Why Mindfulness Means Different Things to Scientists

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

Across social media, television and wellness apps, mindfulness is commonly presented as a straightforward practice: remaining calm while focusing on the present moment.

Major firms such as Google run mindfulness programmes intended to help staff concentrate and reduce stress. Hospitals use it to support pain management and better mental health. Meanwhile, millions of people use mindfulness apps that claim benefits ranging from reduced stress to improved sleep.

Yet, as a professor of religious studies who has spent years investigating how mindfulness has been understood and practised in varied traditions and historical eras, I have identified a striking issue beneath this wave of enthusiasm: scientists, clinicians and educators still have no shared agreement about what mindfulness is, or how it should be measured.

As researchers use the label “mindfulness” to assess different things, two studies may offer sharply contrasting accounts of what the practice achieves. This is significant for anyone selecting a meditation app or programme on the basis of research findings.

The research being used may assess a quality such as attention, emotional composure or self-kindness, rather than the ability a person wants to build. That makes findings more difficult to compare and may leave people uncertain about which method will truly support them in everyday life.

From ancient traditions to modern science

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

In Hindu thought, “dhyāna”, meaning contemplation, develops sustained attention on breathing or a mantra. Jain “samayika”, the practice of equanimity, fosters a calm and balanced attitude towards all beings. Sikh “simran”, or unbroken remembrance, moves self-centred thinking into a deeper awareness of the underlying reality present in every moment.

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

It is now a frequently used tool across scientific and professional disciplines, although its definition often differs between them.

Why scientists disagree about mindfulness

The problem of definition is central when considering mindfulness’s modern use in areas such as psychology. Researchers prioritise different features, then create measures based on those particular understandings.

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

Others understand it primarily as emotional regulation, or the ability to remain calm in stressful circumstances.

A further group of mindfulness studies centres on self-compassion, meaning treating yourself kindly after making mistakes.

Others still emphasise moral awareness: the view that mindfulness should enable people to make more considered and ethical decisions.

These distinctions are clear in the questionnaires and scales used 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 – assesses whether someone can recognise 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: ethical awareness and the capacity to make wise, moral choices.

Consequently, comparative research can be difficult, while people seeking to become more mindful may also find it confusing to choose a suitable approach. Because programmes can be based on different definitions of mindfulness, both the skills taught and the benefits promised may differ substantially.

Unless they understand how a particular course or app defines and measures mindfulness, a person may therefore learn something quite unlike what they anticipated.

Why mindfulness scales measure different things

John Dunne, a scholar of Buddhist philosophy at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, provides a useful explanation for why mindfulness is discussed in so many different ways. Dunne argues that mindfulness is not a single, uniform practice, but a “family” of connected practices influenced by distinct traditions, aims and cultural contexts.

This helps explain why scientists and those attempting to practise mindfulness can appear to be speaking at cross-purposes. When one study measures attention while another measures compassion, their results will not correspond. For people practising mindfulness, it also matters whether their chosen method is directed at calming the mind, treating themselves kindly or making ethically aware decisions.

Why mindfulness definitions matter

Since mindfulness is not one single thing, its varied meanings shape how it is researched, taught and practised. This matters at both individual and institutional levels.

In settings such as schools and healthcare, for instance, a mindfulness programme intended to reduce stress will look very different from one designed to teach compassion or ethical awareness.

Without greater clarity, teachers, doctors and counsellors may be unsure which approach best meets their objectives. A broadly similar issue arises in business, where organisational effectiveness and stress management are concerned.

Despite these disagreements, research indicates that differing forms of mindfulness can bring different benefits. Practices that strengthen attention to the present are linked with better concentration and workplace performance.

Acceptance-oriented approaches commonly help people manage stress, anxiety and chronic pain more effectively. Compassion-based methods can strengthen emotional resilience. Programmes focused on ethical awareness may encourage more thoughtful, prosocial behaviour.

These differing effects help explain why researchers continue to dispute which definition of “mindfulness” should direct scientific research.

For individuals who practise mindfulness, this is a prompt to select methods that match 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 license. Read the original article.