testing in this exploratory analysis, the Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) false discovery rate (FDR) correction (q = .05) was applied (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). Statistical significance was evaluated by comparing unadjusted p-values against BH-corrected significance thresholds.

Mediation analyses were conducted using the PROCESS macro (version 4.2) for SPSS (Model 4; Hayes, 2018) to test whether DM facets served as an explanatory pathway between interpersonal (relationship satisfaction) and intrapersonal (global health) functioning in LDR. The five DM facets were entered simultaneously as parallel mediators, with indirect effects estimated using bootstrapping with 5,000 resamples with bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (Hayes, 2018). Age and gender were entered as covariates across analyses, given prior evidence that DM facets vary as a function of these demographic factors (Khaddouma & Gordon, 2018; Mahlo & Windsor, 2021).

Assumptions for statistical procedures were evaluated and met. Some variables deviated from normality and were transformed prior to analysis. For negatively skewed measures (e.g., relationship satisfaction, trust, and physical function), scores were reflected before transformation, such that negative regression coefficients now represent positive values on the original construct. Bootstrapped mediation analyses used raw, non-transformed scores, given the robustness of bootstrapping to non-normality (Hayes, 2018).

Results

Descriptive Statistics

Sample demographics are presented in Table 1. Our sample consisted of a slight majority of White participants (56.7%) and was predominantly female (74.2%), consistent with other LDR samples (Du Bois et al., 2016). At the time of data collection, participants reported an average relationship length of 28 months. Most participants reported visiting their LDR partner monthly, followed by visits every three months.

Table 1.
Participant Demographic Information (N = 97).

Variable ParticipantsN (%)

Gender

Female 72 (74.2%)

Male 24 (25.8%)

Sexual orientation

Heterosexual 81(83.5%)

Bisexual 15 (15.5%)

Other 1 (1.0%)

Race

Caucasian 55 (56.7%)

Asian/Pacific Islander 23 (23.7%)

Latino 7 (7.2%)

African American 4 (4.1%)

Other 8 (8.3%)

Relationship Status

In a relationship 81 (83.5%)

Engaged 7 (7.2%)

Married 9 (9.3%)

Reasons for Geographic Separation

Voluntary 4 (4.1%)

Military (Self) 3 (3.1%)

Military (Partner) 6 (6.2%)

Occupation 10 (10.3%)

School 65 (67.0%)

Other 9 (9.3%)

Employment/Education Status

Employed full-time 9 (9.3%)

Employed part-time 3 (3.1%)

Full-time student 62 (63.9%)

Part-time student 2 (2.1%)

Other 19 (19.6%)

Unemployed 1 (1.0%)

Income

<30k 82 (84.5%)

30–50k 5 (5.2%)

51–100k 6 (6.2%)

Unknown 3 (3.1%)

Note. Some ns might not equal 97 due to missing data or multiple responses in a single category.

BH-corrected Pearson's correlations between key study variables are presented in Table 2. Most associations remained significant after correction. DM showed small-to-moderate links with interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes, including positive correlations (r = .31 – r = .40) with trust, and global health, and negative correlations (r = −.24 – r = −.62) with lower pain, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, stress, and psychological distress. At the facet level, nonjudging demonstrated the broadest pattern of associations across both domains, whereas other facets related selectively to either interpersonal or intrapersonal outcomes. Several interpersonal and intrapersonal variables were significantly correlated in the expected directions, including a moderate positive association between relationship satisfaction and global health (r = .35).

Table 2.
Correlations Between Key Study Variables Using Raw Scores.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

