Roosevelt University · 2018. 3. 19. · In recent years psychology has devoted considerable...

Roosevelt University

Self-Reports of Relaxation and Mindfulness States among Experienced Practitioners of

Mindfulness Related Disciplines

A Doctoral Project Submitted to the Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences

In Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Psychology

by

Thomas Malia

Chicago, Illinois

March, 2018

ProQuest Number:

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest

Published by ProQuest LLC ( ). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

10752124

10752124

2018

ii

Abstract

In recent years psychology has devoted considerable attention to the Buddhist concept and

practice of mindfulness. However, there continues to be disagreement as to how to define

mindfulness, and many competing definitions and measures of mindfulness are available. The

R/M Tracker is one self-report measure used to define and assess experiences that individuals

have while practicing mindfulness. The present study was conducted in two parts. First, the

underlying factor structure of the R/M Tracker was examined. Second, we examined the

relationship between age, gender, the total number of months practicing mindfulness, present

session duration, length of average session, recalled regularity of practice in the past month,

recalled recent regularity of individual practice (past week), recalled recent regularity of group

practice (past week), and times practiced per day. Six factors were identified by means of a

principal components analysis (PCA) on the R/M Tracker: Mindful Transcendence, Mindful

Focus, Mindful Positive Emotion, Basic Mindful Relaxation, Pleasant Fantasy, and Unbothered

Observer. Results from multiple regression equations indicated that frequency of individual

practice in the past week significantly predicted an individual’s score on the Mindful

Transcendence and Mindful Positive Emotion factors. Session duration had a significant negative

relationship with Mindful Transcendence.

iii

Date of Oral Defense: March 19, 2018

Doctoral Project Committee Chair

Name: Jonathan C. Smith, PhD

Position: Professor, Department of Psychology

Institution: Roosevelt University

Committee Members

Name: Susan Torres-Harding, PhD

Position: Professor, Department of Psychology; Director of PsyD Program, College of Arts and

Sciences


Name: Michael Helford, PhD

Position: Associate Professor, Department of Psychology


iv

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Jonathan C. Smith for

serving as my dissertation chair. Without his guidance, insight, and encouragement I might not

have completed this project. I would also like to thank Dr. Susan Torres-Harding and Dr.

Michael Helford for serving on my dissertation committee. I am grateful for all of the support,

guidance, and encouragement that you have given me in helping to complete this project and in

my personal and professional development throughout my time in the PsyD program at

Roosevelt University.

Next, I would like to convey my immense gratitude to my parents. Your unconditional

love and support in so many aspects of my life – academic, professional, and personal – have

been essential in helping me to complete this project. Without your unwavering belief in my

ability to succeed in this program and in this profession, I would not be where I am today. I

would also like to thank my sister for inspiring me to enter this field and find my calling in life.

Your strength, perseverance, and compassion are an inspiration to me.

Finally, I would like to express my utmost appreciation to my wife. You have been there

for me in more ways than I can count throughout this project and our lives together. You were

there to encourage and support me through stressful times and share genuine joy and excitement

with me during times of success. Without your boundless love, compassion, and support I would

not have completed this project.

v

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ ix

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................... 2

Definitions of Mindfulness ......................................................................................................... 2

Classical Historical Definitions of Mindfulness ......................................................................... 3

Western Psychological Conceptualizations of Mindfulness ....................................................... 6

First, Second, and Third-Generation Mindfulness ...................................................................... 7

First generation mindfulness. .................................................................................................. 7

Second generation mindfulness. ........................................................................................... 11

Third generation mindfulness. .............................................................................................. 12

Western mindfulness in practice. .......................................................................................... 19

Assessment of Mindfulness ...................................................................................................... 19

Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS). ............................................................ 20

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). ..................................................................... 20

Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FRI). ................................................................................ 21

Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale – Revised (CMS-R). ....................................... 21

Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). ............................................................... 21

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)............................................................ 22

Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS). ...................................................................................... 23

vi

Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS). .......................................................................... 24

Implications for the Assessment of Mindfulness ...................................................................... 24

The R/M Tracker Approach ...................................................................................................... 25

Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 26

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 28

Measures ................................................................................................................................... 28

R/M Tracker. ......................................................................................................................... 28

R/M Practice Scale. ............................................................................................................... 29

R/M Tracker Archival Data Pool .............................................................................................. 29

Participants ................................................................................................................................ 30

Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................ 31

Principal components analysis .................................................................................................. 31

Multiple Regression .................................................................................................................. 32

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 33

Factor Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 33

Factor 1: Mindful Transcendence. ........................................................................................ 34

Factor 2: Mindful Focus........................................................................................................ 37

Factor 3: Mindful Positive Emotion. .................................................................................... 37

Factor 4: Basic Mindful Relaxation. ..................................................................................... 37

Factor 5: Pleasant Fantasy. ................................................................................................... 37

Factor 6: Unbothered Observer. ............................................................................................ 38

Multiple Regressions ................................................................................................................ 38

Mindful Transcendence. ....................................................................................................... 39

vii

Mindful Focus. ...................................................................................................................... 40

Mindful Positive Emotion. .................................................................................................... 41

Basic Mindful Relaxation. .................................................................................................... 42

Pleasant Fantasy. ................................................................................................................... 43

Unbothered Observer. ........................................................................................................... 44

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 45

Limitations. ........................................................................................................................... 50

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 52

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: R/M States and the Five Levels of Mindfulness and Relaxation 17

Table 2: Principal Components Analysis Total Variance Explained 34

Table 3: Summary of descriptive statistics for R/M Practice and R/M Tracker items 35

Table 4: Rotated Component Matrix for Principle Components Analysis Item Loadings 36

Table 5: Summary of multiple regression equation for Factor 1: Mindful

Transcendence

39

Table 6: Summary of multiple regression equation for Factor 2: Mindful Focus 40

Table 7: Summary of multiple regression equation for Factor 3: Mindful Positive

Emotion

41

Table 8: Summary of multiple regression equation for Factor 4: Mindful Basic

Relaxation

42

Table 9: Summary of multiple regression equation for Factor 5: Pleasant Fantasy 43

Table 10: Summary of multiple regression equation for Factor 6: Unbothered Quiet 44

ix

List of Appendices

Appendix A: The R/M Tracker Questionnaire 61

Appendix B: The R/M Indicators Questionnaire 62

Appendix C: The R/M Frequency Questionnaire 63

Appendix D: The R/M Practice Questionnaire 64

Appendix E: Manuscript to be Submitted for Publication 65

1

Chapter I: Introduction

Mindfulness has grown in popularity in the field of psychology over the past 30 years

(Bishop et al., 2004). During this time, many different mindfulness-based therapeutic and

personal improvement interventions have been developed. Popular treatments include

Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1982) initially applied to chronic

pain, Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Teasdale et al., 2000) initially applied to

depression, Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT, Linehan, 1991) for Borderline Personality

Disorder, and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, 2008). Each of these

interventions has spawned a substantial body of research (Brown, Marquiss, & Guiffrida, 2013).

In addition, substantial research has examined the potential benefits of mindful practice

in a nonclinical context. Mindfulness appears to improve attention and awareness of internal

experiences (Josefsson & Broberg, 2011; Semple, Lee, Rosa, & Miller, 2010), episodic and

working memory (Brown, Goodman, Ryan, & Analayo, 2016), compassion (Bankard, 2015),

perspective-taking and empathy (Leppma & Young, 2016), and self-compassion, self-esteem,

and self-acceptance (Thompson & Waltz, 2008; Weibel, McClintock, & Anderson, 2016).

Additional research has identified specific brain changes that may occur in those who practice

mindfulness (Lutz, Jha, Dunne, & Saron, 2015)

Despite considerable research on the efficacy of mindfulness, there remains significant

disagreement in how mindfulness should be defined (Bishop et al., 2004). Partly as a result,

current methods of assessing mindfulness are often incomplete or lacking in validity (Grossman,

2011). The R/M Tracker was designed to address many of these assessment issues using the

natural language of practitioners (Smith, 2017).

