Meditation and Psychological Health

Published on November 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 22 | Comments: 0 | Views: 177
of 13
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Aborda a atenção plena na área da saúde.

Comments

Content

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374
DOI 10.1007/s12671-012-0136-z

ORIGINAL PAPER

Meditation and Psychological Health: Modeling Theoretically
Derived Predictors, Processes, and Outcomes
Michael James Ireland

Published online: 3 August 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Abstract Despite evidence attesting to positive psychological effects of meditation, little is known about how variance
in the level of engagement with meditation actually relates
to positive outcomes. This study draws on multiple traditional and contemporary theoretical frameworks to (1) uncover fundamental aspects of variability in meditation
practice, (2) test the role of several primary and secondary
processes believed to be responsible for positive effects, and
(3) explore a range of positive and negative outcomes believed to be closely aligned with the original intended outcomes of meditation practices. Using two large (each N>500)
heterogeneous samples of meditation practitioners, this study
calibrated and then cross-validated a theoretical model testing
the plausibility of several causal pathways linking variation in
experience with meditation to positive and negative
psychological outcomes. Results showed that individual
differences in meditation involve both behavioral aspects
accounting for the degree of engagement, and psychological
aspects incorporating the intensity or depth of this engagement. Variation in these aspects accounts for large proportions of variance in psychological health and functioning
outcomes. Several factors representing attention refinement
(mindfulness), changes in self-perception and outlook
(transcendence), worldview (insight), and psychological
development serve as plausible change mechanisms serving
to transmit the effects of meditation on psychological health
and functioning.

M. J. Ireland (*)
School of Psychology, University of Southern Queensland,
Education City, Sinnathamby Boulevard,
Springfield Central, QLD 4300, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

Keywords Meditation . Mindfulness . Insight .
Psychological health . Wellbeing . Positive psychology

Introduction
Over recent decades, meditation has gained impressive momentum and popularity, with practitioner numbers estimated
to be well into the millions in the USA (around 20 million;
Barnes et al. 2008) and Australia (around 2.7 million; Xue et
al. 2007). Mounting popular interest has also coincided with
significant scientific attention and the production of a large
body of research documenting the physiological and psychological correlates of meditation. While extant data supports the
relationship between meditation and improved psychological
health, critical gaps and limitations in the knowledge base, and
how it has developed, continue to prevent definitive conclusions (for a systematic review see Ireland 2012a).
In large part, meditation research has lacked firm theoretical grounding and this has resulted in (1) restricted
conceptualization and operationalization of meditation practice, (2) unsystematic and mostly exploratory specification
of outcome variables, and (3) limited specification and
investigation of process variables. To address these issues,
theoretically grounded approaches to research are required.
One potentially fruitful approach involves testing hypotheses drawn from both traditional (early Buddhist and Hindu
teachings) and existing contemporary conceptualizations
(humanistic, transpersonal, clinical, and positive psychologies). These conceptualizations can serve as an important
starting point toward uncovering the core dimensions of
meditation practice, the nature of outcome variables intended
to be amenable to meditation, and causal pathways through
which positive change occurs.

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

Conceptualizing Variables in the Model
Parameters of Meditation
The dominant scientific conceptualization of meditation is
reflected in the methodologies employed to investigate it.
Short-term (i.e., 8 to 12 weeks) pre- and post-interventionstyle designs dominate the research landscape (Ireland 2012a).
Within these designs, meditation is typically manipulated
while variability across characteristics of the practice is not
assessed. This belies a conceptualization of meditation as
straightforward, uniformly applied, and somewhat fast acting.
However, there is little theoretical basis for this conceptualization and, in fact, it is at odds with authoritative traditional
conceptions and anecdotal accounts. While most studies
reflecting this conceptualization have yielded positive results,
these methodologies preclude a more in-depth understanding of
meditation practice. Conversely, meditation is traditionally considered a complex and skilled set of psychophysical practices
(Walsh 2000) that require progressive cultivation through vigilant long-term training (Brown and Engler 1980; Buddhadasa
Bhikkhu 1976). Skill development in the techniques and the
consequential benefits are achieved “through great effort” (The
Upanishads: A New Translation 1986, p. 84). Anecdotally, the
meditative path can be perceived as “a long spiritual struggle”
(Austin 1998, p. 202) and practitioners often report experiencing the techniques as “hard work” (Smith 2006).
These issues highlight an important role for cross-sectional
field studies which capture the nature and strength of relationships under real-world settings. Based on the work of Walsh
(2000) and others, meditation might be better conceptualized
as a family of sophisticated and skilled self-regulatory behaviors with individual differences occurring across both objective behavioral (i.e., analogous to dose or amount of exposure)
and subjective psychological aspects (i.e., analogous to skill
or success at executing the practice). Behavioral aspects vary
along traditional length, duration, and frequency-type
dimensions (Martin and Bateson 1993; O'Brien et al.
2003), while the psychological aspects are more abstract
and reflect perceived depth and proficiency of practice.
These dimensions can be combined to construct a multidimensional profile capturing primary aspects of variability in
meditation.
Outcomes of Meditation
To date, an impressive array of outcome constructs has been
studied in meditation research (Shapiro 2008); however,
little research has systematically tested whether meditation
actually relates to the specific outcome constructs it was
originally designed to produce. Within traditional Buddhist
and Hindu teachings, meditation is principally considered a
strategy for overcoming psychological distress (i.e., suffering;

363

Gowans 2003). However, Buddhist teachings also place great
emphasis on the cultivation of positive traits like empathy,
compassion (Shankman 2008), and equanimity (emotional
stability and resilience; Marcus 2003; Nyanaponika 1983) as
well as positive emotions like happiness and wellbeing (Dalai
Lama Tenzin Gyatso and Cutler 1998). These factors mirror
the “Four Immeasurables” believed to be landmark practices
and outcomes of Buddhist meditation (Potter 1999) and also
overlap with the explicit intended effects of meditation
within ancient Yogic traditions (Feuerstein 2002; Patanjali
and Feuerstein 1989).
Contemporary theoretical work has borrowed heavily
from these traditional accounts while tending to focus on
specific domains. For example, ameliorating psychological
distress is emphasized in clinical psychological formulations
in which meditation is conceived as a strategy for reducing
symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress (Lehrer et al.
2007). Conversely, positive outcomes have been emphasized
in positive psychological theories in which meditation is considered a means to cultivate both positive experiences such as
wellbeing and life satisfaction, and character strengths such as
resilience and compassion (Fredrickson 2000; Fredrickson et
al. 2008). Finally, approaches to meditation within humanistic
and transpersonal theories regard it as a powerful psychological growth catalyst leading to greater self-actualization and
psychological maturity (Russell 1976; Wilber 2000; Wilber et
al. 1986).
Based on these formulations, a variety of constructs reflecting psychological suffering (depression, anxiety, and stress),
positive emotional states (happiness and wellbeing), character
traits (compassion, emotional stability, and openness to experience), and psychological growth (self-actualization) are purported to improve as a function of increased meditation
experience.
Mechanisms of Meditation
A further consequence of the limited use of theoretical
frameworks to guide meditation research is the paucity of
explorations into mechanisms underlying proposed and observed effects. Identifying underlying processes by which
meditation bolsters psychological functioning and ameliorates distress is vital in progressing our understanding of
meditation. Existing theoretical perspectives provide several
guiding propositions on the psychological processes responsible for transmitting beneficial effects. According to
traditional Buddhist and Hindu teachings, the disciplined
practice of meditation progressively cultivates cognitive
faculties such as concentration and attention which become
increasingly refined during practice (Bucknell and Kang
1997; Swami Adiswarananda 2003; van Waning 2002).
Refinements in attention and awareness are believed to elicit
transformative existential insights and wisdom (Austin