1. FFMQ Total —

2. Observing 0.38 —

3. Describing 0.58 .09 —

4. Acting with Awareness 0.62 .11 .20 —

5. Nonjudging .68 −.13 .32 .36 —

6. Nonreacting 0.41** .06 −.06 .03 .11 —

7. Relationship Satisfaction 0.23# .03 .11 .06 .26* .11 —

8. Trust 0.31** .14 .12 .11 .30* .13 .77** —

9. Relationship Maintenance 0.04 .10 −.01 −.10 −.01 .12 .11 .16 —

10. Romantic Distress −0.21# −.01 −.20 .05 −.27* −.09 −.75 −.67 −.03 —

11. Sexual Functioning 0.04 .26* −.02 .05 −.04 −.12 .12 .12 .19 .02 —

12. Physical Function .0.09 .15 −.00 −.13 .12 .06 .22# .21# −.01 −.26* −.06 —

13. Pain Interference −.20 −.00 −.10 .08 −.31 −.14 −.45 −.42 .05 .46 .15 −.59** —

14. Pain Intensity −.27* .042 −.08 −.04 −.38 −.21# −.33 −.27* .14 .34 .11 −.49 .78 —

15. Fatigue −.23# .159 −.04 −.15 −.38 −.12 −.11 −.13 −.04 .16 −.06 −.05 .11 .24# —

16. Sleep disturbance −.24* −.00 −.13 −.02 −.32** −.14 −.22# −.08 −.11 .23# .05 .23# .28* .27* .47 —

17. Social role .24# −.01 .01 .12 .34 .22# .23# .27* −.06 −.35 −.02 .33 −.42 −.43 −.46 −.38 —

18. Anxiety −.48 .07 −.16 −.30 −.56 −.28 −.35 −.33 .05 .35 .10 −.05 .22# .36 .65 .46 −.41 —

19. Depression −.38 .08 −.18 −.22# −.50** −.12 −.18 −.20 .12 .24# .14 −.23# .29* .33 .57 .44 −.53 .66 —

20. Global Health .40 −.09 .13 .15 .55 .24# .35 .33 −.04 −.41 −.08 .40 −.56 −.62 −.75 −.67 .75 −.77 −.79 —

21. Stress −.62 −.03 −.33 −.32 −.56 −.38 −.30 −.36 −.02 .39 .04 −.10 .19 .32 .57 .35 −.54 .73 .59 −.68** —

Mean 48.31 9.98 10.07 9.55 9.49 9.22 65.48 42.66 44.48 50.20 16.09 19.68 5.49 1.72 11.72 10.61 15.10 9.65 8.04 116.49 41.05

Standard Deviation 7.38 2.56 2.64 2.50 3.33 2.58 12.30 6.26 9.80 21.74 5.88 .79 2.82 2.21 4.71 3.48 4.17 3.69 3.82 18.16 7.67

Note. Number signs (#) indicate correlations declared significant (p < 0.05) prior to the Benjamini–Hochberg correction. Asterisks () indicate correlations held significant after the Benjamini–Hochberg correction. p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

Objective 1: Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression

Results from the stepwise multiple regression analyses examining the contribution of DM facets to inter- and intrapersonal outcomes are presented in Table 3. Gender and age were entered as control variables, and only facets that met entry criteria are reported. Statistical significance was evaluated using Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) false discovery (FDR) rate thresholds applied to unadjusted p-values.

Table 3.
Dispositional Mindfulness Facets Regressed Onto Interpersonal and Intrapersonal Outcomes.

Outcomes Predictors R² ΔR² b SE β t p-Value (evaluated Using BH Thresholds)

Relationship Satisfaction Nonjudging .15 .13 −.05 .01 −.37 −3.68 <.001

Trust Nonjudging .21 .15 −.05 .01 −.40 −4.16 <.001

Romantic Distress Nonjudging .13 .11 −.15 .05 −.34 −3.33 .001**

Sexual Functioning Observing .11 .09 .69 .23 .30 2.96 .004*

Pain Interference Nonjudging .11 .10 −.33 .09 −.41 −3.72 <.001

Acting with Awareness .15 .04 .24 .11 .22 2.12 .037#

Pain Intensity Nonjudging .15 .13 −.04 .01 −.38 −3.78 <.001

Fatigue Nonjudging .23 .14 −.55 .13 −.39 −4.10 <.001*

Sleep Disturbance Nonjudging .11 .11 −.37 .11 −.35 −3.40 .001

Social Role Nonjudging .20 .17 .50 .12 .41 4.21 <.001*

Nonreacting .23 .04 .31 .15 .19 2.07 .041#

Anxiety Nonjudging .34 .31 −.61 .10 −.56 −6.43 <.001*

Nonreacting .38 .05 −.32 .12 −.22 −2.69 .009*

Depression Nonjudging .26 .25 −.60 .11 −.52 −5.55 <.001*

Global Health Nonjudging .33 .33 3.15 .48 .58 6.53 <.001*

Nonreacting .36 .03 1.28 .60 .18 2.13 .036#

Stress Nonjudging .32 .31 −1.06 .19 −.47 −5.60 <.001*

Nonreacting .42 .10 −.10 .23 −.34 −4.38 <.001*

Describing .46 .05 −.67 .22 −.24 −2.74 .007*

Note: Reported p-values are unadjusted. Asterisks () indicate statistical significance evaluated using the Benjamini–Hochberg (BH) false discovery rate thresholds p < .001, p < .01, p < .05. Number signs (#) indicate regressions no longer significant after the Benjamini–Hochberg correction. Relationship Satisfaction and Trust were reverse scored prior to transformation to address skew; therefore, should be interpreted inversely (negative b/β indicate higher/positive values).

