Abstract
While mindfulness (attention to and awareness of the present) has received growing attention from scholars and practitioners, little is known regarding how employees’ lay beliefs about the fixedness versus malleability nature of mindfulness can guide their work behaviors. To address this issue, we proposed the concept of implicit mindfulness theory (IMT) and developed and validated a new measure tapping this construct (with three items in the final scale). Across six studies, we found that the new measure had satisfactory reliabilities, validities, and other psychometric properties and also proved useful in predicting individuals’ voice, production deviance, and in-role behaviors in the workplace. Some individuals in our studies were inclined to view mindfulness as a relatively fixed quality rather than as an attribute developable through time and effort investments. We also found that while IMT had a direct relationship with voice (study 4), IMT modified the relationship between feedback from others at work and production deviance (study 5) or in-role behaviors (study 6); feedback from others at work was significantly related to production deviance or in-role behaviors only among IMT entity theorists. Notably, IMT had predictive validity above and beyond a measure of dispositional mindfulness. The insights provided by our studies highlight the need to better understand the individual difference of IMT and its workplace implications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Mindfulness can mitigate negative emotions (Long & Christian, 2015; Roche, Haar, & Luthans, 2014), emotional exhaustion (Hülsheger, Alberts, Feinholdt, & Lang, 2013; Marzuq & Drach-Zahavy, 2012; Reb et al., 2015; Roche et al., 2014), unethical/aggressive tendencies (Long & Christian, 2015; Reb et al., 2015; Ruedy & Schweitzer, 2010), and work–family conflict (Kiburz, Allen, & French, 2017; Michel, Bosch, & Rexroth, 2014), while improving job performance (Dane & Brummel, 2014; Reb et al., 2015), job satisfaction (Andrews, Kacmar, & Kacmar, 2014; Hülsheger et al., 2013), psychological detachment from work for recovery (Hülsheger et al., 2014; Michel et al., 2014), sleep quality (Hülsheger et al., 2014), authentic functioning (Leroy, Anseel, Dimitrova, & Sels, 2013), and work engagement (Leroy et al., 2013; Malinowski & Lim, 2015; Marzuq & Drach-Zahavy, 2012).
Example constructs include person/personality (Chiu, Hong, & Dweck, 1997; Heslin et al., 2005), intelligence (Dweck et al., 1995a; Sternberg, 1985), race (Hong, Chao, & No, 2009; No et al., 2008), emotion (Tamir et al., 2007), morality (Chiu, Dweck, et al., 1997; Dweck et al., 1995a), willpower (Job et al., 2010), creativity (Lim & Plucker, 2001; Sternberg, 1985), relationships (Knee, 1998; Knee, Patrick, & Lonsbary, 2003), leadership (Epitropaki & Martin, 2004; Offermann, Kennedy Jr., & Wirtz, 1994), and followership (Sy, 2010).
Human attributes can be classified at two main hierarchical levels—the broad level (e.g., global self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy) and at the narrow level (e.g., organization-based self-esteem, voice self-efficacy). Individuals have beliefs about broad and narrow traits’ fixedness versus malleability. Human attributes can be broad and domain-general or narrow and domain-specific. Although humans have implicit person theories (about general human attributes), humans also have implicit theories about narrow, domain-specific human attributes such as morality, creativity, and mindfulness. Humans need these implicit theories about broad and narrow personal attributes because, from an evolutionary perspective, these lay beliefs help humans make sense of the external world and simplify information processing.
Mindfulness is critical to the effectiveness of social functioning. Individuals’ actions do not occur in social vacuum, but rather in the presence of others who can influence their actions. Therefore, individuals should care about others’ mindfulness, which will determine how they behave in the presence of others. Depending on whether individuals are IMT entity or incremental theorists, they simplify their information processing and decide on their actions accordingly.
The studies were not pre-registered but were approved by a university institutional review board. Both authors contributed to study conceptualizations, data collections, data preparations, data analyses, and report writing.
A deductive approach relies on existing theory in creating the definition of the construct of interest, and this definition is then used as a guide to item generation.
For example, based on Dweck’s (2006) items, we created the item “No matter who you are, you can significantly change the level of your attention to what is taking place in the present.” Based on Tamir et al.’s (2007) items, we created the item “The truth is, people have very little control over their attention to what is taking place in the present.” Based on Chiu, Dweck, et al. (1997) items, we created the item “You are either aware of what is taking place in the present or not, and you really cannot do much to change this disposition of yours.”
