Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885

[Link]/locate/paid

Everyday mindfulness and mindfulness meditation:

Overlapping constructs or not?
Brian L. Thompson *, Jennifer Waltz
Department of Psychology, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812, United States

Received 15 April 2007; received in revised form 14 June 2007; accepted 19 June 2007
Available online 3 August 2007

Abstract

Elaborating on our understanding of the construct of mindfulness is currently a priority as mindfulness-

based therapeutic interventions proliferate (Bishop et al., 2004). Two studies examined the relationship
between measures of everyday mindfulness, mindfulness during meditation, and the five-factor model per-
sonality domains. These studies also investigated the effect of sitting meditation on mood. Two samples
were largely naı̈ve to formal sitting meditation, and the third sample was screened for meditation experi-
ence. The first study found that everyday mindfulness correlated positively with agreeableness and consci-
entiousness, and correlated negatively with neuroticism. Little to no relationship was found between
mindfulness during meditation and everyday mindfulness across all three samples. Changes in mood fol-
lowing meditation varied across studies.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Mindfulness; Meditation; Measures; Mood; Personality

1. Introduction

‘‘Mindfulness’’ refers to a way of orienting one’s self to the present moment. Definitions of
mindfulness commonly emphasize that it involves maintaining awareness on one’s immediate

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 406 243 2367; fax: +1 406 243 5549.
E-mail address: [Link]@[Link] (B.L. Thompson).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2007.06.017
1876 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885

experience, as opposed to being distracted by past or future oriented thoughts, or engaged in

avoidance of one’s experience. It also involves maintaining an attitude of ‘‘nonjudgment’’ (Bishop
et al., 2004; Kabat-Zinn, 2003).
The past two decades have seen a proliferation of mindfulness-based psychotherapeutic treat-
ments (e.g., Kabat-Zinn, 1990; Linehan, 1993; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). Two in partic-
ular, mindfulness-based stress reduction (Kabat-Zinn, 1990) and mindfulness-based cognitive
therapy (Segal et al., 2002), emphasize sitting and walking meditation and yoga practices. These
interventions involve regular, concentrated practice in which the participant focuses attention on
a particular stimulus, such as his/her breath, sensations in the body, etc., during a particular per-
iod of time. These practices are intended to help cultivate ‘‘everyday mindfulness.’’ Everyday
mindfulness involves maintaining the open, accepting, present focus of attention during day-to-
day life. Interestingly, the relationship between one’s ability to stay focused and mindful during
mindfulness practice, and one’s degree of mindfulness in everyday life remains unclear.
Self-report measures of mindfulness have focused on either everyday mindfulness or mindful-
ness during sitting meditation. Little research has examined the relationship between these two
constructs. Bishop et al. (2005), for example, created the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS), a
measure of mindfulness during formal sitting meditation. By contrast, Brown and Ryan’s
(2003) Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, and Greeson’s
(2003) Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R) both assess how mindful
individuals are during their everyday lives. It appears that to date no one has empirically exam-
ined whether there is a relationship between these two constructs.
That everyday mindfulness can be measured presumes that it is a semi-consistent trait or ten-
dency that exists across situations; it thus may be related to specific personality traits. It is unclear
whether everyday mindfulness may shape personality or personality may shape everyday mindful-
ness or whether both are shaped by other factors. In exploring the construct validity of their
scales, the developers of the MAAS and the TMS examined correlations between the mindfulness
scales and some of the five-factor model personality characteristics, the five domains being neu-
roticism, openness to experience, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Openness
to experience, a tendency to seek and appreciate experience for its own sake, was positively cor-
related with everyday mindfulness as measured by the MAAS and the CAMS-R, and with mind-
fulness during meditation as measured by the TMS (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, &
Toney, 2006; Bishop et al., 2005; Brown & Ryan, 2003). Neuroticism, proneness towards worry
and irritability, was negatively correlated with the MAAS and the CAMS-R (Baer et al., 2006;
Brown & Ryan, 2003). Extraversion exhibited no significant relationship with the MAAS or
CAMS-R (Baer et al., 2006); however, there has not been any research that has compared these
mindfulness measures on the remaining five-factor model domains: conscientiousness and
agreeableness.
The primary goals of this study were to examine the relationships between measures of every-
day mindfulness and mindfulness during meditation, and between measures of mindfulness and
personality characteristics. Study 1 examined the relationships between everyday mindfulness,
mindfulness during meditation, and personality characteristics. Following completion of the first
study, a new measure, the Five-Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006), that
assessed everyday mindfulness as a multidimensional construct was published. Study 2 was con-
ducted to examine the relationship between the multidimensional conceptualization of everyday
 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885 1877