2

For the present study, I will examine the relationship between the amount of mindfulness

practice, frequency of practice, reported length of average practice session, and demographic

variables and the experiences that individuals report when engaged in a mindfulness meditation

exercise. First, I will present definitions for mindfulness from classical religious sources as well

as from more contemporary psychological sources. I will then compare how western

psychological definitions of mindfulness vary from classical definitions and how they have

changed over time. Next, I will discuss a third generation definition of mindfulness which is

based on the natural language of practitioners of mindfulness. I will then review commonly used

psychological measures of mindfulness that are currently available and describe the R/M

Tracker. Finally, I will describe the rationale for the present study. I predicted that individuals

with greater levels of experience practicing mindfulness will report on the R/M Tracker higher

levels of mindfulness-related states of Mindful Awakening, Mindful Deepening, Mindful

Transcendence, and Mindful Positive Emotion.

Chapter II: Literature Review

Definitions of Mindfulness

Smith (2017) defines meditation as an exercise and type of focus in which one quietly

restricts and sustains attention on a limited target or stimulus. One can apply this attentional

stance to body sensations, one’s breath, a repeating word or mantra, or even yoga stretches and

postures. For mindfulness, one’s focus is generally broad, perhaps including the flow of sounds

or all stimuli. However, for all meditation one’s attention is directed, extraneous mind-wandering

and distraction are gently put aside and one returns to ones chosen focus. However, preceding

3

Smith’s definition is a rich history of often competing definitions and conceptualizations,

including those from classical traditions and contemporary Western psychological scholarship.

Classical Historical Definitions of Mindfulness

Mindfulness originated in Buddhism around 2,500 years ago (Brown, Creswell, & Ryan,

2015). In this tradition, mindfulness is one path to enlightenment. To be enlightened is to

transcend personal and subjective distortions and understand the true nature of reality (Kudesia

& Nyima, 2015). When an individual attains enlightenment, they will be able to eliminate the

sources of suffering in their life. Key to enlightenment is the realization of what Buddhist

traditions refer to as the Four Noble Truths (Gethin, 2011). The first noble truth is that life is

filled with suffering and dissatisfaction (“Four Noble Truths,” n.d.). The second noble truth is

that this dissatisfaction arises because people will cling to beliefs that do not match reality in

order to avoid further suffering. The third noble truth is that suffering and dissatisfaction end

when an individual lets go of cravings for beliefs and expectations that do not match with reality,

and instead embraces thoughts and actions that are in line with reality. Finally, the fourth noble

truth is that an individual can learn to let go of cravings and become free from suffering through

the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Noble Eightfold Path consists of right speech, right action, right livelihood, right

effort, right mindfulness, right concentration, right view, and right intention (“Eightfold Path,”

n.d.). In Buddhist beliefs, following the Noble Eightfold Path to develop moral conduct,

concentration, and wisdom will lead to enlightenment and the cessation of suffering (Kudesia &

Nyima, 2015).

Buddhist traditions present many practices claimed to foster growth in these three areas

(Brown, Creswell, & Ryan, 2015). Broadly speaking, moral restraint is cultivated through

4

adherence to monastic rules outlined in Buddhist texts, while the other two goals of

concentration and insight are fostered largely through the practice of meditation. These

meditation practices generally fall within one of two categories – calm meditation and insight

meditation. Calm meditation involves focusing one’s attention on a simple object, such as a

mantra, an image, or one’s own breath in order to cultivate a deep concentration and calm mind

that results from being absorbed in thoughts of such simple objects. Insight meditation involves

quietly attending to thoughts and objects that are both part of ourselves and part of the external

world. These objects of focus may include physical sensations, feelings, perceptions, urges, and

our own consciousness. Central to insight meditation is viewing these phenomena, as well as

one’s sense of “self” as an independent choosing agent, as temporary or impermanent,

unsatisfying, and ultimately illusory. Indeed, this is a large part of the “insight” of insight

meditation

Within Buddhist traditions, mindfulness practices serve an important role in helping one

to achieve enlightenment (Brown, Creswell, & Ryan, 2015). Mindfulness helps the practitioner

to direct attention to particular objects, thoughts, or experiences and to identify experiences as

being impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not of one’s self. In this way, mindfulness is viewed as a

means of reducing suffering from thinking of experiences as being permanent or from the

development of an individual ego (Chiesa, 2013).

Mindfulness is commonly identified as a kind of insight meditation in both psychological

and Buddhist writings (Brown, Creswell, & Ryan, 2015). However, this characterization may not

be entirely accurate, as many early Buddhist texts describe mindful practices as being

inextricably linked with cultivation of concentration and a calm mind. In these early writings, the

authors describe how the cultivation of concentration and focus leads to greater mindfulness, and

5

how greater mindfulness also leads to increased capacity for concentration and having a calm

mind. Thus, these practices do not oppose one another and commonly overlap (Smith, 2017, In

press, Chiesa, 2013; Rapgay & Bistrisky, 2009). Both concentration and insight can be viewed as

two parts of the same practice, with concentration providing stability to the meditative state and

insight providing the context in which to view one’s own thoughts or experiences.

An additional aspect of mindfulness highlighted by many scholars is the important role of

ethical judgments about thoughts, experiences and actions (Brown, Creswell, & Ryan, 2015;

Chiesa, 2013; Kang and Whittingham, 2010). This means mindful practice necessarily requires a

level of judgment about what thoughts and actions are “right” and should be emphasized and

those that are not and should not be emphasized. However, here again there is some

disagreement as many scholars also describe mindfulness as a non-judgmental process (Brown,

Creswell, & Ryan, 2015).

In summary, there are features that are commonly identified in classical Buddhist

literature as being central to the practice of mindfulness – namely bare, sustained attention on

thoughts, feelings, and experiences (Brown, Creswell, & Ryan, 2015). However, it is also clear

that there is also considerable disagreement among Buddhist schools as to how to fully define

mindfulness and mindful practice. Many scholars emphasize that mindful practice is active and

effortful as opposed to passive and absentminded, while others describe it as a more passive,

natural, and spontaneous process (Kang & Wittingham, 2010). Still others emphasize the role of

ethical judgments to guide the practitioner toward “right” actions and thoughts, while others

emphasize the role of non-judgment and acceptance (Chiesa, 2013; Kang and Whittingham,

2010). These varied definitions of mindfulness in classical Buddhist literature lead to significant

difficulties in describing and defining mindfulness as it pertains to western psychology.

6

Western Psychological Conceptualizations of Mindfulness

Today, psychologists differentiate meditation into two broad categories: Focused

Attention (FA) and Open Monitoring (OM) meditation (Lutz, Jha, Dunne, & Saron, 2015). FA

meditation is essentially concentrative or calm meditation described previously, in which the

individual strives to maintain focus on a single object or phenomenon, while excluding other

phenomena from their attentional field. Smith (2017; In press) further differentiates FAs

(somatic) meditation with a somatic a body focus such as breathing or physical sensations and

FAc (cognitive) meditation with a cognitive focus such as a mantra or mental image. OM

meditation, on the other hand, is generally synonymous with insight meditations described

previously, in which the individual strives to be aware of all phenomena that pass through their

awareness, without becoming overly involved in any one thought or experience (Lutz et al.,

2015). In OM meditation, when one’s thoughts do become caught up in one object, the

practitioner seeks only to gently return their attention to open monitoring of all experiences.

Travis and Shear (2010) also propose a third category of meditation – Automatic Self-

Transcending meditation. This category represents practices which are “reported to automatically

‘transcend’ their own activity and disappear, to be started up again later if appropriate,” (p. 7-8).

This is analogous to Smith’s FAc meditation and notion of “dynamic other-referential focus.” In

both, one’s cognitive focus or mantra has something of a “life of its own,” and the task of

meditation is to quietly and without interference attend to how it evolves and changes. The

mantra is not a “chant,” something one deliberately does; instead it is something of a “guide” or

a “vehicle” for growth in meditation (Smith, 2017; In press).

7

First, Second, and Third-Generation Mindfulness

Van Gordon, Shonin, and Griffiths (2015) have divided contemporary psychological

approaches to mindfulness training into two groups, “first-generation” and “second-generation.”

