Cited by 361Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Empirical explorations of mindfulness: Conceptual and methodological conundrums.

Open access
Davidson, Richard J.·2010·Emotion

Abstract

This commentary reflects on the articles in this Special Issue. The appearance of this group of articles underscores the important idea that a major target of mindfulness practice is on emotion. Transformation in trait affect is a key goal of all contemplative traditions. This commentary addresses several key methodological and conceptual issues in the empirical study of mindfulness. The many ways in which the term "mindfulness" is used in the articles in this Special Issue are noted, and they include its reference to states, traits, and independent variables that are manipulated in an experimental context. How the term "mindfulness" is conceptualized and operationalized is crucial, and for progress to be made it is essential that we qualify the use of this term by reference to how it is being operationalized in each context. Other methodological issues are considered, such as the duration of training and how it should be measured, and the nature of control and comparison groups in studies of mindfulness-based interventions. Finally, the commentary ends with a consideration of the targets within emotion processing that are likely to be impacted by mindfulness. This collection of articles underscores the substantial progress that has occurred in the empirical study of mindfulness and it is a harbinger of a very promising future in this area.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0018480

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study employed a double-blind, randomized controlled design.

    “We employed a double-blind, randomized controlled design (Davidson, 2010;terburg, Morgan, & van honk, 2009).”

    From Salivary testosterone and cortisol response in acute stress modulated by seven sessions of mindfulness meditation in young males (2024) · cites this paper as Davidson, 2010

    The “Control and comparison groups” section recommends randomly assigning participants to comparable conditions in mindfulness-intervention studies. It does not say that the citing authors employed that design or address double-blinding, so it supports only the random-assignment rationale, not the stated study design. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A series of studies used MBSR versus HEP to validate the active control in meditation.

    “For example, a series of studies used MBsR vs. health enhancement Program (heP) to validate the active control in meditation (Davidson, 2010;Maccoon et al., 2012;2014;Rosenkranz et al., 2013).”

    From Salivary testosterone and cortisol response in acute stress modulated by seven sessions of mindfulness meditation in young males (2024) · cites this paper as Davidson, 2010

    The “Control and comparison groups” section argues for active comparison conditions matched to mindfulness interventions. It does not report a series of studies comparing MBSR with the Health Enhancement Program (HEP) or say that such studies validated that control. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • For the past 10 years, more and more meditation studies have used longitudinal RCT design with active controls such as relaxation training, health education or enhancement programs, physical exercise, and cognitive tasks.

    “consequently, for the past 10 years, more and more meditation studies have used longitudinal Rct design with active controls such as relaxation training, health education or enhancement programs, physical exercise, and cognitive tasks (Davidson, 2010;Maccoon et al., 2012;2014;Rosenkranz et al., 2013;terburg et al., 2009).”

    From Salivary testosterone and cortisol response in acute stress modulated by seven sessions of mindfulness meditation in young males (2024) · cites this paper as Davidson, 2010

    In “Control and comparison groups” (page unavailable), Davidson recommends random assignment to comparable interventions and longitudinal studies, but says such comparison conditions had been used very rarely. The paper does not establish an increasing trend over the preceding 10 years or identify the listed active controls. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • One-time mindfulness inductions do not necessarily generalize to longer-term mindfulness training.

    “However, one-time mindfulness inductions do not necessarily generalize to longer-term mindfulness training (Davidson, 2010).”
  • Mindfulness should be differentiated as a personal trait and as an ability acquired through practice.

    “The current results imply that mindfulness should be differentiated as a personal trait [52] and as an ability that is acquired as a result of practice [53,54].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davidson, R. J.
Corresponding author
Davidson, Richard J.
Venue
Emotion
Published
2010-02
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
8-11
ISSN
  • 1528-3542 (ISSN-L)
  • 1931-1516
OpenAlex
W2114363889
Cited by
361
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 31 · 2012: 33
FWCI
32.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (P01-AT004952)
  • Fetzer Institute
  • Mental Insight Foundation
  • John W. Kluge Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
mindfulness, mindfulness-based interventions, emotion regulation, trait affect, contemplative traditions, emotional processing
MeSH terms
Emotions, Humans, Mental Processes, Models, Psychological, Psychological Theory, Psychophysiology, Psychotherapy, Meditation, Empirical Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review