mindfulness captured in the FFMQ and mindfulness during meditation. Study 2 differed from
Study 1 in that it compared a sample of individuals largely naı̈ve to meditation against a sample
of experienced meditators. A secondary goal of these studies was to investigate the immediate im-
pact of mindfulness practice on mood. Very little research has addressed the immediate impact of
mindfulness practice on mood, which may be related to a person’s tendency to continue or discon-
tinue practice.

2. Study 1

The first study examined the relationships between everyday mindfulness, mindfulness
during meditation, personality characteristics, and mood. The first question addressed in this
study is, to what extent are measures that focus on day-to-day engagement in mindful aware-
ness measuring the same thing as measures that focus on mindful awareness during sitting
meditation? Research and theory in this area appear to assume that greater ability to focus
mindfully during sitting meditation practice should be related to more frequent and pervasive
mindful awareness during day-to-day life. Thus we would expect significant positive correlations
between measures of everyday (trait) mindfulness and measures of mindfulness during sitting
meditation.
The second issue addressed in this study is the relationship between mindfulness and personal-
ity characteristics. As previous research has found a positive relationship between mindfulness
and openness to experience, a negative relationship between mindfulness and neuroticism, and
no relationship between mindfulness and extraversion, we expected to find a similar pattern of
results. Further, as mindfulness includes an orientation focused on awareness and acceptance
of the present moment, we hypothesized that there would be a significant positive correlation be-
tween mindfulness and conscientiousness and agreeableness. Lastly, as we expected that our sam-
ple would be largely naı̈ve to formal sitting meditation, we included exploratory analyses of the
impact of meditation on mood, as it is not uncommon for individuals to find their first experience
of meditation aversive because of the inherent difficulty and frustration in focusing on their
breath.

2.1. Method

2.1.1. Participants
A total of 171 Introductory Psychology students participated. Participants received experimen-
tal credit in their Psychology 100 course for participating. Four participants were excluded from
analysis due to language or related issues. Consequently, 167 participants were included in the
analyses. Of these there were 118 females and 49 males. Ages ranged from 18 to 52, with 19 being
the modal age. (Due to a clerical error, ages were not recorded for 22 of the 167 participants, but
their data were included.)

2.1.2. Materials
[Link]. Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003). The 15-item MAAS
measures everyday mindfulness; items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (almost always)
1878 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885

to 6 (almost never). The mean rating across all items is computed. Higher scores reflect greater
mindfulness.

[Link]. Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R; Feldman et al., 2003). The
12-item CAMS-R measures everyday mindfulness and focuses on the degree to which examinees
experience their thoughts and feelings. Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (rarely/not
at all) to 4 (almost always). Ratings on the items are summed. Higher scores reflect greater
mindfulness.

[Link]. The Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS; Bishop et al., 2005). The 10-item TMS measures
the extent to which participants report having been mindful during a period of sitting meditation.
Immediately following meditation, examinees are asked to rate items reflecting what they experi-
enced during the period of meditation. Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 (not at all)
to 4 (very much). Scores on the scale are summed. The TMS has since been revised into a two-
factor measure, and the item wording changed (Lau et al., 2006).