Across interpersonal outcomes, the nonjudging* facet emerged as the most consistent predictor. Higher nonjudging was associated with greater relationship satisfaction and trust, as well as lower romantic distress. These associations accounted for modest but meaningful proportions of variance across outcomes. The observing facet uniquely predicted better sexual functioning, whereas no DM facet met entry criteria for relationship maintenance.

Within the intrapersonal domain, the nonjudging facet was the most robust predictor of both physical and psychological health indicators. Higher nonjudging was associated with lower pain intensity, pain interference, fatigue, and sleep disturbance, as well as better global health and greater participation in social roles. Although multiple facets initially emerged as predictors for some outcomes, FDR-correction indicated that nonjudging accounted for the most reliable associations across models. No DM facet met entry criteria for physical function. For psychological health outcomes, nonjudging was the sole predictor of reduced depressive symptoms. Anxiety and stress were predicted by a combination of facets, with nonjudging emerging as the strongest predictor of reduced symptoms in both models, followed by smaller but significant contributions from nonreacting for anxiety and describing for stress.

Objective 2: Parallel Multiple Mediation

Results from the parallel multiple mediation model are presented in Figure 1. The model tested whether DM facets mediated the partnership-health association linking relationship satisfaction to global health among individuals in LDR, controlling for gender and age. Analyses revealed a significant total effect of relationship satisfaction on global health. When the DM facets were entered simultaneously as mediators, the direct effect was no longer statistically significant, whereas the overall indirect effect was significant, indicating full mediation. Examination of the specific indirect pathways revealed that nonjudging was the only facet that significantly mediated the association between relationship satisfaction and global health, such that greater relationship satisfaction was associated with higher levels of nonjudging, which in turn were associated with better global health.

Figure 1.
The mediating effects of dispositional mindfulness facets on the association between relationship satisfaction and global health.

Discussion

This exploratory study examined the role of DM in interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning among individuals in LDR. Although common among postsecondary students (Merolla, 2010), LDR remain underrepresented in research. We recruited a sample of postsecondary students or their romantic partners to address two objectives: (a) assess the differential contribution of DM facets to interpersonal and intrapersonal functioning, and (b) test the mediating role of DM facets on the association between relationship satisfaction and global health.

Objective 1: Differential Contribution of DM Facets on Inter- and Intrapersonal Domains

Consistent with our hypothesis, DM facets demonstrated distinct associations across interpersonal and intrapersonal domains. This contrasts with prior LDR research reporting weak or nonpredictive associations for total DM (Tashkeh et al., 2024) and highlighting the value of facet-level analyses. Nonjudging emerged as the most robust facet, predicting higher relationship satisfaction, trust, social role participation, and global health, as well as lower romantic distress and broad indicators of physical and psychological symptoms. Effects were concentrated among cognitive facets, with no significant contributions from the behavioral facet, acting with awareness, in this LDR sample.

Our findings suggest that nonjudging may serve as a shared regulatory mechanism supporting both relational and personal well-being in LDR. Nonjudging reflects a nonevaluative stance toward inner experiences (Baer et al., 2006) and is linked to acceptance of self and others (Pratscher et al., 2019). Although behavioral facets like acting with awareness more often predict relational functioning in general relationship samples (Dias Martins et al., 2025; Khaddouma et al., 2017; cf. Khaddouma et al., 2015), its centrality here suggests that the demands of LDR—where partners lack consistent in-person coregulation and navigate separation–reunion cycles—heighten the importance of tolerating internal distress without evaluation. By fostering acceptance, nonjudging may help individuals interpret stressors with greater balance (Kaplan et al., 2018; Kim et al., 2022), supporting satisfaction and trust while mitigating romantic distress. These same regulatory processes (Gallistl et al., 2024) may also support health in LDR, as nonjudging predicted global health and most indices of general and mental health in our sample. Meta-analytic findings similarly highlight the salience of nonjudging for health outcomes (Mattes, 2019).

The remaining cognitive facets demonstrated more targeted patterns. Although prior research has linked nonreacting to physical health (e.g., Beks et al., 2018), its associations in the present sample were largely psychological, which may reflect subtler stress pathways in a relatively healthy group or contextual features of LDR. Here, decentering from distressing internal experiences appeared to support anxiety and stress. Consistent with prior research (Dias Martins et al., 2025), observing was uniquely associated with sexual functioning, suggesting that heightened attunement to sensory and bodily experiences may help sustain intimacy across distance, including in cybersexual contexts. Describing, the ability to identify and articulate internal emotional states, was associated with lower stress, consistent with evidence that affect labeling supports metacognitive awareness and cognitive reappraisal (Torre & Lieberman, 2018). In contrast, the behavioral facet acting with awareness, reflecting present-moment attentional engagement, showed null effects after correction. This pattern suggests that in LDR contexts, mindfulness may operate more strongly through internal cognitive regulation than through observable behavioral engagement, given the limited opportunities for in-person interaction.