Participants recruited via MTurk, in general, are nationally representative and demographically (e.g., age, education, ethnicity, and geographic location) diverse (Crump, McDonnell, & Gureckis, 2013), more so than typical US college samples (Buhrmester et al., 2011). This is important, as identification of initial factor structure requires a diverse and population-representative sample, and one which avoids the influence of an idiosyncratic context (Hinkin, 1998). Despite some concerns about MTurk participants’ attentiveness (Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, 2013) and the quality of MTurk data (Cheung, Burns, Sinclair, & Sliter, 2017; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014), research has provided consistent evidence on the reliability and high quality of MTurk data compared to those of data obtained via more traditional methods (Buhrmester et al., 2011) and the consistency of findings between studies using MTurk samples and those using more traditional samples (Goodman et al., 2013; Summerville & Chartier, 2013).
To our knowledge, Maniaci and Rogge’s (2014) attention check measure was among the most rigorous ones. They created a longer version of the Attentive Responding Scale with 33 items and a shorter version with 18 items. These items are intended to tap the infrequency and inconsistency dimensions of inattentive responding. Maniaci and Rogge (2014) calculated the cut scores “using response-operating curves (ROCs) to obtain roughly the expected proportion of actual respondents identified as inattentive while maximizing the proportion of random data correctly identified (hit rate)” (p. 66). The cut scores for the ARS-18 infrequency and inconsistency sub-scales were 7.5 and 6.5 respectively. Participants whose sub-scale scores were below these cut scores passed the attention check in our studies presented in this paper and thus were retained in the samples for analyses.
The one-factor structure of IMT is consistent with the one-factor structures of other implicit theories such as implicit person theory, implicit intelligence theory, and implicit morality theory. As Levy et al. (1998) noted, one potential concern for such one-factor structured measure of implicit theories is whether disagreement with the entity-theory items (i.e., the belief that the attribute of interest is fixed) can be taken as agreement with an agreement with an incremental theory (i.e., the belief that the attribute of interest is malleable). Levy et al. (1998) addressed this concern with their recent evidence showing that participants who disagreed with entity theory statements did agree with incremental theory statements.
We found that one (out of 70) participant in study 2 was included in the final sample of study 1. The result patterns were similar after we excluded this participant from the final sample of study 2.
We found that 22 (out of 167) participants in study 3 were included in the final sample of study 1 and none was included in the sample of study 2. The result patterns were similar after we excluded these participants from the final sample of study 3.
We found that 6 (out of 282) participants in study 4 were included in the final sample of study 1 and none was included in the sample of either study 2 or study 3. The result patterns were similar after we excluded these participants from the final sample of study 4.
We found that 6 (out of 282) participants in study 5 were included in the final sample of study 1 and none was included in the sample of either study 2 or study 3. The result patterns were similar after we excluded these participants from the final sample of study 5.
Dispositional mindfulness did not modify the relationship between feedback from others at work and production deviance.
Dispositional mindfulness did not modify the relationship between feedback from others at work and in-role behaviors.
References
Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy White women. Health Psychology, 19, 586–592. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-6133.19.6.586.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1991). Predicting the performance of measures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their substantive validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 732–740. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.76.5.732.
Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., & Kacmar, C. (2014). The meditational effect of regulatory focus on the relationships between mindfulness and job satisfaction and turnover intentions. Career Development International, 19, 494–507. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-02-2014-0018.
Ashford, S. J., & Cummings, L. L. (1983). Feedback as an individual resource: Personal strategies of creating information. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 32, 370–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90156-3.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg015.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504.
Becker, T. E., & Kernan, M. C. (2003). Matching commitment to supervisors and organizations to in-role and extra-role performance. Human Performance, 16, 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1604_1.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.85.3.349.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnett, D. G. (1990). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179.
Brass, D. J. (1981). Structural relationships, job characteristics, and worker satisfaction and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 331–348. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392511.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007a). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007b). Addressing fundamental questions about mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701703344.
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.
Cheung, J. H., Burns, D. K., Sinclair, R. R., & Sliter, M. (2017). Amazon Mechanical Turk in organizational psychology: An evaluation and practical recommendations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 32, 347–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-016-9458-5.
Chiesa, A. (2013). The difficulty of defining mindfulness: Current thought and critical issues. Mindfulness, 4, 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0123-4.
Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y., & Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 923–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.923.
Chiu, C., Hong, Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.73.5.923.