[Link]. International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999). The IPIP is a public domain
set of personality items that offers scales that measure constructs similar to other personality inven-
tories using the five-factor model. The five-factor model was operationalized in the Revised NEO-
Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) (Costa & McCrae, 1995). The IPIP offers free scales that highly
correlate with the NEO-PI. A series of self-descriptive statements are rated on a scale from 1 (very
inaccurate) to 5 (very accurate). Scores on the scale are summed. We used a 50-item questionnaire.

[Link]. Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). The
PANAS is a 20-item scale that measures positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA). PA refers
to ‘‘the extent to which a person feels enthusiastic, active, and alert’’ and NA refers to ‘‘subjective
distress and unpleasurable engagement that subsumes a variety of aversive mood states, including
anger, contempt, disgust, guilt, fear, and nervousness’’ (p. 1063). Items are self-rated on a 5-point
Likert scale from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). Scores for PA and NA are
summed. The PANAS is also sensitive enough to capture shifts in mood.

2.1.3. Procedure
Participants were run in groups of up to 15 at a time. They completed the measures and en-
gaged in a 15-min meditation. For the meditation, participants were asked to shift their chairs
to face a blank wall behind them. Meditation instructions were expanded from those in Bishop
et al. (2005), which the researchers felt would be unclear to participants with no previous exposure
to sitting meditation. Participants were asked to follow the flow of their breath for 15 min, and to
bring their attention back to the breath if they were distracted.
After 15 min, participants turned their chairs back around and completed the remaining mea-
sures. The order of administration of the measures was counter-balanced to account for any influ-
ence the period of meditation might have on scores for the MAAS and the CAMS-R. Group A
(n = 86) completed all measures except the TMS and the post-meditation PANAS before the 15-
min meditation. Group B (n = 81) completed the pre-meditation PANAS, meditated for 15-min,
and then completed the remaining measures.
 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885 1879

2.2. Results and discussion

2.2.1. Internal consistency of measures

Cronbach’s alpha was computed for all measures to establish internal consistency. Cronbach’s
alpha was above 0.70 for all measures: MAAS (a = 0.84), CAMS-R (a = 0.79), TMS (a = 0.77),
PANAS (pre-meditation PA, a = 0.87; post-meditation PA, a = 0.90; pre-meditation NA,
a = 0.85; post-meditation NA, a = 0.83), and IPIP (neuroticism, a = 0.87; extraversion,
a = 0.83; openness to experience, a = 0.79; agreeableness, a = 0.73; conscientiousness, a = 0.80).

2.2.2. Order effect

Independent samples t-tests were computed on the differences in scores between participants
who completed the everyday mindfulness and personality measures before the meditation (Group
A), and those who completed them after the meditation (Group B). The only statistically signif-
icant difference was for the MAAS [t(163) = 2.97, p = 0.003], although the effect size was small
(partial g2 = 0.05). Group A [M = 3.89, SD = 0.63] scored higher in everyday mindfulness than
Group B [M = 3.57, SD = 0.74]. As the effect size was small, subsequent analyses were conducted
on both groups together.

2.2.3. Hypothesis 1: everyday mindfulness and mindfulness during meditation

The first hypothesis was that there would be a statistically significant correlation between every-
day mindfulness and mindfulness during sitting meditation. Everyday mindfulness was measured
using the MAAS and CAMS-R, and mindfulness during sitting meditation was measured using
the TMS. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed between the MAAS,
the CAMS-R and the TMS. A significant relationship was found between the MAAS and the
CAMS-R [r = 0.60, p = 0.000], but no statistically significant relationship was found between
the TMS and the MAAS [r = 0.14, p = 0.08] or between the TMS and the CAMS-R
[r = 0.11, p = 0.18]. Therefore, the first hypothesis was not supported.

2.2.4. Hypothesis 2: mindfulness and personality characteristics

The second hypothesis was that there would be a positive correlation between mindfulness and
openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, a negative correlation between mindful-
ness and neuroticism, and no correlation between mindfulness and extraversion. Mindfulness was
measured using the MAAS, CAMS-R, and TMS, and personality was measured using the five-
factor model of the IPIP. Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed
between the mindfulness scales and the measure of the personality domains (see Table 1).