Finally, no facets predicted relationship maintenance or physical functioning. Relationship maintenance in LDR often involve deliberate logistical coordination (e.g., scheduling), which may depend more on relationship mindfulness than DM (e.g., Gazder & Stanton, 2020). Null findings for physical functioning may reflect ceiling effects in a relatively healthy young sample.

Objective 2: Mediation of DM Facets on Relationship Satisfaction and Global Health

Consistent with our hypothesis, DM mediated the association between relationship satisfaction and global health, and this effect occurred exclusively through nonjudging. Contrary to our expectation of partial mediation, we found nonjudging fully mediated the association between relationship satisfaction and global health, suggesting it may serve as a primary mechanism through which relational satisfaction translates into improved health outcomes. These findings extend prior work that treated DM facets primarily as predictors (e.g., Khaddouma & Gordon, 2018) by highlighting potential bidirectionality between mindfulness and interpersonal functioning (e.g., Gazder & Stanton, 2023), wherein nonjudging may promote better relational outcomes, but high-quality relationships may also foster greater self- and other acceptance (Shaver et al., 2007), which in turn supports health.

The mediating role of nonjudging likely reflects its ties to stress-buffering and emotion-regulatory capacities, congruent with evidence that mindful acceptance mitigates stress reactivity and enhances health (Gallistl et al., 2024). Without the consistent proximity-based support or shared daily health routines found in PR (Kiecolt-Glaser & Wilson, 2017), those in LDR may depend more on cognitive acceptance-based processes to sustain health. Notably, nonjudging has been identified in meta-analytic research as one of the facets most consistently associated with favorable health outcomes (Mattes, 2019), which may explain its central role in linking inter- and intrapersonal functioning. Our findings position DM as both embodied and embedded, situated at the intersection of inter- and intrapersonal functioning (Khoury & Vergara, 2025), and clarify a key mechanism driving the partnership-health association in LDR (e.g., Du Bois et al., 2022).

Implications for Marriage and Family Counselors

Clinically, these findings underscore the value of integrating mindfulness-based principles into therapeutic work with individuals and/or couples navigating LDR. Although examined here as a personality trait, typically regarded as stable, DM can be strengthened through psychological and meditative interventions (Quaglia et al., 2016). Therapeutic interventions that target nonjudging of inner experiences may be particularly effective for improving relational well-being, while concurrently supporting psychological and physical health. Since nonjudging is linked to self-compassion, stress reduction, emotion regulation, and self- and other- acceptance, cultivating these processes in therapy may yield broad benefits. Moreover, as DM and relationship satisfaction appear mutually reinforcing, therapeutic efforts that strengthen one domain may concurrently promote growth in the other. Beyond nonjudging, describing and nonreacting also demonstrated mental health benefits for individuals in LDR. Socialization to the therapeutic process naturally strengthens the describing facet, as therapy helps clients develop language for their internal experiences. The nonreacting facet closely parallels emotion regulation skills training, as it supports the ability to refrain from impulsive reactions, and can likewise be cultivated in therapy. Finally, observing was linked to sexual functioning, highlighting its potential relevance for sex therapy, where cultivating present-moment awareness of bodily sensations may improve intimacy and sexual well-being.

Given the prevalence of LDR among postsecondary students (Merolla, 2010), counseling centers should be better informed of their unique challenges and offer mindfulness and relationship-focused interventions addressing both relational and health needs. Training clinicians in mindfulness- and acceptance-based approaches could better support students experiencing relational stress or distance-related challenges. Delivering such interventions through secure telehealth platforms may also expand accessibility for geographically separated couples.

