正念和思维游离是对立的概念吗?这取决于如何理解正念的概念。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Reports Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-16 DOI:10.1177/00332941231152391
Lakshmi H Somaraju, Elizabeth C Temple, Bernadine Cocks, Lewis A Bizo
{"title":"正念和思维游离是对立的概念吗?这取决于如何理解正念的概念。","authors":"Lakshmi H Somaraju, Elizabeth C Temple, Bernadine Cocks, Lewis A Bizo","doi":"10.1177/00332941231152391","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated if trait mindfulness and its components, mindful attention, acceptance, and non-judging correlate negatively with self-reported and indirect markers of mind-wandering. The 552 participants of the study completed an anonymous online questionnaire consisting of trait mindfulness and mind-wandering scales. They also completed the computer-based Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), an objective measure of mind-wandering. The total mindfulness score and acceptance and non-judging subscale scores were strongly negatively correlated with both self-reported trait mind-wandering (TMW) and SART indices of mind-wandering. In contrast, attention was significantly positively correlated with both. These findings suggest that trait mindfulness conceptualised as a multi-component construct, but not a uni-component one, is probably an opposing construct to trait mind-wandering. Furthermore, mindfulness and its components, acceptance and non-judging, are associated with a reduction in the more common form of SART errors. However, only the acceptance component made a unique contribution to the variance in TMW and SART performance. Therefore, it is advisable for researchers to specify whether they investigated mindfulness as a uni-component or multi-component construct. Furthermore, it would be beneficial if future research investigates the relationship of mindfulness and its components with mind-wandering further by also incorporating a measure of state mindfulness.</p>","PeriodicalId":21149,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Reports","volume":" ","pages":"2505-2525"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Mindfulness and Mind-Wandering Opposite Constructs? It Depends on How Mindfulness is Conceptualised.\",\"authors\":\"Lakshmi H Somaraju, Elizabeth C Temple, Bernadine Cocks, Lewis A Bizo\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00332941231152391\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study investigated if trait mindfulness and its components, mindful attention, acceptance, and non-judging correlate negatively with self-reported and indirect markers of mind-wandering. The 552 participants of the study completed an anonymous online questionnaire consisting of trait mindfulness and mind-wandering scales. They also completed the computer-based Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), an objective measure of mind-wandering. The total mindfulness score and acceptance and non-judging subscale scores were strongly negatively correlated with both self-reported trait mind-wandering (TMW) and SART indices of mind-wandering. In contrast, attention was significantly positively correlated with both. These findings suggest that trait mindfulness conceptualised as a multi-component construct, but not a uni-component one, is probably an opposing construct to trait mind-wandering. Furthermore, mindfulness and its components, acceptance and non-judging, are associated with a reduction in the more common form of SART errors. However, only the acceptance component made a unique contribution to the variance in TMW and SART performance. Therefore, it is advisable for researchers to specify whether they investigated mindfulness as a uni-component or multi-component construct. Furthermore, it would be beneficial if future research investigates the relationship of mindfulness and its components with mind-wandering further by also incorporating a measure of state mindfulness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21149,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2505-2525\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231152391\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Reports","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941231152391","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了正念特质及其组成部分--正念关注、接受和不评判是否与自我报告的心智游离间接标记负相关。这项研究的 552 名参与者填写了一份匿名在线问卷,其中包括正念特质和思维游离量表。他们还完成了基于计算机的 "持续注意力反应任务"(SART),这是一种客观的思维游离测量方法。正念总分以及接纳和非评判子量表得分与自我报告的特质心智游离(TMW)和SART心智游离指数呈强烈的负相关。与此相反,注意力与这两项指数呈显著正相关。这些研究结果表明,特质正念的概念是一个多成分结构,而不是一个单成分结构,它可能是特质心智游离的对立结构。此外,正念及其组成部分--接受和不评判--与较常见的 SART 错误形式的减少有关。然而,只有 "接受 "部分对 TMW 和 SART 表现的差异做出了独特的贡献。因此,研究人员最好明确说明,他们是将正念作为一个单成分还是多成分结构进行研究的。此外,如果未来的研究能够进一步调查正念及其成分与心智游离之间的关系,并将状态正念的测量纳入其中,将大有裨益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are Mindfulness and Mind-Wandering Opposite Constructs? It Depends on How Mindfulness is Conceptualised.

This study investigated if trait mindfulness and its components, mindful attention, acceptance, and non-judging correlate negatively with self-reported and indirect markers of mind-wandering. The 552 participants of the study completed an anonymous online questionnaire consisting of trait mindfulness and mind-wandering scales. They also completed the computer-based Sustained Attention to Response Task (SART), an objective measure of mind-wandering. The total mindfulness score and acceptance and non-judging subscale scores were strongly negatively correlated with both self-reported trait mind-wandering (TMW) and SART indices of mind-wandering. In contrast, attention was significantly positively correlated with both. These findings suggest that trait mindfulness conceptualised as a multi-component construct, but not a uni-component one, is probably an opposing construct to trait mind-wandering. Furthermore, mindfulness and its components, acceptance and non-judging, are associated with a reduction in the more common form of SART errors. However, only the acceptance component made a unique contribution to the variance in TMW and SART performance. Therefore, it is advisable for researchers to specify whether they investigated mindfulness as a uni-component or multi-component construct. Furthermore, it would be beneficial if future research investigates the relationship of mindfulness and its components with mind-wandering further by also incorporating a measure of state mindfulness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Reports
Psychological Reports PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
171
期刊最新文献
Transformation of Task Conflict Into Relational Conflict and Burnout: Enhancing Effect of Leader's Discriminatory Effect. An Assessment of Personality Traits Based on Photos on Instagram. Mindfulness-Based Attention Training in the Navy: A Feasibility Study. The Interaction Between Optimism and Pessimism Predicted the Perceived Risk of Infection During the Covid-19 Pandemic: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Study. The Effect of Mindfulness Training on the Self-Regulation of Socio-Moral Thoughts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1