To this, Smith (2017) has added “third-generation mindfulness.” First generation mindfulness

focuses on cognitive and attentional processes and removes some but not all Buddhist elements

to make the definitions somewhat secular. “Second generation” mindfulness attempts to

reintroduce key Buddhist elements, such as the importance of ethical and philosophical thinking

and the noble eightfold path, but while still attempting to maintain a secular, non-religious,

approach to mindfulness. Finally, Smith’s (2017) “third-generation” mindfulness is not based on

Buddhism or any religion, and instead focuses on the core attentional act of quiet sustained focus

and the “natural language” used by practitioners to describe their own experiences.

First generation mindfulness. Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Kabat-

Zinn, 1982) is one of the earliest adaptations of mindfulness in Western psychology. MBSR is a

therapeutic approach originally designed for chronic pain patients. Kabat-Zinn (1994) defines

mindfulness as “paying attention in a particular way; on purpose, in the present moment, and

nonjudgmentally” (p. 4). This definition highlights three important facets of mindfulness –

sustained attention, a focus on the present moment, and an attitude of nonjudgment. The MBSR

approach incorporates substantial training in yoga stretching and breathing exercises, followed

by FAs meditation on breathing and pure mindfulness. Using MBSR, patients learn to adopt a

stance of detached observation and attend to sensations of pain in a non-judgmental manner.

The definition of mindfulness put forth by Kabat-Zinn (1994) is one of the most

frequently cited definitions for this term, and has become a foundation to understanding

8

mindfulness for many theorists (Hart, Ivtzan, & Hart, 2013). However, there is a lack of

consensus regarding the definition of mindfulness, and it is discussed in various ways by

researchers, “sometimes as a technique, sometimes as a more general method or collection of

techniques, sometimes as a psychological process that can produce outcomes, and sometimes as

an outcome in and of itself” (Hayes & Wilson, 2003, p. 161). One such alternative definition of

mindfulness was proposed by Linehan (1993), who defined mindfulness as a collection of

techniques or skills, rather than a specific process, organized into two categories: “what” skills

and “how” skills. The three “what” skills included observation and description of present

experiences, and participation in these here-and-now experiences. The three “how” skills

included 1) taking on a non-judgmental stance toward experiences, 2) being “one mindful,” or

fully investing one’s attention into one task or experience at a time, and 3) being effective, or

doing what needs to be done in order to meet one’s larger goals.

As a result of such discrepancies in how mindfulness is defined in the literature, Bishop

et al. (2004) held a series of meetings of prominent researchers in the field of mindfulness in

order to formulate a consensus operational definition for the purposes of research. Bishop et al.

(2004) defined mindfulness as “[a] kind of nonelaborative, nonjudgmental, present-centered

awareness in which each thought, feeling, or sensation that arises in the attentional field is

acknowledged and accepted as it is,” (p. 232). This definition describes mindfulness as being

present-centered and nonjudgmental and focuses on the central role of sustained attention onto

thoughts, feelings, and experiences. While relaxation is often cited as being a common result of

mindful practice, mindfulness itself is not thought of as being a relaxation technique, and it is

instead conceptualized as a cognitive discipline (Brown, Marquis, & Guiffrida, 2013).

9

Alternatively, Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, and Freedman (2006) suggests three basic

components of mindfulness – intention, attention, and attitude. The components of attention and

attitude overlap with the dual cognitive processes of mindfulness as defined by Bishop et al.

(2004). However, the difference presented by Shapiro et al. (2006) is an emphasis on the

intention of the individual to practice. Shapiro (1992) found that defining one’s goals in

practicing mindfulness is significantly correlated with actual outcomes. For example, Shapiro

(1992) found that individuals who practiced mindfulness with the intention of attaining self-

regulation demonstrated greater self-regulation skills, while those who practiced with the

intention of self-exploration were more likely to reach that goal. This finding led Shapiro et al.

(2006) to emphasize intention as a part of their definition of what mindfulness is.

Most researchers have attempted to define mindfulness as a singular construct, perhaps

incorporating a few core factors. Lutz, Jha, Dunne, and Saron (2015) take a radically different

approach to examining mindfulness, and rather than identifying a single, unifying definition for

mindfulness, describe it as a “continuum of practices that can be mapped into a multidimensional

phenomenological matrix which itself can be expressed in a neurocognitive framework,” (p.

632). This means that rather than attempting to identify a single definition of mindfulness, Lutz

et al. (2015) start by characterizing the experiences of individuals during mindful practices. The

authors present multiple dimensions upon which mindful practices can be mapped. These include

three primary dimensions of object orientation, dereification, and meta-cognition which are core

features of all styles of mindfulness training that the authors reviewed. There are also four

secondary qualities of aperture, clarity, stability, and effort, which describe features of

experience which are affected by mindfulness.

10

Lutz et al. (2015) propose that by utilizing a neurophenomenology methodology, the

seven features listed above can be refined into physiological or behavioral correlates which can

then be effectively studied. They discuss three neural networks – the central-executive network,

default mode network, and the salience network – and identify ways in which changes in these

networks can be mapped to provide a quantitative measure of the qualitative changes that people

describe when practicing mindfulness. For example, the authors describe how the salience

network, which has a role in detecting and directing the individual toward salient internal and

external stimuli, is likely to provide some understanding of and ability to quantify the feature of

mindfulness called meta-cognition.

Lutz et al. (2015) describe a number of benefits to using such a neurophenomenological

matrix to describe mindfulness. First and foremost, this approach allows the researchers to

describe a wide variety of experiences with mindfulness and to categorize diverse mindful

practices within the matrix. Second, it allows practices and experiences from a variety of

approaches to mindfulness to be categorized and studied more effectively, whether they are

spiritual or secular in nature. Finally, the authors note that this matrix also provides a format for

quantifying and studying phenomena which are historically very difficult to study.

Similarly, Nilsson and Kazemi (2016) reviewed 33 definitions of mindfulness found

among 308 peer-reviewed journal articles to distill a comprehensive operational definition of

mindfulness. The authors found that there were four core elements of mindfulness as it is defined

in western psychology – awareness and attention, being present-centered, cultivated or actively

practiced, and a focus on external events. However, they note that classical definitions of

mindfulness also included a fifth factor of being ethically-minded that was not a component

11

found in psychological definitions. The authors hypothesize that incorporating ethical thinking in

how mindfulness is defined may more accurately align with more traditional conceptualizations.

Second generation mindfulness. First generation definitions of mindfulness, as seen

above, can often be significantly varied but share the common trait that they are all attempts to

describe and define mindfulness in psychological terms without traditional Buddhist elements

and terms (Van Gordon, Shonin, & Griffiths, 2015). In fact, key Buddhist elements remain.

Procedurally, many approaches incorporate breathing exercises, common in Buddhist traditions.

Non-Buddhist approaches to self-relaxation, such as progressive muscle relaxation, autogenic

training, prayer, or contemplation are barely noted or completely ignored. “Spirituality” is

defined entirely in terms of enlightenment, or present-centered awareness, or awareness of the

transitory nature of self and nature. This ignores many spiritual notions of spirituality (Christian,

Jewish, Islamic, Hindu theism; psychological analogs to relating to images of one’s higher power

as might be found in Jungian and other psychologies). However, many researchers in the field

and practitioners of mindfulness believe that to remove certain Buddhist elements from

mindfulness is to fundamentally change this practice into something different that should not

itself be called mindfulness. This has led to the introduction of what are referred to as second

generation definitions of mindfulness, which seek to reinstate Buddhist elements into how

mindfulness is defined and practices so as to better capture the reality of what makes

mindfulness work.

Van Gordon, Shonin, and Griffiths (2015) describe how second generation definitions of

mindfulness deviate from those of the first generation. First generation definitions often describe

mindfulness as an aptitude that involves taking a non-judgmental stance, which implies a level of

passivity and non-engagement with thoughts. Often, mindfulness is described as an ability to

12

notice all thoughts and experiences in the present moment, while letting these thoughts to pass

through without engaging them. Van Gordon, Shonin, and Griffiths (2015) contrast this with a

recently published second generation conceptualization of mindfulness which defines it as a

“process of engaging in a full, direct, and active awareness of experienced phenomena that is (i)

spiritual in aspect, and (ii) monitored from one moment to the next,” (p. 592). Here mindfulness

is described as an active, rather than passive, process that requires the practitioner to actively

engage in moment-to-moment awareness of their thoughts, feelings, and experiences. This

definition also explicitly integrates “spirituality” into the process of mindfulness, which is

described as necessary in order to clarify for the practitioner the nature of the intervention and

experience, which was left ambiguous in first generation definitions. Primary sources are

ambiguous as to the precise nature of “spirituality” in this context, or the related interventions.