Limitations and Future Directions

While novel in its scope, this study has several limitations. The modest, self-report sample limits generalizability. Future work would benefit from larger, more diverse samples and the inclusion of physiological or behavioral indicators of relational and health functioning. The cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, and mediation effects should be interpreted as statistical rather than temporal (Hayes, 2018). Longitudinal or ecological momentary designs (e.g., daily diary; Gazder & Stanton, 2023) are needed to clarify temporal sequencing and bidirectionality. Replicating the mediation model in PR would help determine whether different DM facets (e.g., behavioral vs. cognitive) drive the partnership–health association across relationship contexts. Gender effects also merit closer examination, as both relational functioning in LDR and DM vary across genders (Anand et al., 2018; Khaddouma & Gordon, 2018), Conceptually, mindfulness was examined only as a dispositional construct, which may not capture its interpersonal expression within relationships. Future research should integrate relational mindfulness measures (e.g., the Interpersonal Mindfulness Questionnaire, Khoury et al., 2022; the Relationship Mindfulness Measure, Kimmes et al., 2018) to distinguish intrapersonal from partner-directed nonjudging in predicting health and relationship outcomes. Furthermore, because mindfulness facets operate interdependently (Baer et al., 2006), examining facet interactions or latent facet profiles may better capture DM's multidimensional nature. Overall, these directions will clarify how mindfulness, relationship processes, and health jointly shape well-being in LDR.

Variable	ParticipantsN (%)
Gender
Female	72 (74.2%)
Male	24 (25.8%)
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual	81(83.5%)
Bisexual	15 (15.5%)
Other	1 (1.0%)
Race
Caucasian	55 (56.7%)
Asian/Pacific Islander	23 (23.7%)
Latino	7 (7.2%)
African American	4 (4.1%)
Other	8 (8.3%)
Relationship Status
In a relationship	81 (83.5%)
Engaged	7 (7.2%)
Married	9 (9.3%)
Reasons for Geographic Separation
Voluntary	4 (4.1%)
Military (Self)	3 (3.1%)
Military (Partner)	6 (6.2%)
Occupation	10 (10.3%)
School	65 (67.0%)
Other	9 (9.3%)
Employment/Education Status
Employed full-time	9 (9.3%)
Employed part-time	3 (3.1%)
Full-time student	62 (63.9%)
Part-time student	2 (2.1%)
Other	19 (19.6%)
Unemployed	1 (1.0%)
Income
<30k	82 (84.5%)
30–50k	5 (5.2%)
51–100k	6 (6.2%)
Unknown	3 (3.1%)

Outcomes	Predictors	R²	ΔR²	b	SE	β	t	p-Value (evaluated Using BH Thresholds)
Relationship Satisfaction	Nonjudging	.15	.13	−.05	.01	−.37	−3.68	<.001**
Trust	Nonjudging	.21	.15	−.05	.01	−.40	−4.16	<.001**
Romantic Distress	Nonjudging	.13	.11	−.15	.05	−.34	−3.33	.001**
Sexual Functioning	Observing	.11	.09	.69	.23	.30	2.96	.004*
Pain Interference	Nonjudging	.11	.10	−.33	.09	−.41	−3.72	<.001**
Acting with Awareness	.15	.04	.24	.11	.22	2.12	.037#
Pain Intensity	Nonjudging	.15	.13	−.04	.01	−.38	−3.78	<.001**
Fatigue	Nonjudging	.23	.14	−.55	.13	−.39	−4.10	<.001***
Sleep Disturbance	Nonjudging	.11	.11	−.37	.11	−.35	−3.40	.001**
Social Role	Nonjudging	.20	.17	.50	.12	.41	4.21	<.001***
Nonreacting	.23	.04	.31	.15	.19	2.07	.041#
Anxiety	Nonjudging	.34	.31	−.61	.10	−.56	−6.43	<.001***
Nonreacting	.38	.05	−.32	.12	−.22	−2.69	.009*
Depression	Nonjudging	.26	.25	−.60	.11	−.52	−5.55	<.001***
Global Health	Nonjudging	.33	.33	3.15	.48	.58	6.53	<.001***
Nonreacting	.36	.03	1.28	.60	.18	2.13	.036#
Stress	Nonjudging	.32	.31	−1.06	.19	−.47	−5.60	<.001***
Nonreacting	.42	.10	−.10	.23	−.34	−4.38	<.001***
Describing	.46	.05	−.67	.22	−.24	−2.74	.007*

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Leena Anand

Bassam Khoury

Steff Du Bois

Ethical Considerations

Ethical approval was obtained from the Illinois Institute of Technology Institutional Review Board (Protocol #: IRB 2018-018) for the original article from which the data were derived (Du Bois et al., 2022; https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807211054151). This analysis retrospectively obtained and anonymized data for this noninterventional study.

