An interventional study of Savoring Intervention in Low Positive Affect, sponsored by University of California, Los Angeles. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 25 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-01.
Sponsored by University of California, Los Angeles · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
This study aims to evaluate how savoring influences reward and threat processes and downstream inflammation. Savoring is designed to enhance positive affect, which may blunt stress responses and reduce downstream inflammation. The investigators aim to examine changes in the brain following the savoring intervention. The investigators are particularly interested in changes in brain activity that are correlated with changes in inflammation-related markers in the blood. In this single-armed pilot trial, the investigators will assess how savoring alters reactivity to rewarding and threatening experiences, and then examine related changes in downstream inflammation. The investigators intend to recruit 20 undergraduate students to complete a 7-week standardized savoring intervention. Participants will complete brain scans, daily diaries, questionnaires, a behavioral task, and blood collection at pre- and post-intervention assessments.
Interventions that enhance wellbeing have the power to improve both mental and physical health, but the exact mechanisms through which they confer these benefits remain unclear. Inflammation may be a key pathway; there is substantial evidence that both eudaimonic and hedonic wellbeing are associated with lower levels of inflammatory activity (Cole et al., 2015; Brouwers et al., 2013; Ironson et al., 2018), which may in turn have beneficial effects on health (Furman et al., 2019). However, wellbeing may influence inflammation through multiple mechanisms, including reward and threat processes (Dutcher et al., 2021; Eisenberger \& Cole, 2012). Identifying the mediating circuitry will help guide the development of targeted interventions able to protect against inflammation-related diseases, like depression. However, reward and threat processes have yet to be examined as potential mediators of wellbeing's effects on inflammation and health.
This study aims to evaluate how wellbeing may influence reward and threat processing and downstream inflammation using a novel savoring intervention (Positive Affect Treatment; PAT)(Craske et al., 2016; Craske et al., 2019). Savoring is a common component of many positive psychology and mindfulness interventions that involves cultivating sustained enjoyment of positive experiences. It is designed to enhance reward processing, which should in turn decrease threat processing and lead to blunted stress responses and reduced downstream inflammation (Eisenberger \& Cole, 2012). The investigators will collect daily diaries, neuroimaging, and questionnaires pre- and post-intervention to assess wellbeing, reactivity to social and nonsocial rewarding experiences, and buffering of stressful experiences in a single-armed pilot trial of 20 participants from the diverse undergraduate population at UCLA. The investigators will also collect blood samples to facilitate examination of immunological biomarkers.
By examining reward and threat processing at multiple levels inside and outside of the laboratory, the investigators aim to strengthen the understanding of how wellbeing alters the way humans perceive and interact with the world. Increased reward reactivity and decreased threat reactivity may be two key mechanisms through which wellbeing impacts stress physiology and downstream inflammation. The investigators will examine if the savoring intervention is associated with decreases in circulating inflammatory biomarkers, such as interleukin-6 (IL-6) and C-Reactive Protein (CRP), as well as reductions in pro-inflammatory gene expression. This study will also clarify whether savoring is an "active ingredient" driving the mental and physical benefits of many positive psychology and mindfulness interventions.
University of California, Los Angeles is the lead sponsor of 1,142 studies on the registry; 192 are open to participants now.
Of its 91 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 66 (73%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
7 sessions of psychotherapy designed to augment reward anticipation, reward attainment, and reward learning.
Behavioral: Savoring Intervention
The savoring intervention is the first module of the Positive Affect Treatment (PAT) developed by Michelle Craske and colleagues to treat anhedonia, or loss of interest or pleasure in usual activities. The investigators focus here on the behavioral activation and savoring components of the intervention, which are administered first and are considered the basis for other components. Of note, a variety of other positive psychology interventions include a savoring component, but PAT is unique in its inclusion of six sessions devoted to savoring. These sessions involve pleasant events scheduling in which participants: 1) plan activities that generate anticipation of reward, 2) engage in activities that generate reward and 3) practice therapist-guided-in-the-moment recounting of positive emotions, sensations, and thoughts generated by these activities. The investigators will additionally include an introductory psychoeducation session before the savoring module, as PAT does.
Positive Affect
Post-intervention positive affect. Positive affect was assessed via the 10-item positive affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X). Greater scores indicate higher positive affect (range: 10-50).
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Negative Affect
Post-intervention negative affect. Negative affect was assessed via the 10-item negative affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X). Greater scores indicate more negative affect (range: 10-50).
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Depression
Post-intervention depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were measured via the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8). The PHQ-8 is a measure of symptom severity, with higher scores indicating greater depressive symptoms (range: 0-24).
