Interoceptive Awareness Questionnaire (IAQ)

Abstract

The Interoceptive Awareness Questionnaire (IAQ), widely documented in the psychometric and clinical literature as the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), is a 32-item self-report instrument designed to capture the multi-faceted, non-pathological nature of interoceptive body awareness. Developed by Wolf E. Mehling and colleagues in 2012 at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the instrument addresses a longstanding historical conflation in clinical psychology between functional, mindful body awareness and catastrophic, hypochondriacal bodily vigilance (e.g., somatosensory amplification). The IAQ measures eight distinct, theoretically driven dimensions of interoceptive processing: Noticing, Not-Distracting, Not-Worrying, Attention Regulation, Emotional Awareness, Self-Regulation, Body Listening, and Trusting. Participants evaluate each item using a six-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 5 (Always).

Psychometric evaluations across extensive normative, clinical, and mind-body practitioner cohorts demonstrate robust structural validity, acceptable to excellent internal consistency reliabilities across subscales (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients spanning α = .66 to .87 in the foundational validation, with updated iterations exceeding α = .80 for core scales), and high test-retest stability over extended observational windows. Factor analytic inquiries, employing both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, validate the eight-factor oblique configuration and differentiate between adaptive body awareness and maladaptive somatization. By decoupling internal body sensation appraisal from distress and anxiety, the scale serves as a standard metric in contemplative neuroscience, psychosomatic medicine, clinical psychology, and somatic therapies (e.g., Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, Somatic Experiencing). The IAQ captures how individuals notice, appraise, regulate, and utilize somatic information for affective homeostasis, stress mitigation, and behavioral decision-making.

Keywords

interoception, interoceptive awareness, Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, body awareness, mindfulness, somatosensation, insular cortex, emotion regulation, somatic marker hypothesis, psychometrics, mind-body therapies, self-regulation

Authors

The scale was developed by a multidisciplinary team of integrative medicine researchers, somatic therapy clinicians, and biostatisticians based at the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in collaboration with the University of Washington:

• Wolf E. Mehling, MD: Professor of Clinical Family and Community Medicine at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and research physician at the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine. Dr. Mehling’s research centers on integrative approaches to chronic pain, bodily self-awareness, and the translation of neurobiological interoceptive paradigms into validated patient-reported outcome measures.
• Cynthia J. Price, PhD, MA, LMT: Research Professor at the University of Washington School of Nursing. Dr. Price specializes in somatic therapies, mindful body awareness training, and Mindful Awareness in Body-Oriented Therapy (MABT) for individuals suffering from substance use disorders, chronic pain, and trauma.
• Jennifer J. Daubenmier, PhD: Associate Professor at the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, UCSF (subsequently affiliated with San Francisco State University). Dr. Daubenmier investigates how mind-body practices modulate psychological stress, metabolic health, autonomic nervous system balance, and cellular aging.
• Michael Acree, PhD: Senior Biostatistician at the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, UCSF. Dr. Acree provided methodological and psychometric expertise, focusing on structural equation modeling, psychometric validation algorithms, and factor structure verification.
• Eric Bartmess, MS: Quantitative biostatistician and statistical programmer at the Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, UCSF, specialized in multivariate modeling and psychological scale construction.
• Anita L. Stewart, PhD: Professor Emeritus at the Institute for Health & Aging, UCSF. Dr. Stewart is an internationally recognized authority on patient-reported outcomes measurement, psychometric survey methodology, and health-related quality of life scale validation.

Purpose

For decades, somatic awareness instruments primarily framed somatic attention through a psychopathological lens. Traditional psychometric inventories—such as the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS; Barsky et al., 1990) and the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; Reiss et al., 1986)—were engineered to capture hypochondriacal monitoring, hypervigilance, somatic preoccupation, and panic-related misinterpretations of benign physiological fluctuations. While valuable for diagnosing panic disorder, hypochondriasis, and somatic symptom disorders, these instruments were structurally ill-equipped to evaluate functional, adaptive, non-reactive forms of body awareness cultivated in contemplative disciplines, martial arts, athletic training, and somatic therapies.