364

1998, 2006; Frawley 2000; Nyanaponika 1983). Within
Buddhism, insight is considered an ongoing cumulative
process of cognitive change characterized by an experiential
understanding and discernment into the nature of all things
as being inherently impermanent, without independent selfexistence, and through attachment, the cause of suffering
(Nyanaponika and Bodhi 2000).
Of these processes, clinical psychology has paid the most
attention to mindfulness as either a direct mediator of beneficial outcomes or a mechanism responsible for catalyzing
secondary processes (Shapiro 2008; Shapiro et al. 2006).
While the direct influence of mindfulness on ameliorating
distress is reasonably well established, potential mechanisms of mindfulness itself have not been studied in depth.
Shapiro and colleagues (2006) highlight a process of disidentification (called reperceiving) in which increasing
mindfulness facilitates a shift in perspective such that the
practitioner observes moment-to-moment experience with
increasing detachment. Reperceiving has some overlap with
self-transcendence, which is central to mechanisms proposed by humanistic and transpersonal theorists (Shapiro
et al. 2006; Walsh and Shapiro 2006). According to these
approaches, the result of increased mindfulness and insight
is an expansion of self-boundaries (self-images and roles)
and a sense of deeper connection with things outside the self
(Walsh and Vaughan 1993). Transpersonal theorists also
maintain that the benefits of meditation occur as a result of
psychological growth and development, thus conceptualizing it both as a mechanism and outcome of meditation
(Wilber 2000).
Present Study
According to the premises outlined above, a theoretical
model was developed (depicted in Fig. 2) in which meditation practice is expected to activate multiple processes, and
several complex pathways link variation in practice dimensions with positive outcomes. Firstly, both behavioral and
psychological dimensions of practice are hypothesized to
represent reflective indicators of a single continuous construct capturing participants’ degree of experience with
meditation. Increased experience in meditation is hypothesized to directly predict increased state and trait mindfulness
(attention development both within and outside the meditation session), insight, and self-transcendence. As the development of awareness within meditation practice is proposed
to facilitate insight, increased state mindfulness is also hypothesized to predict increased insight, while increased insight is hypothesized to predict increased transcendence.
Therefore, meditation practice is predicted to have both
direct and indirect effects on insight and transcendence. Increased transcendence and trait mindfulness are hypothesized
to predict greater psychological maturity and development.

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

Trait mindfulness is also expected to directly predict reductions in psychological distress, while increased psychological
maturity is hypothesized to directly predict increased wellbeing and reduced distress. Importantly, as depicted (Fig. 2),
the effects of meditation are modeled as fully mediated,
which represents an important research question of this study;
that is, the model will test whether meditation exerts a direct
impact on wellbeing, distress, and psychological maturity, or
rather, exerts its effect solely through the modeled process
variables.

Method
Participants
Participants were 1,120 meditation practitioners (59.3 %
female) between 17 and 88 years of age with a median age
of 40 (M040.80, SD013.18). Meditators from 59 countries
provided data with most residing in the USA (28.75 %),
Australia (23 %), the UK (6 %), or Canada (5 %). Given
the significant commonalities in aim and purpose among
different techniques, no restriction was placed on the specific form of meditation practiced. Participants reported
practicing an impressive array of techniques with forms
of Buddhist Vipasana or insight meditation (21 %) and
Anapanasati or breath concentration (16 %) being the most
popular (transcendental and other mantra meditation 0
11 %; Yoga 0 14 %; Zen 0 6 %). To take advantage of
the relatively large sample, split sample validation was
performed in which the sample was randomly split into a
model calibration (N 0550) and model cross-validation
sample (N0571) to assess the performance of the model
in distinct random samples.
Procedure
Instruments were loaded onto a secure web-based online
survey managed by the host institution. The survey link
was then distributed widely at meditation centers and practice groups as well as through email networks, meditation
discussion forums, and other websites. Ethical approval was
secured through the host institution.
Measures
All items are scored such that higher scores indicated higher
levels of the construct. For brevity, variables are referred to
by the name of the construct they are designed to measure
(e.g., “trait mindfulness” or “happiness”). Pooled reliability
estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) for the present samples (αc
for calibration and αv for validation) are presented for each
multi-item scale.

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

365

Exogenous Predictors: Meditation Parameters

Process Constructs

Meditation Length Participants recorded the length of
time they had practiced meditation in years and months.
In the event that participants had taken a break from
meditating, they were asked to subtract the length of
any breaks from the total time they had practiced.
Participants length of meditation practice ranged from
2 weeks to 50 years with a median of 5 years (M08.20;
SD09.52 years).

Insight The meditation insight scale (Ireland 2012b) is a
four-item instrument (αc 00.89; αv 00.88) designed to assess
meditative insight according to traditional Buddhist conceptualization. Items assess the extent that participants’ meditation practice has allowed them to experience insight into
the “three universal characteristics” of impermanence, suffering, and non-self (e.g., “The impermanent nature of phenomena and experiences including the ego/personal
identity?”), and are rated on a five-point scale from 0 “Not
at all” to 4 “To a great extent”.