2.2.5. Mindfulness and mood

Paired samples t-tests were computed to test for differences in mood pre- and post-meditation.
The difference between scores of PA pre- (M = 25.75, SD = 7.69) and post-meditation
(M = 22.25, SD = 8.28) was statistically significant [t(165) = 6.88, p = 0.000], with a moderate
effect size (partial g2 = 0.22). The difference between scores on NA pre- (M = 15.52, SD = 5.68)
and post-meditation (M = 14.17, SD = 5.01) was statistically significant [t(165) = 4.60,
p = 0.000], with a moderate effect size (partial g2 = 0.11). Both PA and NA decreased from
pre- to post-meditation
1880 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885

Table 1
Pearson correlation coefficients between mindfulness and five-factor model personality characteristics
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness to experience Agreeableness Conscientiousness
MAAS 0.41* 0.05 0.04 0.29* 0.28*
CAM-R 0.58* 0.01 0.04 0.43* 0.27*
TMS 0.13 0.06 0.23* 0.07 0.02
Note: MAAS = Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; CAMS-R = Cognitive and Affective Awareness Scale-Revised;
TMS = Toronto Mindfulness Scale.
* p < 0.01.

2.3. Discussion

The results of Study 1 do not support the notion that everyday mindfulness is related to the
ability to be mindful during formal sitting meditation, at least in a sample of individuals naı̈ve
to meditation. The results may suggest that everyday mindfulness is a different construct from
mindfulness during meditation, that individuals who are mindful during everyday life may not
be more mindful during sitting meditation than individuals who are less mindful during everyday
life. Results partially support the second hypothesis, as everyday mindfulness was positively cor-
related with agreeableness and conscientiousness, and negatively correlated with neuroticism. No
relationship was found between everyday mindfulness and extraversion and openness to experi-
ence. Mindfulness during meditation was positively correlated with openness to experience, but
no relationship was found between mindfulness during meditation and neuroticism, extraversion,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness. Lastly, there was a significant reduction in both positive
and negative affect following the period of sitting meditation.

3. Study 2

Subsequent to the completion of Study 1, Baer et al. (2006) published the Five-Factor Mind-
fulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), which was derived from a factor analysis of five previously devel-
oped mindfulness measures. This yielded a 39-item questionnaire. The five factors are:
nonreactivity to inner experience; observing thoughts and feelings; acting with awareness; describ-
ing/labeling with words; and nonjudging of experience. The availability of a more comprehensive
measure of everyday mindfulness utilizing these five factors allowed for an additional examination
of the relationship between everyday mindfulness and mindfulness during sitting meditation. The
current study further explored the question of the relationship between mindfulness during sitting
meditation and everyday mindfulness, using the five factors identified in the FFMQ. We were also
interested in comparing participants who were naı̈ve to meditation with experienced meditators.

3.1. Method

3.1.1. Participants and procedures

We initially collected a sample of 185 Introductory Psychology students. We then screened an-
other group of Introductory Psychology students (n = 18) for previous experience with ‘‘Buddhist
 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885 1881

or mindfulness meditation.’’ After collecting this second sample, we separated from the initial
sample of 185 participants individuals with previous meditation experience (n = 13) using the
demographics questions which asked question about mindfulness practices. Our inclusion criteria
were that the participants had a current meditation practice, and that they were able to specify a
particular period of time for which they had been meditating. The latter criterion was chosen to
distinguish those with formal exposure to meditation from those who may possess a more vague
understanding of meditation (e.g., prayer, running, listening to music). We combined the data of
these experienced meditators from the larger sample (n = 13) with those for which we had initially
screened prior to participation (n = 18). This left us with two samples: one naı̈ve to meditation
(n = 172) and one experienced in meditation (n = 31).
The naı̈ve sample consisted of 71 male and 101 female participants. Age ranged from 18 to 53,
and the modal age was 19. The sample of experienced meditators consisted of 20 male and 11
female participants. Ages ranged from 18 to 49, with 19 being the modal age. Experience with sit-
ting meditation ranged from 1 month to 30 years. Participants averaged 2 h of sitting meditation
per week (M = 2.39, SD = 2.12). As there appeared to be little order effect in the first study, order
of administration was not counterbalanced. Participants meditated for 15 min and completed the
TMS and FFMQ. The PANAS was administered before and after the meditation.

