Conceptual and methodological issues in research on mindfulness and meditation.

Abstract

Both basic science and clinical research on mindfulness, meditation, and related constructs has dramatically increased in recent years. However, interpretation of these research results has been challenging. The present article addresses unique conceptual and methodological problems posed by research in this area. Included among the key topics is the role of first person experience and how it can be best studied; the challenges posed by intervention research designs in which true double-blinding is not possible; the nature of control and comparison conditions for research that includes mindfulness or other meditation-based interventions; issues in the adequate description of mindfulness and related trainings and interventions; the question of how mindfulness can be measured; questions regarding what can and cannot be inferred from self-report measures; and considerations regarding the structure of study design and data analyses. Most of these topics are germane to both basic and clinical research studies and have important bearing on the future scientific understanding of mindfulness and meditation.

Does mindfulness meditation increase empathy? An experiment

“…We used stringent control conditions, which were similar to the mindfulness condition in their surface features (e.g., length and instructor), and we included an active treatment-based control condition that could have beneficial effects as well. Such a stringent approach has rarely been employed by previous research on mindfulness and empathy, and is crucial for investigating mindfulness-based interventions (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015). Additionally, we used several objective behavioral, non-self-report measures of both cognitive and affective aspects of empathy, and we examined the effects of a mindfulness exercise for subgroups who are at-risk for impaired empathy.…”

Dispositional Mindfulness in Daily Life: A Naturalistic Observation Study

“…Many have argued that self-reported trait measures of mindfulness have limited construct and ecological validity, because, as a construct that taps into experiential characteristics of the conscious mind, mindfulness is bound to partially escape reflective first-person assessment (19). It is therefore possible that there are additional behavioral manifestations of mindfulness in daily life that we were unable to identify simply because the FFMQ, as one specific measure of mindfulness, does not correlate with them.…”

Mind the Gap: The History and Philosophy of Health Psychology and Mindfulness

“…In contrast, as an 'importa on' of an order beyond Western disciplines, and as a burgeoning construct requiring valida on through novel research instrumenta on, the spread of queries into the soundness of mindfulness has elicited a diff erent response from its researchers. Concerns have been expressed from a variety of angles: from a religious perspec ve, the secular 'dilu on' of Buddhist forms of medita on as mindfulness has been framed by some to be misappropria on (Wilks, 2014;Gooch, 2014); moralis c stances have that theore cal instability or philosophical 'fence si ng' has led to inappropriate commodifi ca on within social systems and markets, as well as ethically dubious applica on in contexts like military training (Barker, 2014;Davies, 2014;Davis, 2015); and scholarly or scien fi c concern has o en focused on issues of theore cal and methodological superfi ciality (Tang, Hölzel, & Posner, 2015;Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015). Some mindfulness discourse communi es have ac vely sought to address these cri cisms through engaged conversa ons about the intended future of their subfi eld, as well as explicit eff orts towards philosophical clarifi ca on and analy c development (Dimidjian & Segal, 2015;Harrington & Dunne, 2015;Tang & Posner, 2013;Lutz et al, 2015).…”