Meditation Duration Participants recorded the average duration of time meditation sessions last for in hours and
minutes. While the duration of meditation sessions can vary
over time, participants were asked to give an estimate of
their average session duration for their routine practice.
Session duration ranged from 5 min to 24 h, with a median
of 30 min (M00.96; SD02.11 h).
Meditation Frequency Participants recorded the frequency
with which they practiced meditation using a modified
version of item 13 on the Brief Multidimensional Measure
of Religiousness/Spirituality (BMMRS; Fetzer Institute/
National Institute on Aging Working Group 1999). Participants indicated how often they meditated on a 10-point
scale ranging from (1) “Once or twice a year” to (10) “All
day/constantly”. This upper endpoint was chosen because a
number of meditation traditions allege that mastery of the
techniques involves the ability to perform them (and thus,
maintain the meditative state) constantly throughout the day
and across all activities (Austin 2006). Reported frequency
of meditation practice covered all 10 points of the scale
with a median of seven representing “A few times a week”
(M06.67; SD01.73).
Meditation Depth The depth of meditation practice was measured using the Meditation Depth Questionnaire (MEDEQ;
Piron 2001), a 30-item measure (αc 00.94; αv 00.94) designed
to capture variation in an essential and universal dimension of
meditation depth incorporating qualitative aspects of practice
including obstacles to practice, relaxation, concentration, and
transpersonal/non-dual qualities. The 30 items refer to specific
experiences during meditation (e.g., “Thoughts had come
completely to rest”) rated on a five-point scale from 0 “Not
at all” to 4 “Very much”.
Meditation Proficiency Subjective proficiency of practice
was assessed with a single direct item (“How proficient
are you in practicing meditation?”) to which participants
responded on a seven-point scale from 1 “Not at all” to
7 “Very”. Reported proficiency of practice covered all
seven points of the scale with a median of four (M04.63;
SD01.35).

Trait Mindfulness The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale
(MAAS; Brown and Ryan 2003) is a 15-item instrument (αc 0
0.90; αv 00.90) assessing dispositional mindfulness (defined
as a trait receptive awareness of and attention to what is taking
place in the present). Items refer to specific behaviors which
reflect a tendency to be mindful (e.g., “I rush through activities
without being really attentive to them”) rated on a six-point
scale from 1 “almost always” to 6 “almost never”.
State Mindfulness The decentering subscale of the Toronto
Mindfulness Scale (TMS; Lau et al. 2006) is a seven-item
measure (αc 00.82; αv 00.81) assessing a shift from identifying personally with thoughts and feelings to relating to
one’s experience within a wider field of awareness (e.g., “I
was aware of my thoughts and feelings without overidentifying with them”). Items are rated on a four-point scale from
0 “not at all” to 4 “very much”.
Self-Transcendence The “transcendence” subscale of the
Adult Self-Transcendence Inventory (ASTI; Levenson et
al. 2005) is a 10-item instrument (αc 00.86; αv 00.85) developed to capture variation in the dynamic unfolding process of changing self-development towards seeing oneself
as part of a greater whole. Items are statements about how
the participant views themselves compared to 5 years previous (e.g., “I feel that my individual life is a part of a
greater whole”) rated on four-point agreement scale from 1
“Disagree strongly” to 4 “Agree strongly”.
Spiritual Transcendence The “universality” and “prayer
fulfillment” subscales from the ASPIRES Spiritual Transcendence Scale-Revised (STS-R; Piedmont 1999) constitute six
items (prayer fulfillment αc 00.82; αv 00.81; universality αc 0
0.54; αv 00.56) that measure participants’ capacity to stand
outside their immediate sense of time and place to view life
from a larger, more objective perspective. Items are statements
about the individual’s perspective (e.g., “Although individual
people may be difficult, I feel an emotional bond with all of
humanity”) rated on a five-point agreement scale from 1
“strongly agree” to 5 “strongly disagree”.

366

Psychological Health Indicators
Happiness The Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS; Lyubomirsky and Lepper 1999) is a four-item measure (αc 00.84;
αv 00.87) of global subjective happiness. Items are rated on
a seven-point scale with different response options for each;
for example, item 1 (e.g., “In general, I consider myself”) is
rated from 1 “not a very happy person” to 7 “a very happy
person”.
Because of the potential to capture a greater range
of variance (more extreme anchor points and intervals),
item 1 of The Happiness Measures (THM; Fordyce
1988) was used in combination with the SHS. This item
asks participants to rate how happy they usually feel on
an 11-point scale from 0 “Extremely unhappy” to 10
“Extremely happy”.
Life Satisfaction The Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS;
Diener et al. 1985) is a five-item measure (αc 00.84; αv 0
0.85) of an individual’s global judgment of life satisfaction.
Respondents rate their level of agreement with each item (e.g.,
“In most ways my life is close to my ideal”) on a seven-point
scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”.
Wellbeing The World Health Organization-Five Well-Being
Index version II (WHO-5; Bech et al. 2003) is a five-item
(αc 00.85; αv 00.86) positively worded instrument designed
to assess the level of emotional wellbeing over a 14-day
period. The degree to which positive feelings (e.g., “I have
felt calm and relaxed”) were present is scored on a six-point
scale ranging from 0 “not present” to 5 “constantly present”.
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress The Depression Anxiety
Stress Scale (DASS 21; Henry and Crawford 2005) is a set
of three seven-item scales (from αc 00.74; αv 00.77 for
anxiety to αc 00.86; αv 00.87 for depression) designed to
measure these negative emotional states. Participants indicate the presence of a symptom over the previous week
(e.g., “I couldn’t seem to experience any positive feeling
at all”) on a four-point scale from 0 “Did not apply to me
over the last week” to 3 “Applied to me very much or most
of the time over the last week”.
Self-Actualization The Short Index of Self-Actualization
(SISA; Jones and Crandall 1986) is a 15-item instrument
(αc 00.68; αv 00.72) assessing respondents’ level of personal
self-actualization in accordance with Maslow’s hierarchy of
needs. Items consist of direct statements (e.g., “I do not feel
ashamed of any of my emotions”) rated on a six-point agreement scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 6 “Strongly agree”.
Resilience The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS; Smith et al.
2008) is a six-item (αc 00.87; αv 00.87) measure of the

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

ability bounce back or recover from stress. Respondents rate
the extent to which they agree with each statement (e.g., “I
tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”) on a fivepoint scale from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 5 “Strongly
agree.”
Compassion The Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale
(SCBCS; Hwang et al. 2008) is a five-item measure (αc 0
0.86; αv 00.84) of a general disposition for compassion
towards others. Items are worded as statements (e.g., “I tend
to feel compassion for people, even though I don’t know
them”) to which participants indicate the extent that each is
true of themselves on a seven-point scale from 1 “Not at all
true of me” to 7 “Very true of me”.
Emotional Stability and Openness to Experience The Ten
Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al. 2003) is a
very brief instrument designed to capture variation in the
Big Five personality dimensions. The current study utilized
the two-item subscales for emotional stability (αc 00.62;
αv 00.64; e.g., “Calm, emotionally stable”) and openness
to experience (αc 00.38; αv 00.35; e.g., “Open to new experiences, complex”). Participants rated the extent that each
statement applied to them on a seven-point agreement scale
from 1 “Strongly disagree” to 7 “Strongly agree”.

