Emotion Regulation

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

All four hypothesized mechanism variables (trait mindfulness, emotion dysregulation, cognitive reappraisal, decentering) showed significant time x group interactions favoring ERT over MAC, and all fou

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g range .54 to 1.00

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87

ERT produced statistically significant reductions in functional disability and improvements in quality of life compared to modified attention control, with effects maintained at 9-month follow-up.

Effect: improvement; Hedge's g = .87