Leading researchers of second generation approaches to mindfulness emphasize that

these approaches are not meant to replace or compete with first generation interventions (Shonin,

Van Gordon, & Giffiths, 2015). Rather, second generation mindfulness interventions represent

an alternative conceptualization that may better meet the needs of practitioners from diverse

backgrounds (Van Gordon, Shonin, Griffiths, & Singh, 2015). However, practitioners and users

of mindfulness-based interventions are likely to benefit from a more unified conceptualization of

mindfulness in the long-term.

Third generation mindfulness. Smith (2017) defines third generation mindfulness as:

1. Not Buddhist

2. Not wedded to any religion

13

3. Based on the brain-based skill of quiet, sustained simple focus: This core attentional

act serves as a basic exercise and a template for understanding all levels of mindful

practice, experience, and insight

4. Informed by the universal natural language of relaxation and mindfulness, words used

by actual everyday practitioners to describe their experiences. This is in contrast to

esoteric or scientific terminology used by experts

5. Inclusive of a wide spectrum of techniques, strategies, and perspectives. Key to this

inclusiveness is the recognition that all approaches to relaxation have elements of

mindful focus and can serve as preparations or expressions of mindfulness. Indeed,

many approaches to active stress management have elements of mindful focus.

6. Supportive of active, creative, and authentic engagement in a challenging world

(Smith, 2017, pp. 5-6)

Smith proposes that mindfulness is not a singular construct, or just awareness/attention

and acceptance, but an umbrella term for many interrelated constructs. In this light, he follows a

tradition initiated by Lutz et al. (2015). Key to his third generation definition of mindfulness is

the idea that mindfulness and relaxation are inextricably linked to and influence one another

(Smith, 2017). Relaxation facilitates the practitioner’s ability to remain focused and attentive,

exert minimal efficient effort, and engage in minimal judgments of experienced phenomena

during mindful practice. Conversely, mindful practice often leads to an increased sense of

relaxation and being at ease. Furthermore, another central concept to third generation

mindfulness is that mindfulness is not a state or a trait that is innate or can be quickly tapped into

on a whim. Rather, it is something that must be exercised and developed over time. This also

means that over time as an individual practices mindfulness, new experiences are likely to arise,

14

and that the first experiences that a practitioner has with mindfulness may be different from those

that are experienced after months or years of practice.

First generation mindfulness attempts to use scientific terminology to delineate a secular

conceptualization of mindfulness without Buddhist principals, while second generation

mindfulness attempts to reintegrate spirituality through an emphasis on Buddhist elements and

tenets such as the Eightfold Path (Smith, 2017). However, these varied definitions leave the field

of mindfulness in psychology fragmented, and many authors recognize the utility of formulating

a comprehensive definition of mindfulness to improve the utility of mindfulness-based

interventions (e.g. – Bishop et al., 2004; Van Gordon, Shonin, Griffiths, & Singh, 2015).

Previous definitions of mindfulness often relied upon Buddhist-based esoteric or scientific

language to describe and define what is mindfulness and mindful practice (Smith, 2017). This

terminology is often less accessible to everyday practitioners and to clients who seek to utilize

mindfulness-based interventions for their well-being and may create unnecessary barriers to

effective practice and understanding of mindfulness.

Third generation mindfulness utilizes the natural language of practitioners to describe and

conceptualize mindfulness. Here a “dynamic self-report matrix” is utilized to express the many

facets of mindfulness as described by practitioners and trainers of mindfulness (Smith, 2017; In

press). This matrix is composed of five levels of experience: Basic Relaxation, Basic

Mindfulness, Mindful Awakening, Mindful Deepening, and Mindful Transcendence, moderated

by Mindful Positive Emotion. These experiences are described as dynamic as they are believed

to constantly be changing from one mindful experience to another and influencing one another.

Within each level of mindfulness and relaxation are a number of relaxation and meditation states,

or “R/M States.”

15

Smith (2017) defined the first level of mindfulness and relaxation as “Basic Relaxation.”

Within this level there are a number of specific R/M States that a practitioner of mindfulness

may experience. For R/M State “Far Away,” one feels disengaged or removed from daily life

stressors. For R/M State “Physically Relaxed,” one lets go of muscle tension and breathing

relaxes. For R/M State “At Ease/At Peace,” one lets go of fear, distress, worry, and concern and

represents mental relaxation. For R/M State “Refreshed,” one feels reenergized. For R/M State

“Pleasant Mind Wandering,” one experiences undirected fantasy and random mind wandering

that is pleasant to experience. For R/M State “Fantasy/Daydreaming,” one engages in more a

cohesive and narrative version of Pleasant Mind Wandering that takes the form of mental

fantasies and daydreaming.

Smith (2017) defined the second level of mindfulness and relaxation as “Basic

Mindfulness,” and encompasses R/M States seven through eleven. For R/M State

“Focus/Absorption,” one is able to remain focused and attentive to one thing at a time and may

become completely absorbed in their focus. For R/M State “Centered/Grounded,” one’s focus

and attention become stable and grounded and does not shift. For R/M State “Quiet,” one

experiences a sense of inner peace and calm and emotional activity has settled. For R/M State

“Unbothered,” one is accepting and non-judgmental and does not get caught up in negative

thoughts or experiences that arise. Finally, for R/M State “Easy/Effortless,” the act of being

mindful feels easy and effortless and one is able to let go of distractions and sustain focus.

Level three is “Mindful Awakening,” and encompasses R/M States 12 through 15 (Smith,

2017). For R/M State “Observer” one is able to stand to the side and act as an observer of their

own thoughts, emotions, and experiences without getting caught up in what is happening. For

R/M State “Clear, Awake, Aware,” one may have a sense of experiencing things as they really

16

are or with greatly increased clarity and understanding. For R/M State “Interested, Curious,

Fascinated,” one has a sense of a deeper reality behind experiences and curiosity about what that

deeper reality may be. For R/M State “Beautiful,” one begins to sense or experience the beauty

in the world around and inside of themselves.

Level four is “Mindful Deepening” and encompasses R/M States 16 through 19 (Smith,

2017). For R/M State “Going Deeper,” one has a sense that things are new or changing or that

they are coming to new revelations. For R/M State “Spaciousness/Expansiveness,” one has a

sense of expansiveness. For R/M State “Sense of Something Greater,” one has a sense of

something greater than themselves, whether that is connection to a supreme being, love,

consciousness, or simply the interconnectedness of everything. For R/M State “Meaning,

Purpose, Direction,” one finds a sense of meaning or purpose.

Level five is “Mindful Transcendence” and encompasses R/M States 20 through 22

(Smith, 2017). For R/M State “Reverent/Prayerful,” one experiences feelings of reverence of

prayerfulness in response to something greater than oneself. For R/M State “Awe/Wonder, Deep

Mystery,” one has a sense of a greater and deeper reality and experiences feelings of awe and

wonder upon this sensation. For R/M State “Spiritual/Mystical,” one experiences a profound

spiritual awakening or insight. This spiritual awakening may take many forms, such as

understanding a deeper or hidden truth, being “at one” with the universe, or other transcendent

experiences which may often be difficult to put into words.

In addition to the five levels of relaxation and mindfulness, there are three further R/M

States that fall within the category of “Mindful Positive Emotion,” (Smith, 2017). These R/M

States represent positive emotional experiences that are commonly felt by individuals when

practicing mindfulness and relaxation. These R/M States are “Happy, Optimistic, Trusting,”

17

“Loving, Caring,” and “Thankful.” Table 1 is a summary of the 25 R/M States and how they fit

within each of the five levels of mindfulness and relaxation.