Analytic Approach
Structural equation modeling in AMOS 19 was used to test
the theoretical hypotheses. Model fit was assessed across
multiple indices. The χ2 statistic was cautiously interpreted
as it performs poorly for complex models and those tested
on larger samples (Bentler and Bonett 1980; Bollen and
Long 1993). Therefore, the relative χ2, which adjusts for
sample size, was interpreted and values below 3.00 taken to
represent adequate model fit (Carmines and McIver 1981).
Model fit was also assessed with indices of absolute fit
(GFI), incremental fit (CFI and TLI), and “badness-of-fit”
(RMSEA). RMSEA values below 0.08 (≤0.05 for excellent
fit) and GFI, CFI, and TLI values greater than 0.90 were
interpreted as adequate fit (and ≥0.95 for excellent fit; Hu
and Bentler 1995, 1999). Conclusions about the acceptability of fit were dependent on the location and theoretical
relevance of misspecification (measurement model versus
path model) and the strength and significance of parameter
estimates.
An analysis of missing values identified approximately
10 % missing and these were randomly scattered throughout
the data set [Little’s MCAR χ2(df 01552, N 01,021) 0
1,638.55, p>0.05]. In handling these missing data, multiple
imputation (MI) was favored over case deletion as the
validity of SEM results are highly contingent on sample

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

size. MI was also favored over single imputation methods,
which tend to overstate precision when missing values exceed 5 % (Schafer 1999). Therefore, a Bayesian imputation
algorithm (in AMOS 19) was used to create three (i.e., m03)
complete data sets based on Schafer and Olsen’s (1998)
observation that “3–5 imputations are sufficient to obtain
excellent results” (p. 548). The imputation of missing values
was conducted independently for the model calibration and
model validation samples resulting in a total of six complete
data sets. The reported parameters represent pooled estimates over m repeated analyses, their standard errors, and
confidence limits (based on formulas from Rubin 2004).

Results

367
Table 1 Factors loadings for the 12 psychological health constructs
Wellbeing

The Happiness Measure
Subjective happiness
Emotional wellbeing
Life satisfaction
Stress
Anxiety
Depression
Resilience
Self-actualization
Emotional stability
Openness
Compassion

Distress

Psychological
growth

0.80
0.77
0.62
0.61
0.79
0.74
0.56

0.27

0.72
0.68
0.55
0.29
0.24

Factor Structure of Outcomes
The 12 psychological outcome constructs were first submitted
to exploratory factor analyses to determine their underlying
structure within meditating samples. Common factor analyses
(PAF) with oblique rotation allowing correlated factors (Direct
Oblimin with δ set to 0) produced identical results for all three
calibration datasets (i.e., the three multiple imputation datasets
for the calibration sample) and, therefore, pooled statistics are
reported. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was high (KMO 0 0.90) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity
was significant (p<0.001). Kaiser’s criterion suggested three
factors while the Scree plot suggested a single factor. While
both solutions make substantive rational sense, the singlefactor solution was able to capture less than half the observed
variance in the 12 outcome variables while the three-factor
solution accounted for over 64 % of variance and, therefore,
was favored. Factor loadings are displayed in Table 1 and
demonstrate that following rotation, variables loaded onto
dimensions reflecting emotional wellbeing, distress, and psychological growth. Emotional stability cross-loaded on both
distress and psychological maturity and was, thus, modeled as
an observed indicator of both. Compassion had the lowest
loading and also had a communality <0.1 suggesting it does
not fit the three-factor solution and was modeled as a separate
endogenous variable rather than an indicator of psychological
wellbeing. This three-factor measurement model of psychological health was incorporated into the hypothesized model representing three latent endogenous outcomes. The complete
measurement model for all latent factors is depicted in Fig. 1.
Model Estimation and Modification
Across the three calibration samples, results for the hypothesized model showed evidence for reasonable fit. Inferentially,
there was a discrepancy between the sampled covariance
matrix and the estimated population covariance matrix

Factor correlations
Wellbeing
Distress
Psychological growth
Rotation sums of squared
loading


−0.46
0.64


−0.42

4.10

3.31


3.80

[pooled χ2 (df, 289, N0549) 0 789.28, p<0.001]; however,
descriptive indices revealed the model represented an adequate representation of the data (relative χ2 02.74, GFI 0
0.90, CFI 0 0.93, TLI 0 0.92, RMSEA 0 0.056). Post hoc
model modifications were explored in order to develop a
better fitting model and modification indices suggested freeing a pathway between the residual variances of wellbeing and
distress. This suggests the existence of overlap among these
factors not reducible to the hypothesized pathways within the
model (hence, the moderate to large correlation seen in Table 1).
Since this relationship is conceptually plausible, the residual
covariance was freed and the model re-estimated.
While improvement in model fit was statistically significant [pooled Δχ2 (df, 1, N0549) 0 7.23, p<0.01], the
modification failed to eliminate the discrepancy between
the sampled covariance matrix and the estimated population
covariance matrix [χ 2 (df, 288, N 0549) 0 782.05,
p<0.001]; descriptively, the modified model fit the data
only slightly better with improvements mostly apparent only
at the third decimal place (relative χ2 02.72, GFI 0 0.90,
CFI 0 0.93, TLI 0 0.92, RMSEA 0 0.056). Modification
indices again reflected misspecification within the measurement model; specifically, estimating error covariances was
suggested across indicators of distress and wellbeing, and
within indicators of transcendence. This suggests overlapping variance among these indicators not explained by their
latent theoretical constructs (potentially due to common