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 1183–1206. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.0572.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428103251541.
Cox, D., Cox, A. D., & Moschis, G. P. (1990). When consumer behavior goes bad: An investigation of adolescent shoplifting. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 149–159. https://doi.org/10.1086/208545.
Craig, M. A., & Richeson, J. A. (2014). On the precipice of a “majority-minority” America: Perceived status threat from the racial demographic shift affects White Americans’ political ideology. Psychological Science, 25, 1189–1197. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614527113.
Crump, M. J. C., McDonnell, J. V., & Gureckis, T. M. (2013). Evaluating Amazon’s Mechanical Turk as a tool for experimental behavioral research. PLoS One, 8, e57410. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057410.
Dane, E. (2011). Paying attention to mindfulness and its effects on task performance in the workplace. Journal of Management, 37, 997–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310367948.
Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turnover intention. Human Relations, 67, 105–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713487753.
Davidov, E. (2008). A cross-country and cross-time comparison of the human values measurements with the second round of the European Social Survey. Survey Research Methods, 2, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.18148/srm/2008.v2i1.365.
De Beurs, D. P., Fokkema, M., de Groot, M. H., de Keijser, J., & Kerkhof, J. F. M. (2015). Longitudinal measurement invariance of the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation. Psychiatry Research, 225, 368–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2014.11.075.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door really open? Academy of Management Journal, 50, 869–884. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183.
Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F., & Waller, M. A. (1994). Latent variables in business logistics research: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics, 15, 145–172.
Dutton, J. E., Ashford, S. J., O’Neill, R. M., Hayes, E., & Wierba, E. E. (1997). Reading the wind: How middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 407–425. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199705)18:5%3C407::AID-SMJ881%3E3.0.CO;2-J.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.41.10.1040.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_1.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322–333. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0604_12.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. A. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295x.95.2.256.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Conley, K. M., Williamson, R. L., Henderson, T. G., & Mancini, V. S. (2018). Mindfulness-based training interventions for employees: A qualitative review of the literature. Human Resource Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2017.03.004.
Epitropaki, O., & Martin, R. (2004). Implicit leadership theories in applied settings: Factor structure, generalizability, and stability over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 293–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.293.
Evans, J. D. (1996). Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. –. P. (2007). Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the cognitive and affective mindfulness scale-revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8.
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446286395.
Fleishman, J., & Benson, J. (1987). Using LISREL to evaluate measurement models and scale reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47, 925–939. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164487474008.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.286.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 382–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150980.
Frazier, L., Johnson, P. D., & Fainschmidt, S. (2013). Development and validation of a propensity to trust scale. Journal of Trust Research, 3, 76–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2013.820026.
Gaskin, J., & Lim, J. (2016). Master validity tool: AMOS plugin. Gaskination’s StatWiki http://statwiki.kolobkreations.com.
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 30, 115–157. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0742-7301(2011)0000030005.
Good, D. J., Lyddy, C. J., Glomb, T. M., Bono, J. E., Brown, K. W., Duffy, M. K., Baer, R. A., Brewer, J. A., & Lazar, S. W. (2016). Contemplating mindfulness at work: An integrative review. Journal of Management, 42, 114–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315617003.
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: Prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 900–912. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013770.
Hafenbrack, A. C. (2017). Mindfulness meditation as an on-the-spot workplace intervention. Journal of Business Research, 75, 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.01.017.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2013). Multivariate data analysis. Delhi: Pearson.
Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. B. (2001). Big-B versus Big-O: What is organizational about organizational behavior? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.77.
Heslin, P. A., Latham, G. P., & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 842–856. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.5.842.
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2011). Performance appraisal procedural justice: The role of a manager’s implicit person theory. Journal of Management, 37, 1694–1718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309342895.
Heslin, P. A., VandeWalle, D., & Latham, G. P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology, 59, 871–902. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00057.x.
Hinkin, T. R. (1998). A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106.
Hinkin, T. R., & Schriesheim, C. A. (2008). An examination of “nonleadership”: From laissez-faire leadership to leader reward omission and punishment omission. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1234–1248. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012875.
Hochwarter, W. (2014). On the merits of student-recruited sampling: Opinions a decade in the making. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12043.
Hong, Y., Chao, M. M., & No, S. (2009). Dynamic interracial/intercultural processes: The role of lay theories of race. Journal of Personality, 77, 1283–1310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00582.x.
Hong, Y., Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Lin, D. M. –. S., & Wan, W. (1999). Implicit theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.3.588.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 310–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031313.
Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Depenbrock, F., Fehrmann, C., Zijlstra, F. R. H., & Alberts, H. J. E. M. (2014). The power of presence: The role of mindfulness at work for daily levels and change trajectories of psychological detachment and sleep quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1113–1128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037702.
Job, V., Dweck, C. S., & Walton, G. M. (2010). Ego depletion—Is it all in your head? Implicit theories about willpower affect self-regulation. Psychological Science, 21, 1686–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610384745.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2003). The core self-evaluation scale: Development of a measure. Personnel Psychology, 56, 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00152.x.
Kiburz, K. M., Allen, T. D., & French, K. A. (2017). Work-family conflict and mindfulness: Investigating the effectiveness of a brief training intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 1016–1037. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2181.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Knee, C. R. (1998). Implicit theories of relationships: Assessment and prediction of romantic relationship initiation, coping, and longevity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.360.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., & Lonsbary, C. (2003). Implicit theories of relationships: Orientations toward evaluation and cultivation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0701_3.
Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 15, 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018349.
Krishnakumar, S., & Robinson, M. D. (2015). Maintaining an even keel: An affect-mediated model of mindfulness and hostile work behavior. Emotion, 15, 579–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000060.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.
Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349–1364. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.46.6.1349.
LePine, J. A., & Van Dyne, L. (2001). Voice and cooperative behavior as contrasting forms of contextual performance: Evidence of differential relationships with Big Five personality characteristics and cognitive ability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.2.326.
Leroy, H., Anseel, F., Dimitrova, N. G., & Sels, L. (2013). Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 238–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.012.
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1421–1436. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1421.
Lim, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social responsibility: Implicit theories of creativity with Korean samples. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01225.x.
Long, E. C., & Christian, M. S. (2015). Mindfulness buffers retaliatory responses to injustice: A regulatory approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000019.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.1.2.130.
Mackinnon, A., Jorm, A. F., Christensen, H., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., & Rodgers, B. (1999). A short form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule: Evaluation of factorial validity and invariance across demographic variables in a community sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-8869(98)00251-7.
Malinowski, P., & Lim, H. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Positive affect, hope, and optimism mediate the relationship between dispositional mindfulness, work engagement, and well-being. Mindfulness, 6, 1250–1262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0388-5.
Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008.
Marzuq, N., & Drach-Zahavy, A. (2012). Recovery during a short period of respite: The interactive roles of mindfulness and respite experiences. Work and Stress, 26, 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.683574.
Mawritz, M. B., Mayer, D. M., Hoobler, J. M., Wayne, S. J., & Marinova, S. V. (2012). A trickle-down model of abusive supervision. Personnel Psychology, 65, 325–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01246.x.
McEvily, B., Perrone, V., & Zaheer, A. (2003). Trust as an organizing principle. Organization Science, 14, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.1.91.12814.
Michel, A., Bosch, C., & Rexroth, M. (2014). Mindfulness as a cognitive-emotional segmentation strategy: An intervention promoting work-life balance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 733–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12072.
Miner, J. B. (2005). Organizational behavior 1: Essential theories of motivation and leadership. Armonk: M. E. Sharpe. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315702018.
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.6.1321.
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419. https://doi.org/10.2307/257011.
No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012978.
Ocasio, W. (1997). Toward an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199707)18:1+<187::AID-SMJ936>3.0.CO;2-K.
Odenweller, K. G., Rittenour, C. E., Myers, S. A., & Brann, M. (2013). Farther-son family communication patterns and gender ideologies: A modeling and compensation analysis. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.823432.
Offermann, L. R., Kennedy, J. K., Jr., & Wirtz, P. W. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Content, structure, and generalizability. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 43–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(94)90005-1.
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598.
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Chaturvedi, S. (2014). Leading mindfully: Two studies on the influence of supervisor trait mindfulness on employee well-being and performance. Mindfulness, 5, 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0144-z.
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Ho, Z. W. (2015). Mindfulness at work: Antecedents and consequences of employee awareness and absent-mindedness. Mindfulness, 6, 111–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0236-4.
Reio, T. G., Jr. (2010). The threat of common method variance bias to theory building. Human Resource Development Review, 9, 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484310380331.
Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 555–572. https://doi.org/10.2307/256693.
Roche, M., Haar, J. M., & Luthans, F. (2014). The role of mindfulness and psychological capital on the well-being of leaders. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19, 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037183.