Author Contributions

Leena Anand conceptualized and designed the study, conducted the literature review, analyzed the data, and wrote the manuscript. Bassam Khoury supervised and supported the study design, and revised the manuscript. Steff Du Bois contributed data, provided consultation throughout the manuscript write-up, and revised the manuscript. All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. The first author, Leena Anand, was supported by a doctoral research scholarship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request

References

Anand

Du Bois

S. N.

Sher

T. G.

Grotkowski

(2018). Defying tradition: Gender roles in long-distance relationships. The Family Journal, 26(1), 22–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480717731342

Baer

R. A.

Smith

G. T.

Hopkins

Krietemeyer

Toney

(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504

Barnes

Brown

K. W.

Krusemark

Campbell

W. K.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfaction and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 482–500. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00033.x

Beks

R. B.

Mellema

J. J.

Menendez

M. E.

Chen

N. C.

Ring

Vranceanu

A. M.

(2018). Does mindfulness correlate with physical function and pain intensity in patients with upper extremity illness? Hand (New York, N.Y.), 13(2), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558944717697429

Benjamini

Hochberg

(1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Carpenter

J. K.

Conroy

Gomez

A. F.

Curren

L. C.

Hofmann

S. G.

(2019). The relationship between trait mindfulness and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ). Clinical Psychology Review, 74, 101785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101785

Cella

Choi

S. W.

Condon

D. M.

Schalet

Hays

R. D.

Rothrock

N. E.

Yount

Cook

K. F.

Gershon

R. C.

Amtmann

DeWalt

D. A.

Pilkonis

P. A.

Stone

A. A.

Weinfurt

Reeve

B. B.

(2019). PROMIS® adult health profiles: Efficient short-form measures of seven health domains. Value in Health, 22(5), 537–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.02.004

Cohen

Kamarck

Mermelstein

(1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404

Creswell

J. D.

Lindsay

E. K.

Villalba

D. K.

Chin

(2019). Mindfulness training and physical health: Mechanisms and outcomes. Psychosomatic Medicine, 81(3), 224–232. https://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000675

10.

Dias Martins

Vergara

R. C.

Khoury

(2025). A machine learning approach for investigating variable importance in relationship and sexual satisfaction: The role of interpersonal mindfulness and psychological safety. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(2), e70026. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70026

11.

Du Bois

Grotkowski

Guy

A. A.

Thomas

Chockalingam

Sher

T. G.

(2023). Exploratory factor analysis of the romantic relationship stress scale. The Family Journal, 31(3), 464–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807231154016

12.

Du Bois

S. N.

Sher

T. G.

Grotkowski

Aizenman

Slesinger

Cohen

(2016). Going the distance: Health in long-distance versus proximal relationships. The Family Journal, 24(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480715616580

13.

Du Bois

S. N.

Woodward

Manser

Saigal

Santic

Tully

Sher

T. G.

(2022). Examining relationship-level predictors of individual-level health in long-distance relationships. The Family Journal, 30(3), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807211054151

14.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

15.

Fritz

M. S.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2007). Required sample size to detect the mediated effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01882.x

16.

Funk

J. L.

Rogge

R. D.

(2007). Testing the ruler with item response theory: Increasing precision of measurement for relationship satisfaction with the couples satisfaction index. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(4), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.572

17.

Gallistl

Linz

Puhlmann

L. M. C.

Singer

Engert

(2024). Evidence for differential associations of distinct trait mindfulness facets with acute and chronic stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 166, 107051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2024.107051

18.

Gazder

Stanton

S. C. E.

(2020). Partners’ relationship mindfulness promotes better daily relationship behaviours for insecurely attached individuals. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(19), 7267. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17197267

19.

Gazder

Stanton

S. C. E.

(2023). Longitudinal associations between mindfulness and change in attachment orientations in couples: The role of relationship preoccupation and empathy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 40(5), 1398–1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221139654

20.

Gilbertson

Dindia

Allen

(1998). Relational continuity constructional units and the maintenance of relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(6), 774–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598156004

21.

Goldsmith

K. M.

Byers

E. S.

(2020). Maintaining long-distance relationships: Comparison to geographically close relationships. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 35(3), 338–361. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1527027

22.

Strauss

Crane

Barnhofer

Karl

Cavanagh

Kuyken

(2016). Examining the factor structure of the 39-item and 15-item versions of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for people with recurrent depression. Psychological Assessment, 28(7), 791–802. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000263

23.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.

24.

Kabat-Zinn

(2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg016

25.

Kaplan

J. B.

Christopher

M. S.

Bowen

(2018). Dispositional mindfulness moderates the relationship between occupational stressors and perceived stress among law enforcement personnel. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 33(3), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-017-9246-9

26.

Karremans

J. C.

Schellekens

M. P. J.

Kappen

(2017). Bridging the sciences of mindfulness and romantic relationships: A theoretical model and research agenda. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 21(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315615450

27.

Kelmer

Rhoades

G. K.

Stanley

Markman

H. J.

(2013). Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-distance relationships. Family Process, 52(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01418.x

28.