368

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374
Length

Duration

Frequency

Prociency

Depth

Actualization

Openness

Meditation
Experience

Item 1

Item 2

Item 4

Item 3

Universality

E/Stability

Psych/Growth

Anxiety

Depression

Insight

Prayer/Med

Resilience

Stress

Distress

Self-Trans

Transcendence

Happiness

SHS

Wellbeing

Satisfaction

Psych/Wellbeing

Fig. 1 The hypothesized measurement model depicting the latent factors and their respective observed indicators

method variance). However, since only minor improvements
in model fit would be achieved by estimating these, and the
focus of this research is on testing the hypothesized pathways
represented in the path model, no further modifications were
made. The final path (structural) model is depicted in Fig. 2.
Hypothesized Effects
Standardized partial regression coefficients for the predicted
direct and indirect effects, and multiple coefficients of determination are presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4, respectively (rows
labeled C present the pooled statistics for the three calibration
samples). All direct effects were statistically significant and in
the expected direction. For the measurement model, as predicted, all observed variables were significantly related to their
respective latent factors including the four reflective indicators
of meditation experience. Variation in meditation experience
predicted all four process variables, and these, in turn, predicted the hypothesized outcomes. Meditation experience related to state mindfulness more strongly than trait mindfulness
and the direct effects on these were stronger than for insight or
transcendence (though they were similar after accounting for
the indirect effect on these processes). Transcendence predicted increased compassion, and both transcendence and trait
Fig. 2 The hypothesized
structural model representing
the predicted relationships
linking experience with
meditation to positive
psychological outcomes (latent
factors are represented by
ellipses while observed
variables are represented by
rectangles)

mindfulness predicted increased psychological maturity,
which in turn more strongly predicted positive emotional
outcomes (wellbeing) than they predicted distress.
All modeled indirect effects were also in the expected direction and, except the indirect effect of state mindfulness on wellbeing, they were statistically significant. Meditation experience
exerted moderate to large indirect effects on all outcomes with
the largest effect being for psychological maturity. The indirect
effects of state mindfulness and insight on wellbeing and distress
were small but significant, while the effects of these variables on
psychological maturity and compassion were larger. Transcendence and trait mindfulness showed moderate to large indirect
effects (through psychological maturity) on wellbeing and
distress.
Using Cohen’s (1977) benchmarks for operationalizing
the magnitude of effect (R2 ≥0.26 representing a large effect), the modeled pathways account for large proportions of
variation in the three latent health outcomes, in each case
more than doubling the benchmark value. However, the
proportion of variance accounted for in compassion was
lower and reflected a moderate to large effect for this outcome. Likewise, more than half of the variance in state
mindfulness, meditative insight, and transcendence was
accounted for by the model. Of the process variables, only

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

369

Table 2 Bootstrap standardized regression coefficients and confidence limits for modeled direct effects
Samplea

Direct effect

β*

SE

95 % CI
Lower

Path model
Meditation experience



State mindfulness

Meditation experience



Trait mindfulness

Meditation experience



Insight

Meditation experience



Transcendence

State mindfulness



Insight

Insights



Transcendence

Transcendence



Psychological maturity

Transcendence



Compassion

Trait mindfulness



Psychological maturity

Psychological maturity



Wellbeing

Psychological maturity



Distress

Measurement model
Meditation experience



Length meditation

Meditation experience



Duration meditation

Meditation experience



Meditation frequency

Meditation experience



Meditation proficiency

Meditation experience



Meditation depth

Insight



Insight2

Insight



Insight3

Insight



Insight4

Insight



Insight1

Transcendence



Spiritual transcendence prayer/meditation

Transcendence



Spiritual transcendence universality

Upper

C
V
C
V

0.711
0.600
0.549
0.593

0.028
0.036
0.043
0.039

0.656
0.530
0.465
0.516

0.766
0.670
0.633
0.671

C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V

0.400
0.453
0.401
0.394
0.422
0.344
0.398
0.397
0.490
0.556
0.497
0.372
0.450
0.362
0.785
0.837
−0.506
−0.524

0.062
0.055
0.098
0.082
0.053
0.052
0.093
0.068
0.053
0.050
0.049
0.048
0.045
0.052
0.030
0.026
0.066
0.067

0.279
0.346
0.203
0.232
0.319
0.242
0.203
0.263
0.386
0.457
0.398
0.275
0.362
0.258
0.727
0.785
−0.636
−0.655

0.521
0.560
0.600
0.555
0.525
0.445
0.593
0.531
0.594
0.655
0.596
0.469
0.537
0.465
0.844
0.890
−0.377
−0.394

C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V

0.478
0.514
0.297
0.215
0.445
0.531
0.751
0.722
0.752
0.747
0.863
0.729
0.846
0.852
0.730
0.897

0.046
0.036
0.048
0.055
0.044
0.037
0.031
0.028
0.029
0.029
0.019
0.027
0.020
0.019
0.034
0.015

0.389
0.443
0.203
0.106
0.359
0.459
0.691
0.666
0.694
0.691
0.825
0.675
0.807
0.815
0.663
0.868

0.568
0.585
0.391
0.323
0.531
0.604
0.811
0.777
0.809
0.803
0.901
0.783
0.885
0.888
0.797
0.927

C
V
C
V

0.842
0.801
0.667
0.611

0.021
0.025
0.042
0.039

0.800
0.753
0.584
0.535

0.884
0.849
0.750
0.687

C
V

0.517
0.503

0.055
0.046

0.400
0.410

0.634
0.597

370

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

Table 2 (continued)
Samplea

Direct effect

β*

SE

95% CI
Lower

Transcendence



Self-transcendence

Psychological maturity



Self-actualization

Psychological maturity



Resilience

Psychological maturity



Emotional stability

Psychological maturity



Openness

Distress



Anxiety

Distress



Depression

Distress



Stress

Distress



Emotional stability

Wellbeing



Life satisfaction

Wellbeing



Emotional wellbeing

Wellbeing



Subjective happiness

Wellbeing



The Happiness Measure

Upper

C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C

0.781
0.790
0.682
0.752
0.788
0.697
0.591
0.455
0.415

0.030
0.029
0.029
0.025
0.026
0.037
0.069
0.075
0.041

0.722
0.732
0.626
0.702
0.735
0.619
0.449
0.303
0.334

0.840
0.848
0.738
0.803
0.840
0.775
0.734
0.607
0.495

V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V

0.481
0.749
0.767
0.739
0.785
0.885
0.857
−0.202**
−0.330
0.712
0.617
0.727
0.813
0.880
0.882
0.779
0.826

0.043
0.027
0.023
0.030
0.021
0.022
0.018
0.075
0.072
0.030
0.037
0.037
0.021
0.022
0.017
0.027
0.022

0.396
0.695
0.721
0.680
0.744
0.841
0.822
−0.355
−0.473
0.653
0.543
0.649
0.772
0.837
0.848
0.726
0.783

0.566
0.803
0.813
0.798
0.825
0.928
0.893
−0.049
−0.187
0.771
0.691
0.805
0.854
0.924
0.917
0.832
0.868

*All parameters are significant at p<0.001 except the effect of distress on emotional stability which was significant at **p<0.05
a