3.2. Results and discussion

Cronbach’s alpha was computed for each measure. In the naive sample, alphas were: TMS
(a = 0.72); FFMQ (observe subscale, a = 0.71; describe subscale, a = 0.91; act with awareness
subscale, a = 0.85; nonjudge subscale, a = 0.90; nonreactivity subscale, a = 0.72), and PANAS
(pre-meditation PA, a = 0.86; post-meditation PA, a = 0.86; pre-meditation NA, a = 0.81; post-
meditation NA, a = 0.81). In the meditator sample, alphas were: TMS (a = 0.78); FFMQ (observe
subscale, a = 0.72; describe subscale, a = 0.90; act with awareness subscale, a = 0.86; nonjudge sub-
scale (a = 0.91); nonreactivity subscale, a = 0.88), and PANAS (pre-meditation PA, a = 0.88; post-
meditation PA, a = 0.90; pre-meditation NA, a = 0.81; post-meditation NA, a = 0.89).
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed between each of the five fac-
tors of the FFMQ and the TMS. In the naive sample, a statistically significant correlation was
found between the TMS and the observe subscale [r = 0.19, p = 0.01]. Statistically significant cor-
relations were not found in the naive sample between the TMS and the remaining four subscales
of the FFMQ. In the meditator group, no statistically significant correlation coefficients were
found between the TMS and the FFMQ (see Table 2).
Paired samples t-tests were computed to test for differences in mood pre- and post-meditation
on the PANAS. In the naive sample, the mean difference between scores of PA pre- (M = 26.92,
SD = 7.74) and post-meditation (M = 24.12, SD = 8.61) was statistically significant
[t(170) = 6.83, p = 0.000], with a moderate effect size (partial g2 = 0.22). The difference between
scores on NA pre- (M = 15.51, SD = 5.14) and post-meditation (M = 14.90, SD = 5.63) followed
a similar trend but was not statistically significant [t(171) = 1.78, p = 0.08]. In the meditator sam-
ple, the difference between scores of PA pre- (M = 27.68, SD = 7.13) and post-meditation
(M = 27.80, SD = 8.59) was not statistically significant [t(30) = 0.17, p = 0.87]. The difference
between scores on NA pre- (M = 13.77, SD = 4.28) and post-meditation (M = 13.13,
SD = 5.30) was not statistically significant either [t(30) = 0.78, p = 0.44].
1882 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885

Table 2
Pearson correlation coefficients between everyday mindfulness and mindfulness during meditation
Five-factor mindfulness questionnaire
Observe Describe Act with awareness Nonjudgment Nonreactivity
TMS
1. Naı̈ve 0.19* 0.03 0.10 0.08 0.12
2. Meditators 0.18 0.12 0.20 0.09 0.06
Note: TMS = Toronto Mindfulness Scale.
* p < 0.05.

