Cited by 169Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAttachment and Relationship DynamicsReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Social Foundations of the Capacity for Mindfulness: An Attachment Perspective

Shaver, Phillip R., Lavy, Shiri, Saron, Clifford D., Mikulincer, Mario·2007·Psychological Inquiry

Abstract

We are pleased to see Brown, Ryan, and Creswell's (this issue) excellent review of the research literature on mindfulness. Mindfulness is an important concept for bridging classical Buddhist writin...

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10478400701598389

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 56 · Cited by 169

Authors
Shaver, P. R., Lavy, S., Saron, C. D., & Mikulincer, M.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis (US)
  • Bar-Ilan University (IL)
Venue
Psychological Inquiry
Published
2007-10-19
Volume
18
Issue
4
Pages
264-271
ISSN
  • 1047-840X (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7965
OpenAlex
W2148305041
Cited by
169
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
FWCI
3.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Psychological Inquiry (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
mindfulness, attachment theory, attachment styles, Buddhist psychology

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