C pooled statistics for the model calibration samples, V pooled statistics for the model validation samples

trait mindfulness had a coefficient of determination below
0.50, though it still exceeded Cohen’s criteria for a large effect.
Model Cross-Validation
Across the three validation samples, results for the hypothesized
model confirmed findings from the calibration samples. Once
again, the discrepancy between the sampled covariance matrix
and the estimated population covariance matrix was significant
[pooled χ2 (df, 289, N0549) 0 763.368, p<0.001]; however,
the descriptive indices suggested the model produced an adequate representation of the data (relative χ2 02.65, GFI 0 0.91,
CFI 0 0.93, TLI 0 0.92, RMSEA 0 0.054). Similar to the results
for the calibration sample, modification indices suggested potential misspecification within the measurement model involving wellbeing and distress factors.
Direct and indirect effects, and multiple coefficients of
determination for the validation samples are also presented

in Tables 2, 3 and 4 respectively (rows labeled V present the
pooled statistics for the three validation samples). The pattern of results for direct and indirect effects was almost
identical to those for the calibration samples suggesting
the estimated parameters are stable across independent samples. All but two estimated effects for the validation samples
had confidence limits which contained either the upper or
lower limits for the equivalent calibration samples statistic.
Coefficients for two indicators of insight were significantly
different between the two samples; however, R2 was not
significantly different between them and, therefore, slightly
different aspects of meditative insight appear to differentially predict the underlying latent construct across these samples. The only other discrepancy was that the nonsignificant indirect effect of state mindfulness on wellbeing
was significant for the validation samples (despite a smaller
estimated coefficient, the much smaller standard error
resulted in a rejection of the null hypothesis).

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

371

Table 3 Bootstrap standardized regression coefficients and confidence limits for modeled indirect effects
Samplea

Indirect effect

β*

SE

95 % CI
Lower

Meditation experience



Insight

Meditation experience



Transcendence

Meditation experience



Psychological maturity

Meditation experience



Wellbeing

Meditation experience



Distress

Meditation experience



Compassion

State mindfulness



Transcendence

State mindfulness



Psychological maturity

State mindfulness



Wellbeing

State mindfulness



Distress

State mindfulness



Compassion

Insight



Psychological maturity

Insight



Wellbeing

Insight



Distress

Insight



Compassion

Transcendence



Wellbeing

Transcendence



Distress

Trait mindfulness



Wellbeing

Trait mindfulness



Distress

Upper

C
V
C
V
C

0.300
0.206
0.279
0.262
0.580

0.036
0.034
0.067
0.046
0.036

0.228
0.139
0.138
0.172
0.509

0.371
0.272
0.419
0.351
0.651

V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C

0.579
0.455
0.485
−0.460
−0.515
0.338
0.244
0.168
0.137
0.082
0.076
0.065**
0.064
−0.042
−0.040
0.083
0.051
0.195

0.036
0.037
0.035
0.031
0.029
0.039
0.036
0.048
0.035
0.024
0.020
0.039
0.017
0.013
0.011
0.027
0.015
0.047

0.508
0.382
0.417
−0.522
−0.573
0.262
0.171
0.071
0.067
0.035
0.037
−0.011
0.030
−0.067
−0.062
0.028
0.021
0.096

0.650
0.529
0.553
−0.399
−0.458
0.414
0.316
0.264
0.206
0.130
0.115
0.141
0.098
−0.016
−0.018
0.138
0.080
0.294

V
C
V
C
V
C
V

0.221
0.153
0.185
−0.099
−0.116
0.198
0.148

0.040
0.037
0.035
0.028
0.024
0.055
0.033

0.142
0.075
0.116
−0.157
−0.163
0.078
0.083

0.300
0.231
0.254
−0.040
−0.069
0.319
0.212

C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V

0.385
0.466
−0.248
−0.292
0.353
0.303
−0.228
−0.189

0.046
0.047
0.041
0.041
0.037
0.043
0.04
0.039

0.293
0.373
−0.332
−0.372
0.281
0.218
−0.306
−0.266

0.477
0.559
−0.165
−0.212
0.425
0.388
−0.149
−0.112

*All parameters are significant at p<0.005 except the effect of state mindfulness on wellbeing which was not significant at p00.096
a

C pooled statistics for the model calibration samples, V pooled statistics for the model validation samples

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to empirically test a number
of premises derived from theoretical frameworks that attempt to explain the nature of variation in meditation, the

types of mechanisms it activates, and the specific outcomes
it is intended to produce. Consistent with the hypothesized
structure of variation in meditation practice, both behavioral
and psychological aspects of meditation were predicted by
a single latent factor. These results support the proposed

372

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

Table 4 Bootstrap multiple coefficient of determination and confidence limits for endogenous variables
Variable

State mindfulness
Trait mindfulness
Insight
Transcendence
Compassion
Psychological maturity
Wellbeing
Distress

Samplea

R2*

SE

95 % CI
Lower

Upper

C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V
C
V

0.51
0.36
0.30
0.35
0.58
0.51
0.54
0.52
0.14
0.25

0.04
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.04
0.05

0.43
0.28
0.21
0.26
0.49
0.43
0.45
0.40
0.07
0.15

0.58
0.44
0.39
0.44
0.66
0.59
0.64
0.64
0.21
0.35

C
V
C
V
C
V

0.61
0.60
0.62
0.70
0.54
0.62

0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.05
0.04

0.51
0.51
0.53
0.61
0.45
0.53

0.70
0.68
0.71
0.79
0.63
0.70

*All parameters are significant at p<0.001
a

C pooled statistics for the model calibration samples, V pooled statistics for the model validation samples

conceptualization of meditation (guided by Walsh 2000) as a
complex and skilled family of behaviors with individual differences along both fundamental behavioral and psychological
dimensions. Interestingly, there was a clear difference in the
strength of the coefficients favoring the subjective psychological aspects of meditation practice over objective behavioral
dimensions. This suggests that the depth and subjective proficiency with which meditation is practiced may have greater
substantive importance in explaining variance in meditation
than the actual time committed to the practice. Results highlight
the importance of both subjective psychological and objective
behavioral aspects of practice and suggest a minimal set of
parameters to be considered when accounting for individual
differences in meditation. These data have important implications for existing meditation research, which have relied heavily
on pre- and post-intervention designs. Specifically, differences
in the proficiency and depth of practice may serve to moderate
effects observed within pre- and post-intervention studies and, if
unaccounted for, may inflate within-group error variance. More
research is needed to determine whether differences in the proficiency or depth of practice are the product of differences in
innate aptitude or result from differences in the effort employed.
Principles from early Buddhist and Hindu accounts, as well
as contemporary theorizing (e.g., clinical, humanistic, transpersonal psychologies), were found to converge on a set of
primary and secondary processes linking variation in practice
parameters to psychological health and functioning outcomes.