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Anxiety
Post-intervention anxiety symptoms. Symptoms of anxiety were measured via the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder- 7 (GAD-7). Higher scores on the GAD-7 (range: 0-21) indicate greater severity of symptoms.
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Perceived Stress
Post-intervention perceived stress. Perceived stress was measured via the 4-item Perceived Stress Scale (range: 0-16). Higher scores indicate greater perceived stress levels.
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Psychological Wellbeing
Post-intervention psychological wellbeing. Wellbeing measured via the 14-item Mental Health Continuum - Short Form (MHC-SF) (range: 0-70). Higher scores indicate greater wellbeing.
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Positive Emotions
Post-intervention positive emotions. Positive emotions were measured via the 20-item Modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES) using the 10 items that ask about positive emotions (range: 0-20). Higher scores indicate greater positive emotions.
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Reward
Post-intervention reward. Reward was be measured via the 21-item Positive Valence Systems Scale (range: 21-189). Higher scores indicate greater reward activity.
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Savoring Strategies
Post-intervention savoring. Measured via 27 questions from the Ways of Savoring Checklist (WOSC) scale. This measure contains five subscales of interest: memory building, sensory-perceptual sharpening, absorption, temporal awareness, and kill-joy thinking items. Each scale was scored by taking the mean. Higher total savoring scores indicate more use of memory building, sensory-perceptual sharpening, absorption, and temporal awareness, as well as less kill-joy thinking. The range is 5 to 35.
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Interoception
Post-intervention interoception. Interoception was measured via the 37-item Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2) scale. This measure contains eight subscales: Noticing, Not-Distracting, Not-Worrying, Attention Regulation, Emotional Awareness, Self-Regulation, Body Listening, and Trusting. Each scale was scored by taking the mean (between 0 and 5). The total has a range from 0 to 40.
Time frame: 9 weeks post start of intervention
Inflammation
The primary immune outcome of interest is inflammation assessed through gene expression. Inflammatory gene expression will be measured through a pre-specified set of pro-inflammatory gene transcripts that have previously been shown to be upregulated in the context of chronic stress.
Time frame: Baseline and at 9 weeks
Sustained Attention
Change in sustained attention to positive and negative stimuli. Sustained attention to stimuli will be measured with a modified Attentional Dot Probe Task. Higher scores indicate greater sustained attention to stimuli.
Time frame: Baseline and at 9 weeks
Neural Reward Activity
Change in neural reward reactivity. Reward activity will be assessed via three tasks: viewing positive pictures with the International Affective Picture System Task, responding to monetary rewards with the Monetary Incentive Delay Task, and a novel savoring task in the scanner. More activation in reward-related regions during parts of these tasks indicates greater neural reward activity. The impact of social vs. non-social stimuli will be examined as well.
Time frame: Baseline and at 9 weeks
Neural Threat Activity
Change in neural threat activity. Neural threat activity will be measured with the Montreal Imaging Stress Task in the scanner. More activation in threat-related regions during parts of this task indicates greater neural threat activity.
Time frame: Baseline and at 9 weeks
Daily Diary
Change in daily experiences of reward and threat. On a daily basis, participants will report on the occurrence of positive and negative events throughout the day, and then report on their positive and negative emotions. The impact of positive and negative events on mood will be examined; the impact of social vs. non-social events will be examined as well.
Time frame: Baseline and at 9 weeks
Recruitment was conducted on a rolling basis from February 2024 through March 2025. Participants were recruited via advertisements on the UCLA campus. Thirty undergraduate students meeting eligibility criteria were enrolled into the single-arm intervention study.
| Milestone | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Started | 30 |
| Completed | 29 |
| Not completed | 1 |
| Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject | 1 |
Post-intervention positive affect. Positive affect was assessed via the 10-item positive affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X). Greater scores indicate higher positive affect (range: 10-50).
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Positive Affect | 25.28 ± 7.58 |
Post-intervention negative affect. Negative affect was assessed via the 10-item negative affect subscale of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X). Greater scores indicate more negative affect (range: 10-50).
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Negative Affect | 18.48 ± 5.84 |
Post-intervention depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms were measured via the 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8). The PHQ-8 is a measure of symptom severity, with higher scores indicating greater depressive symptoms (range: 0-24).
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Depression | 6.24 ± 5.01 |
Post-intervention anxiety symptoms. Symptoms of anxiety were measured via the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder- 7 (GAD-7). Higher scores on the GAD-7 (range: 0-21) indicate greater severity of symptoms.
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Anxiety | 4.31 ± 3.82 |
Post-intervention perceived stress. Perceived stress was measured via the 4-item Perceived Stress Scale (range: 0-16). Higher scores indicate greater perceived stress levels.