Table 1

R/M States and the Five Levels of Mindfulness and Relaxation

Level of Mindfulness and Relaxation R/M Tracker Item / State

Basic Relaxation 1. Far Away 2. Physically Relaxed 3. At Ease, At Peace 4. Refreshed 5. Pleasant Mind Wandering 6. Fantasy, Daydreaming

Basic Mindfulness 7. Focused, Absorbed 8. Centered, Grounded 9. Quiet 10. Unbothered 11. Easy, Effortless

Mindful Awakening 12. Observer 13. Clear, Awake, Aware 14. Interested, Curious, Fascinated 15. Beautiful

Mindful Deepening 16. Going Deeper 17. Spaciousness, Expansiveness 18. Sense of Something Greater 19. Meaning, Purpose, Direction

Mindful Transcendence 20. Reverent, Prayerful 21. Awe/Wonder, Deep Mystery 22. Spiritual, Mystical

Mindful Positive Emotion 23. Happy, Optimistic, Trusting 24. Loving, Caring 25. Thankful

The five levels of mindfulness and relaxation differ according to four important

dimensions (Smith, 2017). First, Smith proposes that lower-level states are more closely

18

associated with beginning practice, while higher-level states are associated with longer periods

of practice, although even first-time practitioners of mindfulness may have an experience at any

of the five levels of mindfulness and relaxation. Second, higher levels of mindfulness and

relaxation are associated with an increase in other-referential thinking and a decrease in self-

referential thinking. This is to say that the higher-level experiences are less ego-centric. Third,

higher levels of mindfulness and relaxation are more dynamic and changing over time. For

example, a practitioner of mindfulness may consistently experience the same feelings of basic

relaxation, but experience a sense of awe or wonder only intermittently or in response to a

variety of experiences. Finally, higher levels of mindfulness and relaxation are more open and

encompassing and have a wider range of application.

Smith (2017) also describes a number of key elements of mindful practice that are

organized into “The Eye of Mindfulness.” There are four types of core exercises: body scanning,

breathing scanning, FA Meditation, and OA Mindfulness. In FA Meditation one focuses on a

specific, simple thought, idea, or experience, while in OM Meditation one observes all

phenomena in their awareness as they come and go without getting “caught up” in any one event,

thought, or feeling. Body scanning is the processes of attending to areas of the body, noting how

each feels, and letting go of that feeling. Breathing scanning meditation is when the practitioner

focuses on the sensation of breathing and the flow of the breath in and out of the body.

Lastly, Smith (2017) also describes a six-part cycle of mindful practice in general,

exemplified by the sequence of phases of Orient, Relax, Focus, Detect, Let Go, and Refocus. For

Orient, one chooses to practice a chosen exercise and selects a phenomenon to focus on or be

mindful of, whether that is a thought, feeling, mantra, or experience. For the Relax phase one

disengages from the busy world in order to clear one’s mind to prepare to focus and be mindful.

19

For Focus one begins to attend to whatever phenomena was chosen as the object of the current

mindful practice. For Detect one observes one’s own mind during the focus to detect when the

mind wanders, engages in unnecessary judgments, or is straining or giving unnecessary effort.

For Let Go one lets go of distracting stimuli or unnecessary judgments through reaffirmation of

mindful practice or engaging in brief relaxation exercises. Finally, For Refocus one brings one’s

attention back to the object of focus after unnecessary judgments or distractions have been let go.

Smith’s approach is a secular non-Buddhist conceptualization of mindfulness (2017). It

is spiritually neutral, and can be readily incorporated into nonreligious programs as well as a

variety of religious systems, whether from Judeo-Christian-Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Native

American, or secular traditions.

Western mindfulness in practice. Apart from theoretical positions of first, second, and

third generation mindfulness, most approaches to mindfulness taught professionally (in clinics,

hospitals, and universities) have two similarities. First, they incorporate a core focusing or

acceptance “mindfulness” exercise. Second, they incorporate some, and sometimes many, yoga

stretching and breathing exercises, often describing these as variants of mindfulness (Kabat-

Zinn, 1990; Smith, 2017). Indeed, many popular programs described as “mindfulness” are

actually primarily yoga.

Assessment of Mindfulness

Just as definitions of mindfulness in the field of psychology can be highly varied, so too

can the tools that are used to measure mindfulness (Quaglia et al., 2016). Each of these

assessment tools may utilize different operational definitions for mindfulness that lead to

differences in how mindfulness is measured (Bergomi, Tschacher, & Kupper, 2013). In many

cases, this means that one scale designed to measure mindfulness includes items or content areas

20

which are not covered on other scales, or vice versa. For example, while most scales emphasize

the role of attention, how narrowly or broadly this is defined and how many other aspects of

mindfulness are measured can vary significantly from one scale to another.

Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills (KIMS). The KIMS is a measure of

mindfulness developed largely within the framework of Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT;

Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004). The authors note that efforts were made to be consistent with

descriptions of mindfulness in other mindfulness-based interventions so that scores are

generalizable to other treatment approaches. The KIMS is designed to measure four factors:

one’s ability to observe or attend to internal and external phenomena, describe these phenomena,

act with awareness, and maintain a non-judgmental attitude toward these phenomena. Further

analysis of the KIMS by Baum et al. (2010) found that while there was support for the four

factors identified in the KIMS, there was no evidence for a single underlying factor that would

be considered “mindfulness” on this measure.

Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS). The MAAS is a measure that was

developed based on traditional Buddhist definitions of mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003). This

measure focuses primarily on aspects of attention and awareness that are thought to be closely

associated with mindful practice. Indeed, Brown and Ryan (2003) found that the MAAS is

effective in differentiating practitioners of mindfulness from those who do not practice

mindfulness, although MacKillop & Anderson (2007) found no differences in scores between

experienced and inexperienced practitioners of mindfulness. In addition to the standard 15-item

MAAS, there is a short, 5-item version that maintains strong correlations with the full version of

the MAAS (Osman, Lamis, Bagge, Freedenthal, & Barnes, 2016). Confirmatory factor analysis

21

of the MAAS provided support for a single underlying factor (MacKillop & Anderson, 2007;

Osman et al., 2016).

Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FRI). The FMI was also developed primarily based

on classical Buddhist definitions of mindfulness (Brown, Creswell, & Ryan, 2015). The FMI is a

30-item assessment tool measuring one factor of mindfulness (Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmuller,

Kleinknecht, & Schmidt, 2006). The FMI demonstrated high internal consistency among test

items. Notably, a significant increase in scores was observed for practitioners of mindfulness

following participation in a mindfulness retreat, which indicated that the FMI is sensitive to

practice effects. However, upon further analysis of the FMI, Belzer et al. (2013) found that

individuals with limited experience in mindfulness faced notable comprehension difficulties,

particularly on eight of the FMI items. Thus, understanding of mindfulness and comprehension

of questions likely play a role in mediating scores on the FMI, and negatively impact this

measure’s validity.

Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale – Revised (CMS-R). The CMS-R was

developed with the intent of creating an assessment of mindfulness that is short, clearly worded,

and measures four principal features of mindfulness: attention, being present-focused, awareness,

and acceptance or nonjudgment (Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Gresson, & Laurenceau, 2007). Items

for the CMS-R were generated by a pool of researchers with experience in mindfulness,

meditation, and emotion regulation. Researchers found that scores on the four factors of the

CMS-R were not consistently found from one study to another and noted that the total

mindfulness score is more internally consistent and may be of greater clinical utility.

Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ). Chadwick, Taylor, and Abba (2005)

initially developed the SMQ as a measure of mindfulness for individuals undergoing treatment

22

for psychosis. The SMQ includes items which measure four bipolar facets of mindfulness and

are rated on a 7-point Likert scale. These bipolar facets are decentered awareness versus being

lost in reactivity to experiences, maintaining attention and awareness on difficult experiences

versus avoidance, acceptance versus judgment, and letting difficult thoughts pass versus

rumination and worry (Chadwick et al., 2008). Unique to the SMQ is a focus on the individual’s

relationship with distressing thoughts. Chadwick et al. (2008) also found the SMQ was capable

of distinguishing between meditators, non-meditators, and individuals experiencing psychosis.

The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Baer, Smith, Hopkins,

Krietemeyer, and Toney (2006) developed the FFMQ by analyzing the item content of the

MAAS, FMI, KIMS, CAMS, and SMQ. The authors conducted a factor analysis of these items

to identify five factors that describe aspects of mindfulness: nonreactivity to inner experiences,

observing, noticing, or attending to phenomena, acting with awareness, describing and labeling

phenomena with words, and nonjudging of experiences. Baer et al. (2008) confirmed the

presence of five factors on the FFMQ and found that this measure was useful in aiding in the

prediction of overall well-being and that some factors significantly mediated the relationship

between mindfulness and well-being.