Khaddouma

Gordon

K. C.

(2018). Mindfulness and young adult dating relationship stability: A longitudinal path analysis. Mindfulness, 9(5), 1529–1542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0901-8

29.

Khaddouma

Gordon

K. C.

Bolden

(2015). Zen and the art of sex: Examining associations among mindfulness, sexual satisfaction, and relationship satisfaction in dating relationships. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 30(2), 268–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2014.992408

30.

Khaddouma

Gordon

K. C.

Strand

E. B.

(2017). Mindful mates: A pilot study of the relational effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on participants and their partners. Family Process, 56(3), 636–651. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12226

31.

Khalifian

C. E.

Barry

R. A.

(2016). Trust, attachment, and mindfulness influence intimacy and disengagement during newlyweds’ discussions of relationship transgressions. Journal of Family Psychology, 30(5), 592–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000194

32.

Khoury

(2018). Mindfulness: Embodied and embedded. Mindfulness, 9(4), 1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0858-z

33.

Khoury

Vergara

R. C.

(2025). Embodied and embedded mindfulness: A mindful path to well-being. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 38(1), 38–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515070.2024.2333375

34.

Khoury

Vergara

R. C.

Spinelli

(2022). Interpersonal mindfulness questionnaire: Scale development and validation. Mindfulness, 13(4), 1007–1031. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01855-1

35.

Kiecolt-Glaser

J. K.

Wilson

S. J.

(2017). Lovesick: How couples’ relationships influence health. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 13, 421–443. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032816-045111

36.

Kim

E.-L.

Gentile

D. A.

Anderson

C. A.

Barlett

C. P.

(2022). Are mindful people less aggressive? The role of emotion regulation in the relations between mindfulness and aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 48(6), 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.22036

37.

Kimmes

J. G.

Jaureagli

M. E.

May

R. W.

Srivastava

Fincham

F. D.

(2018). Mindfulness in the context of romantic relationships: Initial development and validation of the relationship mindfulness measure. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 44(4), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12296

38.

Kozlowski

(2013). Mindful mating: Exploring the connection between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. Sexual & Relationship Therapy, 28(1), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2012.748889

39.

Kumaria

Fivecoat

Scott

Sher

T. G.

(2024). Pressurizing or encouraging: Health behaviors among long-distance couples. Family Process, 63(4), 1721–1738. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12975

40.

Maguire

K. C.

Kinney

T. A.

(2010). When distance is problematic: Communication, coping, and relational satisfaction in female college students’ long-distance dating relationships. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 27–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880903483573

41.

Mahlo

Windsor

T. D.

(2021). State mindfulness and affective well-being in the daily lives of middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 36(5), 642–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000596

42.

Manser

K. A.

(2023). Testing actor and partner mediation effects of the mindfulness-relationship satisfaction association in long-distance relationships [Doctoral dissertation, Illinois Institute of Technology]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.

43.

Mattes

(2019). Systematic review and meta-analysis of correlates of FFMQ mindfulness facets. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2684. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02684

44.

Merolla

A. J.

(2010). Relational maintenance and noncopresence reconsidered: Conceptualizing geographic separation in close relationships. Communication Theory, 20(2), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01359.x

45.

Pandya

S. P.

(2025). Work-related migration and couples in long-distance marriages: Mindfulness, marital quality, satisfaction, and happiness. Personal Relationships, 32(1), e70002. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.70002

46.

Pratscher

S. D.

Wood

P. K.

King

L. A.

Bettencourt

B. A.

(2019). Interpersonal mindfulness: Scale development and initial construct validation. Mindfulness, 10(6), 1044–1061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1057-2

47.

Quaglia

J. T.

Braun

S. E.

Freeman

S. P.

McDaniel

M. A.

Brown

K. W.

(2016). Meta-analytic evidence for effects of mindfulness training on dimensions of self-reported dispositional mindfulness. Psychological Assessment, 28(7), 803–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000268

48.

Quinn-Nilas

(2020). Self-reported trait mindfulness and couples’ relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 11(4), 835–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01303-y

49.

Rempel

J. K.

Holmes

J. G.

Zanna

M. P.

(1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95

50.

Robles

T. F.

Slatcher

R. B.

Trombello

J. M.

McGinn

M. M.

(2014). Marital quality and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 140–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031859

51.

Sala

Rochefort

Lui

P. P.

Baldwin

A. S.

(2020). Trait mindfulness and health behaviours: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 14(3), 345–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2019.1650290

52.

Shaver

P. R.

Lavy

Saron

C. D.

Mikulincer

(2007). Social foundations of the capacity for mindfulness: An attachment perspective. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598389

53.

