Why Scientists Disagree About Mindfulness

Over the last 20 years, mindfulness has grown enormously in popularity worldwide. It is now a familiar feature of modern life, taught in settings ranging from offices and classrooms to sporting schemes and the armed forces.

Across social media, television and wellbeing apps, mindfulness is commonly presented as a straightforward practice: remaining calm while paying attention to the present.

Major firms such as Google run mindfulness programmes intended to help staff concentrate and feel less stressed. Hospitals employ it to support pain management and better mental health. Meanwhile, millions use mindfulness apps claiming benefits that range from reduced stress to improved sleep.

Yet, as a professor of religious studies who has spent years studying how mindfulness has been understood and practised in varied traditions and eras, I have identified a striking issue beneath this wave of enthusiasm: researchers, clinicians and educators have yet to reach agreement about what mindfulness is, or how it should be measured.

Since researchers assess different qualities under the heading of "mindfulness," two studies may portray the effects of the practice very differently. That distinction is important for anyone selecting a meditation app or programme on the basis of research.

The research being used may examine an ability - such as attention, emotional composure or self-kindness - other than the one a person wants to build. This both complicates comparisons between findings and leaves people uncertain about which method will actually support them in everyday life.

From ancient traditions to modern science

Mindfulness is strongly rooted in Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh and other Asian contemplative traditions. The Buddhist "Satipatthana Sutta: The Foundations of Mindfulness" highlights continuous, moment-by-moment awareness of the body and mind.

The Hindu idea of "dhyāna," meaning contemplation, develops sustained attention to breathing or a mantra. Jain "samayika," the practice of equanimity, fosters a calm, balanced attitude towards every being. Sikh "simran," or ongoing remembrance, moves self-centred thinking into a deeper recognition of the reality underlying each moment.

During the late 20th century, teachers and clinicians started adapting these methods for secular contexts, particularly through mindfulness-based stress reduction and related therapeutic programmes. Mindfulness subsequently entered psychology, medicine, education and even corporate wellbeing.

It is now a common tool in scientific and professional fields, although those fields frequently define it in different ways.

Why scientists disagree about mindfulness

When considering mindfulness as it is applied in contemporary areas such as psychology, the problem of definition becomes central. Researchers emphasise different elements, then construct their assessments around those particular ideas.

For some scientists, mindfulness primarily concerns attention: closely noticing what is taking place in the present.

Others understand it through emotional regulation and the ability to remain composed in stressful circumstances.

A further group of mindfulness studies centres on self-compassion - treating yourself kindly when you make errors.

Still other researchers concentrate on moral awareness: the notion that mindfulness ought to enable wiser and more ethical decision-making.

The variation is clear in the measures used by researchers to assess mindfulness.

The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, or MAAS, asks how effectively a person maintains focus on the present moment.

The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory - FMI - asks whether someone can observe thoughts and feelings as they arise, accepting them without judgement.

The Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences - CHIME - includes an element omitted by most other measures: questions on ethical awareness and making wise, moral choices.

Consequently, comparative research can be difficult, while people who want to become more mindful may find it confusing to decide which route to follow. Because programmes can be based on differing definitions of mindfulness, the abilities they teach and the advantages they claim may differ substantially.

Unless they understand how a specific course or app defines and measures mindfulness, someone choosing it may learn something quite unlike what they anticipated.

Why different scales measure different things

John Dunne, a scholar of Buddhist philosophy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, provides a useful explanation for anyone wondering why mindfulness seems to mean something different to everyone. Dunne argues that mindfulness is not a single practice but a "family" of connected practices, influenced by distinct traditions, aims and cultural contexts.

This helps explain why scientists and people seeking to practise mindfulness can appear to be speaking at cross-purposes. Findings will not match if one study measures attention while another measures compassion. Equally, for someone practising mindfulness, it makes a difference whether the chosen approach aims to settle the mind, cultivate self-kindness or encourage ethically aware decisions.

Why this matters

Because mindfulness is not one uniform practice, its diversity shapes how it is researched, practised and taught. This has significance for institutions as well as individuals.

In environments such as schools and healthcare, for instance, a mindfulness programme created to lower stress will be very different from one designed to develop compassion or ethical awareness.

In the absence of clarity, teachers, doctors and counsellors may struggle to determine which approach best meets their aims. A broadly similar issue arises in business, in relation to organisational effectiveness and stress management.

Despite these differences of opinion, research indicates that distinct forms of mindfulness can bring distinct benefits. Practices that strengthen present-moment attention are linked with better concentration and workplace performance.

Acceptance-focused approaches generally assist people in managing stress, anxiety and chronic pain more effectively. Compassion-based methods can foster emotional resilience. Programmes that foreground ethical awareness may encourage more considered, prosocial behaviour.

These differing results help account for the continuing debate among researchers over which definition of "mindfulness" ought to direct scientific research.

For individuals who practise mindfulness, this offers a reminder to select approaches that suit their own needs.

Ronald S. Green, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Coastal Carolina University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.