Williams, Dalgleish, Karl, and Kuyken (2014) found that a four-factor model fit best for

meditators and community members who did not practice mindfulness, while a five-factor model

fit best for clinical sample. This pattern suggested that the factors of the FFMQ may not be stable

across levels of experience. The utility of the FFMQ has also been studied among clinical

populations. Gu et al. (2016) found that a four-factor structure fit the FFMQ best prior to

treatment with a mindfulness-based intervention, but that when the FFMQ was administered to

the same participants after treatment, a five-factor model was found to fit best, which suggested a

23

lack of consistency in the factors of the FFMQ. Goldberg et al. (2016) found that there were no

significant differences in scores on the FFMQ between a group which received a mindfulness-

based intervention and an active control group that did not receive mindfulness training, which

suggested that the FFMQ may measure aspects that are not directly, or at least solely, related to

mindfulness. Research has shown that much of the instability in factors of the FFMQ is likely to

be the result of the FFMQ mixing aspects of mindfulness that are cultivated and change over

time with those that are dispositional or stable over time (Duan & Li, 2016).

Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS). The TMS was designed to measure two primary

factors – curiosity and decentering – and was based on a definition of mindfulness as a “non-

elaborative, non-judgmental, present centered awareness in which each thought, feeling or

sensation that arises in the attentional field is acknowledged and accepted as it is,” (Lau et al.,

2006, p. 1447). The TMS measures mindfulness as a state that is likely to change over time as

the individual has more practice in mindfulness, rather than as a stable trait like other

assessments of mindfulness. Indeed, Lau et al. (2006) found that TMS scores increased as the

practitioners become more experienced, which indicated that the TMS was sensitive to practice

effects. In order to supplement the state version of the TMS, a trait version was developed by

Davis, Lau, and Cairns (2009) which also measures curiosity and decentering. Davis, Lau, and

Cairns (2009) found that the curiosity factor of the TMS appeared to assess unique elements of

mindfulness that were not measured in other assessments. Medvedev, Krageloh, Narayanan, and

Siegert (2017) used Generalizability Theory to examine the amount of variance in scores on the

TMS is the result of state or trait mindfulness and concluded that the TMS accurately assesses

state mindfulness.

24

Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS). The PHLMS is a measure that was

designed to assess two aspects of mindfulness – present-moment awareness and acceptance

(Cardaciotto, Herbert, Forman, Moitra, & Farrow, 2008). Cardaciotto et al. (2008) found that the

two factors of the PHLMS were not correlated with one another, indicating that these are indeed

distinct constructs measured on this scale, and that the PHLMS was capable of differentiating

between clinical and nonclinical samples based on scores. Andrei, Vesely, and Siegling (2016)

found that the PHLMS was strongly associated with the FFMQ and TMS, which indicated that

these measures are likely to measure a similar overall construct. Additionally, Klein et al. (2015)

found that the PHLMS Acceptance scale was sensitive to changes associated with positive

mental health outcomes.

Implications for the Assessment of Mindfulness

These eight current measures of mindfulness each define and assess mindfulness

uniquely, albeit with some overlap in conceptualizations and content areas (Bergomi, Tschacher,

& Kupper, 2013). For example, the CMS-R, FMI, KIMS, FFMQ, and PHLMS all include items

which measure the individual’s ability to observe and attend to experiences, while only one

measure, the FMI, includes items which measure an individual’s insightful understanding of

experiences. As a result of these differences, each of the eight measures discussed presents an

incomplete picture of mindfulness. In a review of available research on these eight assessments,

Bergomi, Tschacher, and Kupper (2013) found that while each demonstrated strengths, there

were also a number of broad deficits. Namely, the authors found inconsistent support for

construct validity on these measures, significant deviations in how mindfulness is defined, and

the inclusion of items on some measures that are seemingly unrelated to mindfulness as it is

defined by the authors of that measure. Notably, the authors also found substantial evidence that

25

an individual’s scores are often moderated by their comprehension of the items as they are

worded. Similarly, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of mindfulness training by

Quaglia et al. (2016) found that an individual’s comprehension of test items significantly

influenced their overall scores on measures of mindfulness. These results suggest that the

terminology used to define aspects of mindfulness is not easily understood by practitioners of

mindfulness.

Grossman (2011) identified a number of significant weaknesses in the currently available

assessments of mindfulness, including a lack of content validity, lack of convergent validity

among the different measures, response biases based on the rater’s level of experience with

mindfulness, and differences in how raters interpreted test items. Furthermore, each of the eight

assessments is formulated based on a unique conceptualization of mindfulness and measures

different aspects of mindfulness to varying degrees (Smith, 2017, In press). The substantial

shortcomings of the most widely-used measures of mindfulness suggest that an alternative

method of assessing mindfulness is warranted. In particular, this research demonstrates that such

an alternative method of assessing mindfulness should be constructed in a way that is more

comprehensive and comprehensible by those completing it. The R/M Tracker is such an

assessment tool, as it was designed to use the natural language of relaxation and mindfulness to

describe the practitioner’s experiences (Smith, 2017).

The R/M Tracker Approach

The R/M Tracker is a 25-item self-report questionnaire designed to tap the five

dimensions of Smith’s model of mindfulness and relaxation. Whereas other tests of mindfulness

might be characterized as “narrow-band” in that they essentially tap awareness and acceptance as

26

understood in a Buddhist tradition, the R/M Tracker is “broad-band” tapping a full spectrum of

states associated with a full range of practices related to mindfulness.

The development of the R/M Tracker began with the formulation of an initial dictionary

of approximately 200 words which describe the process of relaxation and mindfulness (Smith,

2017). These words were gleaned from reviews of instructional materials for a wide variety of

relaxation and mindfulness exercises, including but not limited to, meditation, yoga, progressive

muscle relaxation, breathing, and imagery exercises, and came from a variety of classic and

traditional and secular and spiritual sources.

This list of terms was then subjected to factor analyses to determine how these terms

clustered together and identify core features of relaxation and mindfulness as identified in the

natural language of practitioners of these exercises (Smith, 2017). Through this process, the list

of 200 terms was condensed into 25 relaxation and mindfulness states, or R/M States, discussed

previously and summarized in table 1.

Hypotheses

The present study was conducted in two parts, and examines the relationship between the

amount and frequency of practice with mindfulness or yoga and experiences reported during a

practice session. First, a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) was conducted to identify the

factors which underlie the R/M Tracker. Second, multiple regression was then utilized to

examine the relationship between variables on the R/M Practice scales and experiences during a

mindful activity reported on the R/M Tracker. I hypothesize the following:

1. Smith (2017) suggests that the factor structure of relaxation and mindfulness states

and traits may be dependent on population and sample characteristics. The factor

structure of mindfulness experiences may well be different for advanced Buddhist

27

monks, beginning meditators, Christian evangelicals at a prayer meeting, and college

freshmen unfamiliar with mindfulness. Thus, he recommends that each study on

mindfulness first identify the factor structure characteristic of the samples studied.

Further research on this specific sample then should apply the factors identified for

that sample. As preparation for this study, a PCA was conducted to identify the factor

structure of the R/M Tracker. Factors with eigenvalues of at least 1.0 were identified

as scales, defined by items loading at least .45 on a factor. This produced “R/M

Tracker Factor Scales” to be used in this study.

2. In accordance with Smith’s speculation that Basic Relaxation and Basic Mindfulness

are universal experiences reported by both beginners and advanced practitioners

across traditions, I hypothesized that total number of months practiced, age, gender,

present session duration, length of average session, recalled regularity of practice in

past month, recalled recent regularity of individual practice (past week), recalled

recent regularity of group practice (past week), and times practiced per day will not

significantly predict scores on R/M Tracker factor scales which roughly correspond to

the Basic Relaxation and Basic Mindfulness levels of the R/M Tracker.