Variation in meditation experience was significantly related to
all four primary (proximal) process variables (state and trait
mindfulness, insight, and transcendence), validating the plausibility of these as early links in the alleged causal chain
linking meditation to psychological health. Consistent with
the theoretical accounts reviewed, variation in meditation
directly predicted refinements in attention and awareness
(operationalized as increasing mindfulness), and increased
existential insights and transcendence. The similarity of effect
sizes for all four processes suggests these factors may be of
similar importance in accounting for the effects of meditation.
Each of these primary mechanisms predicted subsequent
(distal) processes as hypothesized. That is, increasing state
mindfulness predicted increased insight which, in turn, predicted increased self-transcendence. Both trait mindfulness
and transcendence directly predicted increased psychological growth. Transcendence directly predicted increased
compassion, increased trait mindfulness predicted reduced
distress, and psychological growth predicted increased wellbeing and reduced distress. The evidence obtained in favor
of these hypothesized pathways is compelling and supports
the theorized sequential mediation effects in which insight,
transcendence, and psychological growth mediate the relationship between primary processes (principally attention
refinement) and psychological health.
Regarding outcomes, an important aim of the study was to
assess whether meditation practices related to the types of
outcome constructs theoretically proposed to result from practice but which have not been given much focus in prior
research. In support of the hypotheses, experience in meditation practice had moderate to large indirect effects on all
theorized outcomes. The strongest indirect effect was for the
latent psychological growth factor suggesting that meditation
practice may be particularly effective at promoting developmental trait-level qualities such as self-actualization, resilience, emotional stability, and openness to experience.
An additional aim of this study was to explore whether
the relationship between meditation practice and psychological health outcomes was fully mediated and this proved to
be the case. These results suggest that the positive effects
emerging from increasing experience with meditation may
solely be the product of increased insight, mindfulness,
transcendence, and psychological maturity. Overall, more
than half the variation in the latent psychological outcome
constructs was explained by variation in meditation experience and the modeled processes.
The present study had a number of strengths. The samples used were reasonably large, incorporated participants
from around the world, and captured a great deal of variation in the levels and types of meditation experiences.
Additionally, all effects were replicated on an independent
group of participants and, therefore, the parameter estimates
are not sample dependent. The inclusion of participants

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374

practicing a variety of meditation techniques supports the
generalizability of the findings across different traditions
and practices; however, an important avenue for future
research is to determine the extent to which practice type
moderates specific processes or effects.
However, there are also limitations which constrain the
types of conclusions that can be made. For example, the
STS Universality subscale and the TIPI Openness to Experience subscale had poor internal consistency estimates and
therefore should be interpreted with caution. Furthermore,
despite a specific direction of effects being hypothesized,
conclusions about causality are limited by the cross-sectional
nature of the data and important competing interpretations for
the modeled effects remain. Specifically, increasing psychological health and maturity may actually be causally antecedent to increased tendencies to practice meditation. There are
also theoretical grounds for maintaining that the outcomes
modeled here could serve as predictors or processes leading
to positive outcomes (i.e., the broaden and build model;
Fredrickson 2001). Another plausible conclusion may be for
a reciprocal relationship between meditation practice and positive outcomes. However, as a first attempt to model these
causal pathways, the current approach favored parsimony and
clarifying the complex causal ordering of these effects is an
important task for future longitudinal research.
A third variable may also account for the observed effects.
For example, a systematic bias in favor of reporting positive
effects may occur as a direct function of the degree of time and
energy invested in meditation practice. However, this seems
unlikely as the mean correlation between modeled variables
and social desirable responding (SDR) was low (r00.14). Nevertheless, modest associations between SDR and meditation
depth, trait mindfulness, and emotional stability (r00.32 to
0.34) did emerge and this calls for some caution in interpreting
effects associated with these variables as they may be inflated by
SDR. Another cause of spurious inflation among estimates may
be common method bias. However, several small associations
between SDR and focal variables (e.g., self-transcendence universality r00.03 and openness to experience r00.06) suggests
that participants were differentially responding to different scale
items and, therefore, neither SDR nor common method bias is
able to account for the mostly large effects observed.
In summary, the present study builds on prior meditation
research by adopting both an exploratory and confirmatory
approach to investigating outcomes and processes of meditation. Findings provide preliminary evidence for multiple theoretical premises and support the conceptualization of a range of
primary and secondary mechanisms believed to underlie the
effect of meditation. As a function of variation in dimensions of
practice, meditators report increasing mindfulness, insight, transcendence, and subsequently psychological growth. As a direct
result of these processes, meditation had moderate to large
effects on wellbeing, distress, compassion, and psychological

373

growth. These results were also supported through crossvalidation on an independent sample of meditators.

References
Austin, J. H. (1998). Zen and the brain: Toward an understanding of
meditation and consciousness. Cambridge: MIT.
Austin, J. H. (2006). Zen–brain reflections: Reviewing recent developments in meditation and states of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT.
Barnes, P. M., Bloom, B., & Nahin, R. L. (2008). Complementary and
alternative medicine use among adults and children: United
States, 2007. National Health Statistics Reports; no 12. Hyattsville: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Division of
Health Interview Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
Bech, P., Raabaek, L., Mette, O., Niels, K., & Rasmussen, K. (2003).
Measuring well-being rather than the absence of distress symptoms: A comparison of the SF-36 Mental Health subscale and the
WHO-Five well-being scale. International Journal of Methods in
Psychiatric Research, 12(2), 85–91. doi:10.1002/mpr.145.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness
of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.
Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1993). Introduction. In K. A. Bollen & J.
S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 1–10).
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Brown, D. P., & Engler, J. (1980). The stages of mindfulness meditation: A
validation study. Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 12(2), 143–192.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.84.4.822.
Bucknell, R. S., & Kang, C. (1997). The meditative way: Readings in the
theory and practice of Buddhist meditation. Richmond: Curzon.
Buddhadasa Bhikkhu. (1976). Anapanasati: Mindfulness of breathing
(Bhikkhu Nagasena, Trans.). Bangkok: Sublime Life Mission.
Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with
unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G.
W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement:
Current issues (pp. 65–115). Beverly Hills: Sage.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso, & Cutler, H. C. (1998). The art of happiness.
New York: Riverhead.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The
satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49
(1), 71–75. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.
Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group. (1999).
Multidimensional measurement of religiousness/spirituality for
use in health research (p. 95). Kalamazoo: John E. Fetzer Institute;
National Institute on Aging.
Feuerstein, G. (2002). The Yoga tradition: Its history, literature, philosophy
and practice. New Delhi: Bhavana.
Fordyce, M. W. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: A 60 second index of happiness and mental health. Social
Indicators Research, 20(4), 355–381.
Frawley, D. (2000). Vedantic meditation: Lighting the flame of awareness.
Berkeley: North Atlantic.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2000). Cultivating positive emotions to optimize
health and well-being. Prevention & Treatment, 3(1). doi:10.1037/
1522-3736.3.1.31a.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive
psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions.