Siegling

A. B.

Furnham

Petrides

K. V.

(2018). Facet benchmarking: Advanced application of a new instrument refinement method. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 288–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.12.014

54.

Taneja

Goyal

(2020). Impact of physical proximity in romantic relationships on trust, commitment and relationship satisfaction among young adults. Indian Journal of Mental Health, 7(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.30877/IJMH.7.1.2020.15-20

55.

Tashkeh

Lavasani

F. F.

Farani

A. R.

Tajrishi

K. Z.

Farahani

(2024). Examining the validity of an adaptive model of sustaining behaviors in long-distance relationships: Predicting intimacy and marital satisfaction. Acta Psychologica, 250, 104489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104489

56.

Torre

J. B.

Lieberman

M. D.

(2018). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling as implicit emotion regulation. Emotion Review, 10(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917742706

57.

Weber

D. M.

Baucom

D. H.

Wojda-Burlij

A. K.

Carrino

E. A.

Du Bois

Sher

T. G.

(2024). Relationship “jet lag” in long-distance and geographically close relationships: The impact of relationship transitions on emotional functioning. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 13(3), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000224

58.

Winter

Steffan

Warth

Ditzen

Aguilar-Raab

(2021). Mindfulness-based couple interventions: A systematic literature review. Family Process, 60(3), 694–711. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12683

59.

Zamir

Gewirtz

A. H.

Zhang

(2017). Actor-partner associations of mindfulness and marital quality after military deployment. Family Relations, 66(3), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12266

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21
1. FFMQ Total	—
2. Observing	0.38**	—
3. Describing	0.58**	.09	—
4. Acting with Awareness	0.62**	.11	.20	—
5. Nonjudging	.68**	−.13	.32**	.36**	—
6. Nonreacting	0.41**	.06	−.06	.03	.11	—
7. Relationship Satisfaction	0.23#	.03	.11	.06	.26*	.11	—
8. Trust	0.31**	.14	.12	.11	.30*	.13	.77**	—
9. Relationship Maintenance	0.04	.10	−.01	−.10	−.01	.12	.11	.16	—
10. Romantic Distress	−0.21#	−.01	−.20	.05	−.27*	−.09	−.75**	−.67**	−.03	—
11. Sexual Functioning	0.04	.26*	−.02	.05	−.04	−.12	.12	.12	.19	.02	—
12. Physical Function	.0.09	.15	−.00	−.13	.12	.06	.22#	.21#	−.01	−.26*	−.06	—
13. Pain Interference	−.20	−.00	−.10	.08	−.31**	−.14	−.45**	−.42**	.05	.46**	.15	−.59**	—
14. Pain Intensity	−.27*	.042	−.08	−.04	−.38**	−.21#	−.33**	−.27*	.14	.34**	.11	−.49**	.78**	—
15. Fatigue	−.23#	.159	−.04	−.15	−.38**	−.12	−.11	−.13	−.04	.16	−.06	−.05	.11	.24#	—
16. Sleep disturbance	−.24*	−.00	−.13	−.02	−.32**	−.14	−.22#	−.08	−.11	.23#	.05	.23#	.28*	.27*	.47**	—
17. Social role	.24#	−.01	.01	.12	.34**	.22#	.23#	.27*	−.06	−.35**	−.02	.33**	−.42**	−.43**	−.46**	−.38**	—
18. Anxiety	−.48**	.07	−.16	−.30**	−.56**	−.28**	−.35**	−.33**	.05	.35**	.10	−.05	.22#	.36**	.65**	.46**	−.41**	—
19. Depression	−.38**	.08	−.18	−.22#	−.50**	−.12	−.18	−.20	.12	.24#	.14	−.23#	.29*	.33**	.57**	.44**	−.53**	.66**	—
20. Global Health	.40**	−.09	.13	.15	.55**	.24#	.35**	.33**	−.04	−.41**	−.08	.40**	−.56**	−.62**	−.75**	−.67**	.75**	−.77**	−.79**	—
21. Stress	−.62**	−.03	−.33**	−.32**	−.56**	−.38**	−.30**	−.36**	−.02	.39**	.04	−.10	.19	.32**	.57**	.35**	−.54**	.73**	.59**	−.68**	—
Mean	48.31	9.98	10.07	9.55	9.49	9.22	65.48	42.66	44.48	50.20	16.09	19.68	5.49	1.72	11.72	10.61	15.10	9.65	8.04	116.49	41.05
Standard Deviation	7.38	2.56	2.64	2.50	3.33	2.58	12.30	6.26	9.80	21.74	5.88	.79	2.82	2.21	4.71	3.48	4.17	3.69	3.82	18.16	7.67