In order to assess whether there were any differences in scores between the naive sample and
experienced meditators, independent samples t-tests were computed between TMS, FFMQ, and
PANAS scores for the two samples. The means in the meditator sample were significantly higher
than the naı̈ve sample on the TMS (M = 3.77, SD = 1.17; t(201) = 0.32, p = 0.002), the
FFMQ observe subscale (M = 2.31, SD = 0.90; t(201) = 2.57; p = 0.01), the FFMQ nonreac-
tivity subscale (M = 1.56, SD = 0.80; t(201), p = 0.05), and post-meditation PANAS PA
(M = 3.70, SD = 1.68; t(201) = 2.20; p = 0.03). Effects sizes were calculated for the significant
differences: TMS (Cohen’s d = 0.45), observe (Cohen’s d = 0.36), nonreactivity (Cohen’s
d = 0.27), and post-meditation PANAS PA (Cohen’s d = 0.31). There were no statistically signif-
icant differences between groups on the FFMQ describe subscale (M = 0.44, SD = 1.25;
t(200) = 0.36, p = 0.72), FFMQ act with awareness subscale (M = 1.45, SD = 1.03;
t(201) = 1.41, p = 0.16), FFMQ nonjudge subscale (M = 1.92, SD = 1.27; t(201) = 1.51,
p = 0.13), pre-meditation PA (M = 0.74, SD = 1.49; t(200) = 0.50, p = 0.62), pre-meditation
NA (M = 1.80, SD = 0.99; t(201) = 1.82, p = 0.07), and post-meditation NA (M = 1.84, SD =
1.09; t(201) = 1.69, p = 0.09).
Results partially support our hypothesis. In the naı̈ve sample, there was a modest relationship
between the TMS and the observe factor of the FFMQ, but there was no relationship between the
TMS and the remaining four factors. Results showed no relationship between the TMS and any of
the FFMQ subscales among experienced meditators. Compared with the naı̈ve sample, experi-
enced meditators reported greater mindfulness during meditation, greater ability to observe one’s
experiences, and a tendency to be less reactive to aversive stimuli. This suggests that experience in
meditation is related to greater mindfulness in some domains. Also, interestingly, whereas individ-
uals who were inexperienced in meditation exhibited a decrease in positive affect following med-
itation, those with meditation experience exhibited no change in positive affect. It is possible that
the affective experience of meditation may be somewhat different for meditators than it is for non-
meditators.

4. General discussion

The results of both studies found little relationship between mindfulness during meditation and
everyday mindfulness. The first study found no relationship between mindfulness during medita-
tion and everyday mindfulness, when everyday mindfulness was measured as a unidimensional
construct referring to the degree to which individuals are mindful as they go about their daily
 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885 1883

lives. There was some indication in the second study, which looked at five factors of everyday
mindfulness, that mindfulness during meditation is related to the ability to observe one’s experi-
ence in everyday life, at least in a sample of participants who are largely naı̈ve to meditation; how-
ever, this finding was not replicated in a sample of more experienced meditators.
It may be that the TMS is not a sufficiently sensitive instrument. Bishop et al. (2005) note that,
although the TMS discriminated between individuals with no meditation experience and individ-
uals with 8 weeks of experience with mindfulness meditation, it did not discriminate between indi-
viduals with 8 weeks of experience from those with 2 or more years of meditation experience. The
authors suggest that this may reflect a lack of sensitivity in the measure. Perhaps research using
the revised, two-dimensional version of the TMS may identify relationships between the two kinds
of mindfulness, although Lau et al. (2006) acknowledged that it has not been established whether
scores on the revised TMS generalize to mindfulness in everyday life.
Lastly, it should not be overlooked that perhaps there is no relationship between everyday
mindfulness and mindfulness during meditation. This would be surprising, given the fact that,
compared to the naive sample, the meditator sample exhibited greater mindfulness during medi-
tation, a greater ability to observe experience, and less reactivity towards aversive stimuli. It is
quite possible that individuals with a greater natural ability in everyday mindfulness are more
likely to gravitate towards meditation. However, it is also possible that regular practice of med-
itation is more important for cultivating everyday mindfulness than how mindful one is during
practice. Mindfulness during meditation may be a form of state mindfulness that is not represen-
tative of the more trait mindfulness found in everyday mindfulness, as the relationship between
the two constructs may not be linear.
Relationships between mindfulness and personality characteristics found in this study support
Brown and Ryan’s (2003) findings that everyday mindfulness is negatively correlated with neurot-
icism. As Brown and Ryan suggest, being mindful may lower neurotic tendencies, or neuroticism
may interfere with mindfulness. However, contrary to Brown and Ryan’s findings, everyday
mindfulness was not correlated with openness to experience, which consists of intellectual curios-
ity, a need for novelty, and aesthetic interests. As Brown and Ryan used the full NEO-PI, whereas
this study used Goldberg’s International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999) to approx-
imate the domains of the NEO-PI, perhaps the findings are due to the difference in measures.
Interestingly, a relationship was found between openness to experience and mindfulness during
sitting meditation and openness to experience, supporting Bishop et al.’s (2005) findings. There
may be some overlap in constructs between the attitude of individuals high in openness to expe-
rience and individuals who are more mindful during sitting meditation. There was no relationship
between mindfulness and extraversion, supporting Baer et al. (2006). Results do indicate a positive
relationship between everyday mindfulness and agreeableness and conscientiousness. This makes
intuitive sense. As conscientiousness refers to a degree of organization and motivation in carrying
out goals, it would seem that one would need to be mindful to be conscientious. Agreeableness is
characterized by compassion, humility, and a concern for others. As these are all very Buddhist
virtues (although not exclusive to Buddhism), this finding supports the traditional notion of a
relationship between the cultivation of mindfulness and the development of greater compassion.
Results on the effect of meditation on mood are mixed. As participants in the first study exhib-
ited a significant decrease in positive and negative affect, and participants in the second study
exhibited a significant decrease in positive affect only, one may surmise that meditation may
1884 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885