The primary purpose of the IAQ is to provide a granular, multidimensional assessment of interoceptive body awareness that treats somatic sensations not as intrinsic harbingers of pathology, but as foundational signals supporting affective stability, autonomic balance, and cognitive self-regulation. The scale fulfills several interrelated clinical, neuroscientific, and psychotherapeutic objectives:

• Distinguishing Functional from Pathological Somatosensation: The instrument was specifically designed to bifurcate raw sensory registration from catastrophic cognitive-affective appraisal. By evaluating whether an individual responds to physiological sensations with anxiety and avoidance or with mindful acceptance and equanimity, the scale provides clinicians with insight into patient symptom presentation.
• Evaluating Interventions in Mind-Body Medicine: The scale functions as an evaluative endpoint in clinical trials measuring the efficacy of interventions that alter interoceptive processing. These include Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), yoga therapy, Tai Chi, acupuncture, biofeedback, and trauma-informed somatic experiencing.
• Uncovering Mechanisms in Somatization and Chronic Pain: In chronic musculoskeletal pain, fibromyalgia, and functional gastrointestinal disorders (e.g., Irritable Bowel Syndrome), maladaptive attentional allocation and hypervigilant catastrophizing often override healthy somatic regulation. The instrument helps map how patients transition from defensive somatosensory suppression to therapeutic body reconnective practices.
• Neuroscientific and Experimental Psychopathology Research: Cognitive neuroscientists utilize the scale to map subjective, metacognitive interoceptive sensibility onto objective physiological indices of interoception, including heartbeat evoked potentials (HEPs), heartbeat detection accuracy paradigms, and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) activations within the anterior insular cortex and anterior cingulate cortex.

Psychological Construct

Interoception, historically conceptualized as the processing of viscerosensory signals reflecting the physiological state of the internal body (Sherrington, 1906), has evolved into an active, multi-level neurobiological and cognitive process (Craig, 2002; Critchley et al., 2004; Khalsa et al., 2018). Contemporary models distinguish between three primary aspects of interoceptive processing: interoceptive accuracy (objective performance on behavioral detection tasks, such as heartbeat tracking), interoceptive sensibility (self-reported subjective traits and self-perceived attentiveness to internal states), and interoceptive awareness (metacognitive insight into the congruence between objective accuracy and subjective sensibility). The IAQ measures interoceptive sensibility and awareness, parsing this construct into eight distinct yet intercorrelated dimensions:

1. Noticing

This dimension encompasses the fundamental capacity to perceive, register, and consciously acknowledge neutral, comfortable, and uncomfortable internal bodily signals. It represents the basic sensory input gate of the interoceptive system, capturing whether an individual observes fluctuations in breathing, visceral responses, muscular tension, and thermal states (e.g., “I notice changes in my breathing, such as whether it slows down or speeds up”).

2. Not-Distracting

Not-Distracting measures the habitual tendency not to use cognitive or behavioral distraction mechanisms to suppress, evade, or overpower physical sensations of pain, tension, or discomfort. High scores reflect an openness to remaining present with uncomfortable somatic states rather than attempting to forcefully ignore or push through them (e.g., “When I feel pain or discomfort, I try to power through it”; reverse-scored).

3. Not-Worrying

This subscale evaluates the emotional equanimity an individual maintains when confronted with distressful, ambiguous, or painful bodily sensations. It captures the absence of catastrophizing, anxious amplification, or somatic apprehension, assessing whether bodily discomfort triggers immediate affective dysregulation or cognitive worry (e.g., “I start to worry that something is wrong if I feel any discomfort”; reverse-scored).

4. Attention Regulation

Attention Regulation evaluates the executive control capacity to actively direct, sustain, refocus, and expand intentional awareness toward internal bodily sensations. This dimension involves voluntary attentional deployment, moving beyond passive perception to deliberate mental anchoring within the body, even amidst external distractions or discomfort (e.g., “I can pay attention to my breath without being distracted by things happening around me”).

5. Emotional Awareness

This construct assesses the ability to identify, discern, and contextualize the explicit linkages between physiological visceral states and emotional manifestations. It evaluates an individual’s recognition of somatic markers of anger, joy, anxiety, and peace, reflecting the somatic embodiment of affect (e.g., “I notice how my body changes when I am angry”).

6. Self-Regulation

Self-Regulation reflects the instrumental utilization of bodily awareness to actively modulate distress, quiet cognitive rumination, and restore autonomic equilibrium. Unlike passive noticing, this dimension captures the functional application of body-oriented strategies (such as breathing exercises or somatic grounding) to restore psychological calm (e.g., “When I am caught up in thoughts, I can calm my mind by focusing on my body/breathing”).

7. Body Listening

Body Listening assesses an active, reflective orientation toward somatic cues, where internal sensations are treated as meaningful information sources that inform psychological insight, emotional state evaluations, and behavioral decision-making (e.g., “I listen to my body to inform me about what to do”).

8. Trusting

Trusting evaluates the degree to which an individual experiences their body as fundamentally safe, reliable, and secure. Low trusting characterizes trauma survivors, panic patients, and individuals with functional somatic syndromes who view their physiology as alien, hostile, or treacherous. High trusting reflects somatopsychic integration, safety, and reliance on one’s own physical body (e.g., “I feel my body is a safe place”).