Rodgers, J. L., & Nicewander, W. A. (1998). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. American Statistician, 42, 59–66. https://doi.org/10.2307/2685263.
Rogelberg, S. G., Fisher, G. G., Maynard, D. C., Hakel, M. D., & Horvath, M. (2001). Attitudes toward surveys: Development of a measure and its relationship to respondent behavior. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810141001.
Rosenberg, S., & Jones, R. (1972). A method for investigating and representing a person’s implicit theory of personality: Theodore Dreiser’s view of people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032891.
Ruedy, N. E., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2010). In the moment: The effect of mindfulness on ethical decision making. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 73–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0796-y.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. F. (1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional intelligence using the Trait Meta-Mood Scale. In J. W. Pennebaker (Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, and health (pp. 125–154). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10182-006.
Schatz, P., & Ferris, C. S. (2013). One-month test-retest reliability of the ImPACT test battery. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28, 499–504. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/act034.
Schmitt, N., & Kuljanin, G. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.03.003.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428109351241.
Simons, D. J., Shoda, Y., & Lindsay, D. S. (2017). Constraints on generality (COG): A proposed addition to all empirical papers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1123–1128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617708630.
Singh, S., & Aggarwal, Y. (2018). Happiness at work scale: Construction and psychometric validation of a measure using mixed method approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 19, 1439–1463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-017-9882-x.
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005.
Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. K., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55, 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2002.tb00108.x.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.607.
Stevens, J. P. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012605.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne (sic) social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28, 191–193. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::aid-jclp2270280220>3.0.co;2-g.
Suddendorf, T., & Corballis, M. C. (1997). Mental time travel and the evolution of the human mind. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 123, 133–167.
Sue-Chan, C., Wood, R. E., & Latham, G. P. (2012). Effect of a coach’s regulatory focus and an individual’s implicit person theory on individual performance. Journal of Management, 38, 809–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310375465.
Summerville, A., & Chartier, C. R. (2013). Pseudo-dyadic “interaction” on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0250-9.
Sutcliffe, K. M., Vogus, T. J., & Dane, E. (2016). Mindfulness in organizations: A cross-level review. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 3, 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-041015-062531.
Sy, T. (2010). What do you think of followers? Examining the content, structure, and consequences of implicit followership theories. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 113, 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.06.001.
Tamir, M., John, O. P., Srivastava, S., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Implicit theories of emotion: Affective and social outcomes across a major life transition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 731–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.731.
Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success. Journal of Personality, 72, 271–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429.
Uleman, J. S., Saribay, S. A., & Gonzalez, C. M. (2008). Spontaneous inferences, implicit impressions, and implicit theories. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 329–360. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093707.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119. https://doi.org/10.5465/256902.
Vandenberg, R. J. (2002). Towards a further understanding of and improvement in measurement invariance methods and procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 5, 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428102005002001.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.
Vogus, T. J., & Welbourne, T. M. (2003). Structuring for high reliability: HR practices and mindful processes in reliability-seeking organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 877–903. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.221.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Mindfulness and the quality of organizational attention. Organization Science, 17, 514–524. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1060.0196.
Weir, J. P. (2005). Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 19, 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1.
Wheeler, A. R., Shanine, K. K., Leon, M. R., & Whitman, M. V. (2014). Student-recruited samples in organizational research: A review, analysis, and guidelines for future research. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12042.
Wieczner, J. (2016). Meditation has become a billion-dollar business. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2016/03/12/meditation-mindfulness-apps/. Accessed 27 Nov 2017.
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305.
Wilson, R. A., Perry, S. J., Witt, L. A., & Griffeth, R. W. (2015). The exhausted short-timer: Leveraging autonomy to engage in production deviance. Human Relations, 68, 1693–1711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726714565703.
Wo, D. X. H., Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2015). What drives trickle-down effects? A test of multiple mediation processes. Academy of Management Journal, 58, 1848–1868. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0670.
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.56.3.407.
Yam, K. C., Fehr, R., & Barnes, C. M. (2014). Morning employees are perceived as better employees: Employees’ start times influence supervisor performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99, 1288–1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037109.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Caitlin Porter for her comments on the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
-
1.
No matter how hard they try, people cannot really change the level of their attention to what is taking place in the present.
-
2.
The truth is that people have very little control over their attention to what they are doing at the moment.
-
3.
Everyone can learn to control their attention to what is happening in the present.
-
4.