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Perceived Stress | 6.86 ± 2.34 |
Post-intervention psychological wellbeing. Wellbeing measured via the 14-item Mental Health Continuum - Short Form (MHC-SF) (range: 0-70). Higher scores indicate greater wellbeing.
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Psychological Wellbeing | 37.90 ± 13.98 |
Post-intervention positive emotions. Positive emotions were measured via the 20-item Modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES) using the 10 items that ask about positive emotions (range: 0-20). Higher scores indicate greater positive emotions.
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Positive Emotions | 18.55 ± 8.03 |
Post-intervention reward. Reward was be measured via the 21-item Positive Valence Systems Scale (range: 21-189). Higher scores indicate greater reward activity.
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Reward | 142.90 ± 20.81 |
Post-intervention savoring. Measured via 27 questions from the Ways of Savoring Checklist (WOSC) scale. This measure contains five subscales of interest: memory building, sensory-perceptual sharpening, absorption, temporal awareness, and kill-joy thinking items. Each scale was scored by taking the mean. Higher total savoring scores indicate more use of memory building, sensory-perceptual sharpening, absorption, and temporal awareness, as well as less kill-joy thinking. The range is 5 to 35.
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Savoring Strategies | 20.81 ± 3.17 |
Post-intervention interoception. Interoception was measured via the 37-item Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA-2) scale. This measure contains eight subscales: Noticing, Not-Distracting, Not-Worrying, Attention Regulation, Emotional Awareness, Self-Regulation, Body Listening, and Trusting. Each scale was scored by taking the mean (between 0 and 5). The total has a range from 0 to 40.
| Points | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Interoception | 21.32 ± 5.93 |
The primary immune outcome of interest is inflammation assessed through gene expression. Inflammatory gene expression will be measured through a pre-specified set of pro-inflammatory gene transcripts that have previously been shown to be upregulated in the context of chronic stress.
Results for this outcome have not been posted.
Change in sustained attention to positive and negative stimuli. Sustained attention to stimuli will be measured with a modified Attentional Dot Probe Task. Higher scores indicate greater sustained attention to stimuli.
Results for this outcome have not been posted.
Change in neural reward reactivity. Reward activity will be assessed via three tasks: viewing positive pictures with the International Affective Picture System Task, responding to monetary rewards with the Monetary Incentive Delay Task, and a novel savoring task in the scanner. More activation in reward-related regions during parts of these tasks indicates greater neural reward activity. The impact of social vs. non-social stimuli will be examined as well.
Results for this outcome have not been posted.
Change in neural threat activity. Neural threat activity will be measured with the Montreal Imaging Stress Task in the scanner. More activation in threat-related regions during parts of this task indicates greater neural threat activity.
Results for this outcome have not been posted.
Change in daily experiences of reward and threat. On a daily basis, participants will report on the occurrence of positive and negative events throughout the day, and then report on their positive and negative emotions. The impact of positive and negative events on mood will be examined; the impact of social vs. non-social events will be examined as well.
Results for this outcome have not been posted.
Collected over From pre-intervention to post-intervention assessment, up to 9 weeks.. Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.
| Group | Deaths | Serious | Other |
|---|---|---|---|
| Savoring Intervention | 0/30 (0%) | 0/30 (0%) | 1/30 (3.3%) |
| Event | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| SyncopeNervous system disorders | 1/30 |
| Age, Continuous(Years) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Mean | 19 ± 1.24 |
| Sex/Gender, Customized(Participants) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Man (including transgender men) | 3 |
| Woman (including transgender women) | 26 |
| Non-binary, gender fluid | 1 |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Hispanic | 6 |
| White | 5 |
| Asian | 10 |
| Indian Subcontinent | 4 |
| Middle Eastern | 1 |
| Mixed | 4 |
| Positive Affect(Points) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Mean | 22.67 ± 4.38 |
| Negative Affect(Points) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Mean | 25.7 ± 6.44 |
| Depression(Points) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Mean | 10.73 ± 3.48 |
| Anxiety(Points) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Mean | 8.53 ± 4.08 |
| Perceived Stress(Points) | Savoring Intervention |
|---|---|
| Mean | 8.83 ± 2.00 |
5 further baseline measures are reported on the registry.
Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.
Plan to share: Yes — All data will be housed on UCLA servers and kept there throughout the grant and afterwards. To request access of the data, researchers will use the standard processes at UCLA. No personally identifiable information will be shared. Access to data will be granted to researchers who can demonstrate a clear scientific purpose that aligns with the goals of the original study. Requests must come from accredited institutions or organizations that uphold ethical research standards. Each request will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to ensure it meets the necessary criteria. Approval will be subject to the data sharing policies of UCLA and the ethical guidelines governing the research. All co-investigators will be consulted to determine the appropriateness of data sharing.
This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2026. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of California, Los Angeles