reduce intensity of feelings, at least in inexperienced meditators. This finding is consistent with the
traditional goal of meditation as a method for achieving a state of equanimity, where the passions
are not excited. However, it is also possible that these trends reflect a regression towards the mean,
and that similar patterns would be observed if the participants had simply sat quietly for 15 min.
There are a few possible explanations for the lack of significant change in affect in the sample of
experienced meditators: experienced meditators may have a different affective experience of med-
itation or they may exhibit more stable moods than non-meditators.

5. Limitations and future directions

Although this study takes important steps in examining the relationship between everyday
mindfulness and mindfulness during meditation, several limitations remain. For one, due to the
contrived nature of the study, participants, particularly the non-meditating samples, may not have
been sufficiently motivated to engage in 15 min of meditation. Moreover, there are two particular
limitations of the experienced meditator sample. Firstly, as the sample was relatively young (mod-
al age was 19) and may not have been practicing meditation for more than a few years, results may
not be as strong as they might with participants with decades of meditation experience. In addi-
tion, because of the small sample size of experienced meditators, there may not have been suffi-
cient statistical power to achieve significance on some of the results.
Lastly, due to the correlational nature of the study, pre-existing relationships between everyday
mindfulness and mindfulness during meditation cannot be ruled out. Longitudinal studies may
help to examine whether personality traits and aspects of mindfulness change over time in indi-
viduals beginning a mindfulness-based treatment. McCrae (1991) suggested that although person-
ality appears stable after age 30, psychotherapy may bring about changes in personality. Regular
mindfulness practice may alter existing personality traits, or conversely, existing personality traits
may interfere with the regular practice of mindfulness.

References

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report assessment methods to
explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed
operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.
Bishop, S. M., Segal, Z. V., Lau, M., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., Shapiro, S. et al. (2005). The Toronto Mindfulness
Scale: Development and validation. Unpublished manuscript.
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.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the Revised NEO
Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21–50.
Feldman, G. C., Hayes, A. M., Kumar, S. M., Greeson, J. M. (2003). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness: Relations
with emotional avoidance, over-engagement, and change with mindfulness training. Paper presented at the
Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Boston, MA.
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of
several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality Psychology in
Europe (vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.
 B.L. Thompson, J. Waltz / Personality and Individual Differences 43 (2007) 1875–1885 1885

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness.
New York: Delta.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156.
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.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R. (1991). The five-factor model and its assessment in clinical settings. Journal of Personality Assessment,
57(3), 399–414.
Segal, Z., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression. New York:
Guilford Press.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070.