If they want to, people can change the level of their attention to what is taking place at the moment.
-
5.
No matter how hard they try, people cannot really change the level of their awareness of what is taking place in the present.
-
6.
The truth is that people have very little control over their awareness of what they are doing at the moment.
-
7.
Everyone can learn to control their awareness of what is happening in the present.
-
8.
If they want to, people can change the level of their awareness of what is taking place at the moment.
-
9.
People can learn new techniques, but they cannot really change the level of their attention to what they are doing at the moment.
-
10.
The level of people’s attention to what is taking place in the present is something about them that they cannot change very much.
-
11.
People are either attentive to what is happening in the present or not, and they really cannot do much to change that.
-
12.
People can learn new techniques, but they cannot really change the level of their awareness of what they are doing at the moment.
-
13.
The level of people’s awareness of what is taking place in the present is something about them that they cannot change very much.
-
14.
People are either aware of what is happening in the present or not, and they really cannot do much to change that.
-
15.
The level of people’s attention to what is taking place in the present is something very basic about them and it cannot be changed much.
-
16.
Whether people are attentive to what is happening in the present or not is deeply ingrained in their dispositions. It cannot be changed very much.
-
17.
There is not much that can be done to change the level of people’s attention to what they are doing at the moment.
-
18.
The level of people’s awareness of what is happening in the present is something very basic about them and it cannot be changed much.
-
19.
Whether people are aware of what is taking place in the present or not is deeply ingrained in their dispositions. It cannot be changed very much.
-
20.
There is not much that can be done to change the level of people’s awareness of what they are doing at the moment.
-
21.
People have a certain level of attention to what is taking place in the present, and they cannot really do much to change it.
-
22.
No matter who they are, people can significantly change the level of their attention to what is happening in the present.
-
23.
To be honest, people cannot really change how attentive they are to what is taking place at the moment.
-
24.
People can always substantially change how attentive they are to what they are doing in the present.
-
25.
No matter how attentive people are to what is taking place in the present, they can always change it quite a bit.
-
26.
People can change the level of their attention to what is happening in the present.
-
27.
People have a certain level of awareness of what is taking place in the present, and they cannot really do much to change it.
-
28.
No matter who they are, people can significantly change the level of their awareness to what is happening in the present.
-
29.
To be honest, people cannot really change how aware they are of what is taking place at the moment.
-
30.
People can always substantially change how aware they are of what they are doing in the present.
-
31.
No matter how aware people are of what is taking place in the present, they can always change it quite a bit.
-
32.
People can change the level of their awareness of what is happening in the present.
-
33.
People can get better at paying attention to things that happen in the present.
-
34.
People can get better at being aware of things that happen in the present.
-
35.
People cannot get better at paying attention to things that happen in the present.
-
36.
People cannot get better at being aware of things that happen in the present.
-
37.
People can learn to be more aware of what is taking place in the present.
-
38.
People can learn to be more attentive to what is taking place in the present.
-
39.
People cannot learn to be more aware of what is taking place in the present.
-
40.
People cannot learn to be more attentive to what is taking place in the present.
-
41.
People either are attentive to what they are doing at the moment, or are not, and not much can be done to change that.
-
42.
People either are aware of what they are doing at the moment, or are not, and not much can be done to change that.
-
43.
People can learn to pay more attention to what is happening in the present.
-
44.
People can learn to have more awareness of what is happening in the present.
-
45.
People cannot learn to pay more attention to what is happening in the present. They are either attentive or not.
-
46.
People cannot learn to have more awareness of what is happening in the present. They are either aware or not.
-
47.
Some people are aware of what is happening in the present and others are not, and not much can be done to change either type of people.
-
48.
Some people are attentive to what is happening in the present and others are not, and not much can be done to change either type of people.
-
49.
Someone who wants to be more attentive to what is happening in the present can learn to do so.
-
50.
Someone who wants to be more aware of what is happening in the present can learn to do so.
-
51.
People can learn to stay attentive to what is happening in the present.
-
52.
People can learn to stay aware of what is happening in the present.
-
53.
People who rush through activities without being really attentive to what is going on cannot really learn to be more attentive.
-
54.
People who rush through activities without being really aware of what is going on cannot really learn to be more aware.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kong, D.T., Jolly, P.M. Lay Beliefs About Attention to and Awareness of the Present: Implicit Mindfulness Theory (IMT) and Its Workplace Implications. J Bus Psychol 34, 685–707 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9606-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-018-9606-1