374
American Psychologist, 56(3), 218–226. doi:10.1037/00332909.121.3.417.
Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M.
(2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced
through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal
resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5),
1045–1062. doi:10.1037/a0013262.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). A very brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
Gowans, C. W. (2003). Philosophy of the Buddha. London: Routledge.
Henry, J. D., & Crawford, J. R. (2005). The short-form version of
the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): Construct
validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample.
British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 227–239.
doi:10.1348/014466505x29657.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and
applications (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
doi:0.1080/10705519909540118.
Hwang, J. Y., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the
Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher
and Fehr’s Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychology, 56
(4), 421–428.
Ireland, M. J. (2012a). Meditation and psychological health and functioning: A descriptive and critical review. The Scientific Review of
Mental Health Practice, 9(1), 4–19.
Ireland, M. J. (2012b). Meditative insight: Conceptual and measurement development. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 1–21.
doi:10.1080/13674676.2011.645225
Jones, A., & Crandall, R. (1986). Validation of a short index of selfactualization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(1),
63–73. doi:10.1177/0146167286121007.
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D.,
Carlson, L., et al. (2006). The Toronto Mindfulness Scale: Development and validation. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(12),
1445–1467. doi:10.1002/jclp. 20326.
Lehrer, P. M., Woolfolk, R. L., & Sime, W. E. (Eds.). (2007). Principles and practice of stress management (3rd ed.). New York:
Guilford.
Levenson, M. R., Jennings, P. A., Aldwin, C. M., & Shiraishi, R. W.
(2005). Self-transcendence: Conceptualization and measurement.
International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 60(2),
127–143. doi:10.2190/xrxm-fyra-7u0x-grc0.
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H. S. (1999). A measure of subjective
happiness: Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social
Indicators Research, 46, 137–155. doi:10.1023/A:1006824100041.
Marcus, P. (2003). Ancient religious wisdom, spirituality, and psychoanalysis. Westport: Praeger.
Martin, P., & Bateson, P. P. G. (1993). Measuring behaviour: An introductory guide (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nyanaponika, T. (1983). The heart of Buddhist meditation: A handbook of mental training based on the Buddha’s way of mindfulness
with an anthology of relevant texts translated from the Pali and
Sanskrit. London: Rider.
Nyanaponika, T., & Bodhi, B. (2000). Numerical discourses of the
Buddha: An anthology of Suttas from the Anguttara Nikaya.
Walnut Creek: AltaMira.
O'Brien, W. H., McGrath, J. J., & Haynes, S. N. (2003). Assessment of
psychopathology with behavioral approaches. Handbook of Psychology. 509–529. doi:10.1002/0471264385.wei1022

Mindfulness (2013) 4:362–374
Patanjali, & Feuerstein, G. (1989). The Yoga-sÅ«tra of Patañjali: A new
translation and commentary. Rochester: Inner Traditions.
Piedmont, R. L. (1999). Does spirituality represent the sixth factor of
personality? spiritual transcendence and the Five-Factor Model.
Journal of Personality, 67(6), 985–1013. doi:10.1111/14676494.00080.
Piron, H. (2001). The meditation depth index (MEDI) and the meditation depth questionnaire (MEDEQ). Journal for Meditation and
Meditation Research, 1, 69–92.
Potter, K. H. (1999). Encyclopedia of Indian philosophies vol.
IIX: Buddhist philosophy from 100 to 350 AD. Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass.
Rubin, D. B. (2004). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys.
New Jersey: Wiley.
Russell, P. (1976). The TM technique: An introduction to transcendental meditation and the teachings of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.
Oxford: Routledge.
Schafer, J. (1999). Multiple imputation: A primer. Statistical
Methods in Medical Research, 8(1), 3–15. doi:10.1177/
096228029900800102.
Schafer, J., & Olsen, M. (1998). Multiple imputation for multivariate
missing-data problems: A data analyst’s perspective. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 33(4), 545–571.
Shankman, R. (2008). The experience of Samadhi: An in-depth exploration of Buddhist meditation. Boston: Shambhala.
Shapiro, D. H. (2008). Meditation: Self-regulation strategy and altered
state of consciousness. New Jersey: Rutgers.
Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006).
Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62
(3), 373–386. doi:10.1002/jclp.20237.
Smith, A. (2006). “Like waking up from a dream”: Mindfulness
training for older people with anxiety and depression. In R. A.
Baer (Ed.), Mindfulness-based treatment approaches (pp. 191–
215). Burlington: Academic.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggin, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P., &
Bernard, J. (2008). The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability
to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15
(3), 194–200. doi:10.1090/10705500802222972.
Swami Adiswarananda. (2003). Meditation & its practices: A definitive
guide to techniques and traditions of meditation in Yoga and
Vedanta. Woodstock: Skylight Paths.
The Upanishads: A New Translation. (1986). S. Nikhilananda, Trans.
Vol. 1. New York: Ramakrishna Vivekanada Center.
van Waning, A. (2002). A mindful self and beyond. In P. Young-Eisendrath
& S. Maramoto (Eds.), Awakening and insight: Zen Buddhism and
psychotherapy (pp. 93–105). Hove: Brunner–Routledge.
Walsh, R. N. (2000). Asian psychotherapies. In R. J. Corsini & D.
Wedding (Eds.), Current psychotherapies (6th ed., pp. 407–444).
Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson.
Walsh, R. N., & Shapiro, S. L. (2006). The meeting of meditative
disciplines and western psychology: A mutually enriching dialogue.
American Psychologist, 61(3), 227–239.
Walsh, R. N., & Vaughan, F. (1993). Paths beyond ego: The transpersonal
vision. Los Angeles: Tarcher/Perigee.
Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy (1st ed.). Boston: Shambhala.
Wilber, K., Engler, J., & Brown, D. P. (1986). Transformations of
consciousness: Conventional and contemplative perspectives on
development. Boston: New Science Library.
Xue, C. C. L., Zhang, A. L., Lin, V., Da Costa, C., & Story, D. F.
(2007). Complementary and alternative medicine use in Australia:
A national population-based survey. Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine, 13(6), 643–650. doi:10.1089/
acm.2006.6355.

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close