Theoretical Framework

The scale is anchored in contemporary neurobiological, cognitive, and somatic theories that bridge the gap between autonomic physiology and cognitive neuroscience:

The Insular Hierarchy of Interoceptive Processing

According to the neuroanatomical model formulated by A.D. (Bud) Craig, interoception represents the sense of the physiological condition of the entire body. Unmyelinated (C) and thinly myelinated (Aδ) primary afferent fibers convey homeostatic information regarding temperature, pain, visceral status, and metabolic states from peripheral tissues via the spinothalamic tract and lamina I neurons to the posterior insula. From the posterior insula, sensory representations are integrated in the mid-insula and re-represented within the right anterior insular cortex (AIC). The AIC, together with the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), forms the core node of the Salience Network, translating raw physiological afference into subjective feelings, emotional awareness, and conscious selfhood. The IAQ maps onto this functional architecture: items in Noticing reflect posterior-to-mid insular sensory reception, whereas dimensions like Emotional Awareness, Body Listening, and Trusting reflect anterior insular integration and metacognitive appraisal.

The Somatic Marker Hypothesis

Developed by Antonio Damasio (1994, 1996), the Somatic Marker Hypothesis posits that emotional processes guide behavior, particularly decision-making, via bioregulatory signals originating in visceral, muscular, and hormonal systems. Somatic markers are physiological states associated with past outcomes that subconsciously or consciously influence current choices by highlighting beneficial or hazardous options. The IAQ’s Body Listening and Emotional Awareness subscales operationalize individual differences in the conscious accessibility and utilization of these somatic markers.

Interoceptive Predictive Coding and Active Inference

Modern cognitive neuroscience approaches interoception through the lens of Bayesian predictive processing (Friston, 2010; Seth, 2013; Barrett & Simmons, 2015). Under this framework, the brain is an active inference engine that generates top-down predictive models (priors) regarding anticipated physiological states, comparing them against ascending viscerosensory input (interoceptive prediction errors). In conditions of chronic anxiety or somatic amplification, interoceptive prediction errors are assigned maladaptive precision weighting, producing intense catastrophic distress. The IAQ subscales of Not-Worrying, Not-Distracting, and Attention Regulation capture an individual’s capacity to flexibly recalibrate these precision-weighting mechanisms, replacing reflexive threat predictions with mindful, objective observations of somatic sensations.

Polyvagal Theory

Formulated by Stephen Porges (2011), the Polyvagal Theory emphasizes the role of the unmyelinated and myelinated vagus nerve branches in managing defensive reactions (fight, flight, freeze) versus social engagement and physiological restoration. The subscale of Trusting is theoretically aligned with the activation of the ventral vagal complex, signaling neuroceptive safety. When an individual feels that their body is a “safe place,” defensive sympathetic arousal and dorsal vagal shutdown are attenuated, fostering emotional balance and social receptivity.

Validity

The scale has undergone extensive psychometric validation across healthy, contemplative, and clinical populations worldwide, consistently demonstrating convergent, discriminant, construct, and predictive validity.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity was established through systematic correlations with established psychological inventories measuring overlapping yet theoretically distinct domains (Mehling et al., 2012):

• Mindfulness Instruments: Strong positive correlations have been documented between IAQ subscales—particularly Attention Regulation, Emotional Awareness, and Self-Regulation—and the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) subscales of Observing (r = .43 to .62, p < .001) and Non-Reactivity to Inner Experience (r = .38 to .54, p < .001).
• Body Awareness Measures: Moderate to strong convergent correlations exist with the Body Awareness Questionnaire (BAQ; Shields et al., 1989), especially for the Noticing (r = .59 to .68) and Attention Regulation (r = .45 to .56) subscales. Similar patterns emerge with the Private Body Consciousness scale (PBC; Miller et al., 1981).
• Emotion Regulation Scales: Positive correlations are consistently observed between the IAQ’s Self-Regulation, Body Listening, and Trusting subscales and the emotional clarity and emotional regulation strategies assessed by the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004) and the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ; Gross & John, 2003).

