Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0749-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
How well is trait mindfulness perceived by outside observers? This question has implications for the conceptualization of trait mindfulness and development and validity of self-report questionnaires. We examine this question via self-other agreement (SOA), observability, and evaluativeness of mindfulness. Study 1 investigated SOA of trait mindfulness with the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) in a sample of undergraduates and close others. Self- and other-reports of FFMQ facets agreed more than they disagreed, with SOA correlations ranging from 0.19 to 0.25. Because outside observers are only privy to behaviors rather than internal cognitive and emotional states, SOA correlations suggest that the internal process of mindfulness likely manifests in observable behaviors. Study 2 investigated the observability and evaluativeness of mindfulness via the FFMQ in an independent sample. There were no strong relationships between SOA and either observability or evaluativeness of mindfulness. The absence of a negative relationship between evaluativeness and SOA suggests that SOA is not strongly impacted by enhancing biases in self-report. The absence of a positive relationship between observability and SOA suggests that the observability of the process of mindfulness does not strongly influence the perception of mindfulness by an outside observer. Taken together, results from these two studies suggest that others do perceive mindfulness, and yet the information upon which they base their judgments remains unclear. In keeping with Buddhist teachings and intervention science, we suggest that if process-related behaviors are not used to judge mindfulness, perhaps outcome-related behaviors are used instead.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
ESM 1 (PDF 58 kb)12671_2017_749_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: a conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125–143. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg015.
Bishop, S. R. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bph077.
Davidson, R. J., & Harrington, A. (Eds.). (2002). Visions of compassion: western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
G*Power 3.1 http://www.gpower.hhu.de/en.html.
John, O. P., Robins, R. W., Craik, K. H., Dawes, R. M., Funder, D. C., Kemis, M., et al. (1994). Accuracy and bias in self-perception: individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 206–219. doi: 10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.168. CrossRefPubMed
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your mind to face stress, pain and illness. New York, NY: Delacorte Press.
Varela, F., & Shear, J. (1999). First-person methodologies: what, why, how? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 2, 1–4.
- Self-Other Agreement in the Assessment of Mindfulness Using the Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
Lisa M. May
Kristen M. Reinhardt
- Springer US