3. In accordance with Smith’s speculation that advanced R/M States Mindful

Deepening, Mindful Awakening, and Mindful Transcendence are related to practice,

total number of months practiced, age, gender, present session duration, length of

average session, recalled regularity of practice in past month, recalled recent

regularity of individual practice (past week), recalled recent regularity of group

practice (past week), and times practiced per day will significantly predict scores on

28

R/M Tracker factor scales which roughly correspond to the Mindful Awakening,

Mindful Deepening, and Mindful Transcendence levels of the R/M Tracker.

Chapter III: Methodology

Measures

R/M Tracker. As noted earlier, the R/M Tracker is a 25-item self-report questionnaire

where each individual item on the questionnaire corresponds to one of Smith’s (2017) 25 R/M

States. Raters are asked to identify the extent to which they experienced each of these 25 R/M

States during a relaxation or mindfulness exercise on a 4-point scale – “Felt this slightly,” “Felt

this moderately,” “Felt this very much,” and “Felt this extremely (the most ever).” Raters are

asked to skip items which they do not understand or did not experience during practice.

Reliability data for the R/M Tracker is currently being obtained and is not available at

this time. Borgogna and Smith (June, 2016) conducted a factor analysis of an early version of the

R/M Tracker, called the M-Tracker 5. The authors found that items on this measure fell within

three general factors: Mindful Relaxation, Transcendence, and Positive Emotions. Additional

research by Borgogna and Smith (May, 2016) suggested that individuals who engaged in a

mindful activity, either yoga or meditation in the study, reported greater levels of Mindful

Relaxation than individuals in a control group who did not engage in a mindful activity. Those

who engaged in yoga also scored higher than the control group and the meditation group on

Transcendence, while neither the yoga nor the meditation group scored higher on Positive

Emotions. These results indicated that there were some differences in reported experiences for

participants based on the type of activity in which they engaged.

29

R/M Practice Scale. The R/M Practice Scale includes questions concerning the nature

and frequency of mindful practice for each participant. Questions include the length of the

present practice session, average length of practice sessions, recalled frequency of group and

individual practice over the past week, recalled frequency of practice during the past month, and

the number of months and years of practice. The R/M Practice Scale also includes basic

demographic information such as age and gender. Additionally, participants are asked to describe

the type of activity that they completed by choosing one of five options: “Mostly stretching and

postures, almost not meditation/mindfulness,” More stretching and postures than

meditation/mindfulness,” “An equal amount of stretching/postures and meditation/mindfulness,”

“More meditation/mindfulness than stretching/postures,” and “Mostly meditation/mindfulness,

almost no stretching/postures.”

R/M Tracker Archival Data Pool

The present study used 210 data cases from the R/M Tracker Archival Data Pool (R/MT

ADP). The R/MT ADP is an extensive and evolving library of questionnaires completed by

practitioners of relaxation, meditation, and mindfulness. The core of this library consists of R/M

Trackers in which practitioners describe a completed session. R/M Indicators Scales and R/M

Frequency Scales are also included. Each year the library is refreshed with updated data based on

new versions of the R/M Tracker. This study drew upon R/MT ADP data utilizing the latest

version of the R/M Tracker.

Development of the R/MT ADP follows this procedure: Researchers contact agencies in

Chicago and the surrounding suburbs that teach or practice mindfulness and various

combinations of mindfulness and yoga stretching. Mindfulness is defined broadly as any

meditative or yoga exercise involving focus and acceptance (Smith, 2017). Additionally, these

30

mindfulness exercises may adhere to any number of religious traditions including, but not limited

to, any Buddhist traditions, or may be secular in nature and not focused on any religious aspect.

This study was not interested in differences between techniques, but overall global effects as

related to practice. Participants in the present study were drawn from sites which promote

meditation, mindfulness, and yoga from a wide variety of spiritual, secular, and philosophical

backgrounds. Sites included non-profit organizations, educational centers, spiritual or religious

institutions and organizations, and for-profit groups and private companies. At the time of this

study, the ADP had accumulated 210 participants, all of whom were selected. For agencies that

agree to participate, a researcher attends a practice session and distributes a questionnaire packet

that includes the R/M Tracker, the R/M Indicators Scale, the R/M Frequency Scale, and the R/M

Practice Scale. Participants rate their experiences for their just completed exercise on the R/M

Tracker. All APA ethical guidelines have been followed and approval from the Roosevelt

University Institutional Review Board has been granted.

Participants

Participants (M age = 41.22 years, sd = 12.06) were at least 18 years old. 82 participants

(39%) were male and 128 were female (61%). 73 (34.8%) of the participants described their

activity at the time of completing the R/M Tracker as “Mostly stretching/postures,” four

participants (1.9%) described their activity as “More stretching/postures than

meditation/mindfulness,” 20 participants (9.5%) described their activity as an “Equal amount of

stretching/postures and meditation/mindfulness,” 39 participants (18.6%) described their activity

as “More meditation/mindfulness than stretching/postures,” and 74 (35.2%) described their

activity as “Mostly meditation/mindfulness.” Participants reported practicing an average of 48.42

months (sd = 101.05; median = 12). The average reported length of the participant’s present

31

session was 46.05 minutes (sd = 7.79), average length of sessions overall was 37.39 minutes (sd

= 11.76), average frequency of individual practice a week was 2.59 (sd = 1.96) sessions, group

sessions per week 1.61 (sd = 1.03), and number of times practiced a day was 1.27 (sd = .63). In

sum this was a relatively experienced set of practitioners who have practiced over four years and

currently practice about one or two times a week, with each session lasting a little more than a

half an hour.

Hypotheses

The present study tested two hypotheses. First, amount and frequency of practice that an

individual has with a mindfulness-related practice does not predict scores on R/M Tracker factor

scales which roughly correspond with the Basic Relaxation and Basic Mindfulness levels of the

R/M Tracker. Again, this is in line with Smith’s (2017) hypothesis that Basic Relaxation and

Basic Mindfulness are rudimentary states quickly attained in practice. Second, the amount and

frequency of practice that an individual has with a mindfulness-related practice significantly

predicts scores on R/M Tracker factor scales which roughly correspond with the Mindful

Awakening, Mindful Deepening, and Mindful Transcendence levels of the R/M Tracker. This is

consistent with Smith’s (2017) thinking that Mindful Awakening, Deeping, and Transcendence

are more advanced states, and as such are states which one might expect to emerge later in

practice.

Principal components analysis

First, a principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted with the R/M Tracker to

identify factors which underlie the 25 items of this measure. PCA is a statistical method in which

the variance of a set of items in analyzed in order to identify a smaller number of components

32

that describe the greatest amount of variance within the original set of items (Mertler & Reinhart,

2017). This is a commonly used statistical method in test and measurement development to

reduce a large number of items to a smaller number of representative aggregate variables and to

explore the underlying factor structure of a set of test items.

I deployed PCA as an item sorting strategy to prevent an inflated experimentwise alpha

level. PCA allowed fewer statistical tests to be run on the R/M Tracker and therefore minimized

the inflation of the experimentwise alpha level, while still analyzing the multiple ways in which

practice variables impacted scores on this measure. Given that the R/M Tracker is formulated to

capture five different a-priori aspects, or levels, of relaxation and mindfulness as well as positive

emotions associated with relaxation and mindfulness, it was hypothesized that a PCA would

identify six or fewer factors within the R/M Tracker. Each of these factors that were identified

then served as a dependent variable for further statistical analysis, rather than retaining each of

the 25 items on the R/M Tracker as dependent variables. Thus, by conducting a PCA it was

anticipated that six or fewer statistical tests would be need to be conducted, rather than 25

statistical tests, in order to identify if and how amount and frequency of practice with

mindfulness influenced a practitioner’s experiences during mindful exercises.

Multiple Regression

Second, I conducted a multiple regression to determine the relationship between each of

the dependent variables identified by means of the PCA and the independent variables of total

number of months practiced, age, gender, present session duration, length of average session,

recalled regularity of practice in past month, recalled recent regularity of individual practice,

recalled recent regularity of group practice, and times practiced per day. Multiple regression is a

statistical method which entails the prediction of a single dependent variable based on more than

33

one independent variable (Mertler & Reinhart, 2017). The coefficient of determination for the

multiple regression equation represents the proportion of variance in that dependent variable that

can be explained by the independent variables included in the equation. An F-test was conducted

to determine if the coefficient of determination was statistically significant and, therefore, if

there was a significant relationship between the independent variables and R/M Tracker factor

scales.