Discriminant and Divergent Validity

A crucial psychometric requirement during the scale’s construction was the demonstration of negative or near-zero correlations with measures of somatic pathology:

• Somatosensory Amplification: As hypothesized, the Not-Worrying and Trusting subscales demonstrate statistically significant negative correlations with the Somatosensory Amplification Scale (SSAS; r = -.32 to -.45, p < .001), confirming that adaptive interoception is structurally distinct from anxious somatic magnification.
• Anxiety Sensitivity and Trait Anxiety: The Not-Worrying and Trusting dimensions correlate negatively with the Anxiety Sensitivity Index (ASI; r = -.35 to -.50) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-Trait; r = -.38 to -.52), showing that higher adaptive interoceptive capacity corresponds with reduced physiological anxiety.
• Depressive Symptomatology: The Trusting and Self-Regulation subscales show inverse relationships with depressive symptoms measured via the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; r = -.30 to -.46, p < .001).

Known-Groups and Predictive Validity

The scale reliably differentiates populations with varying degrees of body-mind training:

• Contemplative Practitioners vs. Controls: Cross-sectional comparative trials demonstrate that experienced meditators, dancers, and practitioners of yoga or Feldenkrais score significantly higher on Attention Regulation, Emotional Awareness, Self-Regulation, Body Listening, and Trusting compared to sedentary or non-practitioner controls (p < .001, Cohen’s d ranging from 0.45 to 0.92; Mehling et al., 2012; Daubenmier et al., 2013).
• Clinical Trial Outcomes: In longitudinal clinical trials evaluating mind-body interventions for chronic low back pain, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance use disorders, pre-to-post intervention increases in IAQ scores predict significant reductions in pain catastrophizing, clinical distress, and relapse frequency (Price et al., 2019; Mehling et al., 2018).

Reliability

The reliability of the instrument has been evaluated through internal consistency analyses, inter-item correlations, and test-retest reliability across multiple independent language adaptations and clinical samples.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study conducted across multiple cohorts (N = 439), Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients for the eight subscales showed acceptable to good reliability:

• Noticing: α = .69 (4 items)
• Not-Distracting: α = .66 (3 items)
• Not-Worrying: α = .67 (3 items)
• Attention Regulation: α = .87 (7 items)
• Emotional Awareness: α = .82 (5 items)
• Self-Regulation: α = .83 (4 items)
• Body Listening: α = .82 (3 items)
• Trusting: α = .79 (3 items)

While the subscales with fewer items (Not-Distracting and Not-Worrying, containing 3 items each) displayed coefficients slightly below the .70 convention in the earliest validation cohorts due to reverse-worded item processing, subsequent studies and the revised MAIA-2 (Mehling et al., 2018) raised these internal consistency values above .75 through improved item phrasing.

Test-Retest Stability

Test-retest reliability evaluated across intervals spanning two to four weeks in non-intervention control cohorts reveals intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from .71 to .89 across all eight subscales, demonstrating high temporal stability in the absence of targeted somatic or mindfulness interventions. Long-term stability assessments over 8-week control intervals in randomized controlled trials confirm that the measured constructs reflect enduring traits rather than transient state fluctuations.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the IAQ was established through rigorous exploratory factor analyses (EFA) followed by confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) during its iterative scale development.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Scale developers began with an initial pool of over 140 candidate items drawn from existing instruments, theoretical formulations, and focus groups with experts in somatic therapies (Feldenkrais, Alexander Technique, body psychotherapy) and mindfulness meditation. Following item reduction based on skewness, kurtosis, and semantic redundancy, iterative principal factor analyses with oblique (promax) rotation were conducted to allow for theoretical correlations among underlying latent dimensions. The scree test and eigenvalue evaluations (> 1.0) confirmed an eight-factor solution explaining 56.4% of the total variance. Items with factor loadings < .40 or cross-loadings > .30 were removed, yielding the refined 32-item structure across the eight designated factors.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses conducted across independent replication samples supported the oblique eight-factor model over alternative unidimensional or orthogonal configurations:

• Model Fit Indices: The initial validation yielded a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of .055 (90% CI [.050, .060]), a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of .91, and a Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) of .061. These parameters meet standard psychometric thresholds for acceptable to good structural fit.
• Higher-Order vs. Oblique Structure: Testing of a single higher-order “Interoceptive Awareness” factor revealed poorer fit statistics compared to the correlated eight-factor model. This empirical divergence demonstrates that interoception cannot be summarized as a monolithic trait; rather, it functions as a differentiated set of distinct sensory, attentional, and regulatory processes. For instance, an individual can possess high Noticing capacity alongside low Trusting or low Not-Worrying (a profile typical in panic and somatic symptom disorders).
• Measurement Invariance: Multigroup CFAs have confirmed configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender cohorts, age groups, and across clinical vs. non-clinical populations, confirming that the factor structure operates consistently across diverse demographic groups.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The scale is a self-report inventory consisting of 32 items. Below are the administrative, architectural, and scoring parameters of the instrument:

• Format: 32 self-report declarative statements.
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert scale:
  • 0 = Never
  • 1 = Rarely
  • 2 = Sometimes
  • 3 = Often
  • 4 = Very often
  • 5 = Always
• Administration Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Reverse Scoring: Items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 must be reverse-scored prior to subscale computation. Reverse scoring is executed using the standard transformation algorithm:
  Reverse Score = 5 - Original Score
• Subscale Composition & Scoring Logic: The instrument yields eight distinct subscale scores, computed by calculating the arithmetic mean of the respective items (range 0 to 5 for each subscale). A single composite total score is not recommended by the original authors, as aggregating contradictory adaptive and maladaptive traits obscures distinct interoceptive profiles:
  • Noticing (4 items): Mean of items 1, 2, 3, 4
  • Not-Distracting (3 items): Mean of items 5, 6, 7 (all reverse-scored)
  • Not-Worrying (3 items): Mean of items 8, 9 (reverse-scored), and 10
  • Attention Regulation (7 items): Mean of items 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
  • Emotional Awareness (5 items): Mean of items 18, 19, 20, 21, 22
  • Self-Regulation (4 items): Mean of items 23, 24, 25, 26
  • Body Listening (3 items): Mean of items 27, 28, 29
  • Trusting (3 items): Mean of items 30, 31, 32

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was published in 2012 by Wolf E. Mehling and colleagues. It is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, adaptation, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original authors and the primary publication are properly cited.

The instrument is completely free of charge for non-commercial research, academic, and clinical purposes. No licensing fees or permissions are required for non-commercial utilization. Clinicians and investigators are encouraged to access and download the instrument and its authorized cross-cultural translations directly from the UCSF Osher Center for Integrative Medicine body awareness research portal.

References

• Barrett, L. F., & Simmons, W. K. (2015). Interoceptive predictions in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 16(7), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3950
• Barsky, A. J., Wyshak, G., & Klerman, G. L. (1990). The Somatosensory Amplification Scale and its relationship to hypochondriasis. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 24(4), 323–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3956(90)90004-A
• Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3(8), 655–666. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn894
• Critchley, H. D., Wiens, S., Rotshtein, P., Ohman, A., & Dolan, R. J. (2004). Neural systems supporting interoceptive awareness. Nature Neuroscience, 7(2), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1176
• Damasio, A. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 351(1346), 1413–1420. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0125
• Daubenmier, J., Sze, J., Kerr, C. E., Kemeny, M. E., & Mehling, W. (2013). The relationship of body awareness and mindfulness to emotional regulation: A qualitative and quantitative review. In Body Awareness in Mind-Body Therapies. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews.
• Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787
• Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94
• Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
• Khalsa, S. S., Adolphs, R., Cameron, O. G., Critchley, H. D., Davenport, P. W., Feinstein, J. S., … & Paulus, M. P. (2018). Interoception and mental health: A roadmap. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(6), 501–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.004
• Mehling, W. E., Price, C., Daubenmier, J. J., Acree, M., Bartmess, E., & Stewart, A. (2012). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA). PLOS ONE, 7(11), e39801. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039801
• Mehling, W. E., Acree, M., Stewart, A., Silas, J., & Jones, A. (2018). The Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness, Version 2 (MAIA-2). PLOS ONE, 13(12), e0208034. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208034
• Miller, L. C., Murphy, R., & Buss, A. H. (1981). Consciousness of body: Private and public. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(2), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.2.397
• Porges, S. W. (2011). The Polyvagal Theory: Neurophysiological Foundations of Emotions, Attachment, Communication, and Self-regulation. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Price, C. J., & Hooven, C. (2018). Interoceptive awareness skills for emotion regulation: Theory and approach of Mindful Awareness in Body-oriented Therapy (MABT). Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 798. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00798
• Price, C. J., Thompson, E. A., Crowell, S. E., & Pike, K. (2019). Longitudinal effects of Mindful Awareness in Body-oriented Therapy (MABT) as an adjunct to women’s substance use disorder treatment: A randomized controlled trial. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 198, 140–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2019.02.012
• Reiss, S., Peterson, R. A., Gursky, D. M., & McNally, R. J. (1986). Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency and the prediction of fearfulness. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 24(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(86)90143-9
• Seth, A. K. (2013). Interoceptive inference, emotion, and the embodied self. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(11), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.09.007
• Sherrington, C. S. (1906). The Integrative Action of the Nervous System. Yale University Press.
• Shields, S. A., Mallory, M. E., & Simon, A. (1989). The Body Awareness Questionnaire: Reliability and validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53(4), 802–815. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5304_16

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)