Each of the factors identified in the PCA were utilized as a dependent variable in a

separate multiple regression equation. Total number of months practiced, age, gender, present

session duration, length of average session, recalled regularity of practice in past month, recalled

recent regularity of individual practice, recalled recent regularity of group practice, and times

practiced per day were the independent variables. A separate multiple regression equation was

calculated for each R/M Tracker factor scale that predicted that factor score based on the

independent variables.

Chapter IV: Results

Factor Analysis

A principal components analysis with varimax rotation was conducted on 210 cases and

yielded a total of six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 (see table 2). R/M Tracker items

loading at least .45 were retained. Various threshold loadings were examined and .45 yielded the

most interpretable solution.

34

Table 2

Principal Components Analysis Total Variance Explained

Component

Initial Eigenvalues

Eigenvalue % of Variance Cumulative % Cronbach’s α

1 – Mindful Transcendence

7.563 30.253 30.253 .892

2 – Mindful Focus

2.496 9.984 40.238 .749

3 – Mindful Positive Emotion

1.595 6.381 46.619 .814

4 – Mindful Basic Relaxation

1.523 6.090 52.709 .694

5 – Pleasant Fantasy

1.154 4.615 57.324 .595

6 – Unbothered Observer 1.042 4.167 61.491 .449

Factor 1: Mindful Transcendence. Factor 1 accounted for 30.253% of the variance in

the items (see table 2). Analysis of item loadings on Factor 1 (see table 4) indicated that this

factor is defined primarily by R/M item 18 – Sense of Something Greater (.795) and R/M item

13 – Clear, Awake, Aware (.737), as well as by R/M item 16 – Going Deeper (.682), R/M item

15 – Beautiful (.665), R/M item 22 – Spiritual, Mystical (.642), R/M item 21 – Awe/Wonder,

Deep Mystery (.618), R/M item 20 – Reverent, Prayerful (.607), R/M item 19 – Meaning,

Purpose, Direction (.593), and R/M item 17 – Spaciousness, Expansiveness, Elevation (.476).

This content suggests a factor label of Mindful Transcendence and described a tendency for

participants to report the experience sensing something greater while feeling clear, awake, and

aware of the world. This appears to be a broadly defined transcendent state.

35

Table 3

Summary of descriptive statistics for R/M Practice and R/M Tracker items

Variable Mean Standard Deviation

Age 41.22 12.057

Total Number of Months Practiced 48.42 101.050

Present Session Duration 46.05 7.786

Average Session Length (in minutes) 37.39 11.756

Recalled Regularity of Practice in Past Month 3.69 1.893

Recalled Recent Regularity of Individual Practice 2.59 1.975

Recalled Recent Regularity of Group Practice 1.61 1.035

Times Practicing per Day

1.27 .632

RM 1 – Far Away 2.64 .960

RM 2 – Physically Relaxed 2.54 .849

RM 3 – At Ease, At Peace 2.45 .927

RM 4 - Refreshed 2.56 .992

RM 5 – Pleasant Mind Wandering 2.36 1.027

RM 6 – Fantasy, Daydreaming

2.32 .993

RM 7 – Focus, Absorption 2.49 1.013

RM 8 – Centered, Grounded 2.39 .933

RM 9 - Quiet 2.45 .993

RM 10 – Unbothered 2.52 .944

RM 11 – Easy, Effortless

2.34 1.001

RM 12- Observer 1.93 .907

RM 13 – Clear, Awake, Aware 2.07 1.038

RM 14 – Interested, Curious, Fascinated 2.04 .975

RM 15 – Beautiful

2.03 1.091

RM 16 – Going Deeper 1.65 1.001

RM 17 – Spaciousness, Expansiveness, Elevation 1.62 .972

RM 18 – Sense of Something Greater 1.57 1.030

RM 19 – Meaning, Purpose, Direction

1.42 1.074

RM 20 – Reverent, Prayerful 1.31 1.070

RM 21 – Awe/Wonder, Deep Mystery 1.24 .975

RM 22 – Spiritual, Mystical

1.12 1.021

RM 23 – Happy, Optimistic, Trusting 2.10 1.017

RM 24 – Loving, Caring 1.97 .990

RM 25 – Thankful 1.95 1.150

36

Table 4

Rotated Component Matrix for Principle Components Analysis Item Loadings

Item

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

RM 1 – Far Away .316 .479* -.134 .363 .097 .206

RM 2 – Physically Relaxed .080 .159 .062 .643* .203 .086

RM 3 – At Ease, At Peace .216 .618* -.005 .275 .137 -.331

RM 4 - Refreshed .118 .540* .131 .418 -.020 .195

RM 5 – Pleasant Mind Wandering .089 .352 -.020 .165 .741* -.100

RM 6 – Fantasy, Daydreaming

-.016 -.051 .078 .250 .784* .221

RM 7 – Focus, Absorption -.113 .764* .130 .180 -.058 .175

RM 8 – Centered, Grounded .137 .340 -.036 .687* .015 -.234

RM 9 - Quiet .180 .078 .247 .609* .201 .097

RM 10 – Unbothered .224 .356 .416 .001 .021 .465*

RM 11 – Easy, Effortless

.156 .640* .215 -.049 .102 .133

RM 12- Observer .314 .223 -.170 .099 .129 .711*

RM 13 – Clear, Awake, Aware .737* -.036 -.014 .148 .233 .160

RM 14 – Interested, Curious, Fascinated .396 .415 .060 .147 .164 .025

RM 15 – Beautiful

.665* .096 .110 .211 .052 .309

RM 16 – Going Deeper .682* .135 .213 .054 -.007 .151

RM 17 – Spaciousness, Expansiveness,

Elevation

.476* .217 .272 .181 -.351 .188

RM 18 – Sense of Something Greater .795* .171 .009 .091 .039 -.127

RM 19 – Meaning, Purpose, Direction

.593* .392 .369 -.143 067 -.212

RM 20 – Reverent, Prayerful .607* -.072 .494* .253 -.094 .040

RM 21 – Awe/Wonder, Deep Mystery .618* .154 .367 .153 -.223 .066

RM 22 – Spiritual, Mystical

.642* .032 .515* .097 -.081 .137

RM 23 – Happy, Optimistic, Trusting .167 -.034 .482* .580* .020 .127

RM 24 – Loving, Caring .174 .115 .653* .373 .017 -.110

RM 25 - Thankful .198 .212 .774* .018 .063 -.054

Notes: Varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization; * denotes loading greater than .450

37

Factor 2: Mindful Focus. Factor 2 accounted for 9.984% of the variance in the items

(see table 2). Analysis of item loadings on Factor 2 (see table 4) indicated that this factor is

defined primarily by R/M item 7 – Focus, Absorption (.764), R/M item 11 – Easy, Effortless

(.640), and R/M item 3 – At Ease, At Peace (.618) as well as by R/M item 4 – Refreshed (.540)

and R/M item 1 – Far Away (.479). This content suggests a factor label of Mindful Focus and

described a tendency for participants to experience periods of effortless, sustained focus, and a

sense of being at ease and at peace.

Factor 3: Mindful Positive Emotion. Factor 3 accounted for 6.381% of the variance in


factor is defined by R/M item 25 – Thankful (.774) and R/M item 24 – Loving, Caring (.653) as

well as R/M item 22 – Spiritual, Mystical (.515), R/M item 20 – Reverent, Prayerful (.494), and

R/M item 23 – Happy, Optimistic, Trusting (.482). This content suggests a factor label of

Mindful Positive Emotion and described a tendency for participants to experience feelings of

gratitude, love, and care for others.

Factor 4: Basic Mindful Relaxation. Factor 4 accounted for 6.09% of the variance in


factor is defined by R/M item 8 – Centered, Grounded (.687), R/M item 2 – Physically Relaxed

(.643), R/M item 9 – Quiet (.609), and R/M item 23 – Happy, Optimistic, Trusting (.5

Date post:	26-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Roosevelt University · 2018. 3. 19. · In recent years psychology has devoted considerable...

Documents