Cited by 548Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsIndian and Buddhist StudiesReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

Mindfulness, by any other name…: trials and tribulations of sati in western psychology and science

Grossman, Paul, Van Dam, Nicholas T.·2011·Contemporary Buddhism

Abstract

The Buddhist construct of mindfulness is a central element of mindfulness-based interventions and derives from a systematic phenomenological programme developed over several millennia to investigate subjective experience. Enthusiasm for ‘mindfulness’ in Western psychological and other science has resulted in proliferation of definitions, operationalizations and self-report inventories that purport to measure mindful awareness as a trait. This paper addresses a number of seemingly intractable issues regarding current attempts to characterize mindfulness and also highlights a number of vulnerabilities in this domain that may lead to denaturing, distortion, dilution or reification of Buddhist constructs related to mindfulness. Enriching positivist Western psychological paradigms with a detailed and complex Buddhist phenomenology of the mind may require greater study and long-term direct practice of insight meditation than is currently common among psychologists and other scientists. Pursuit of such an approach would seem a necessary precondition for attempts to characterize and quantify mindfulness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14639947.2011.564841

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Self-report measures of dispositional mindfulness may distort the true relationships between the constructs studied.

    “The nature of self-report measures of dispositional mindfulness may also distort the true nature of the relations between these constructs (Bergomi, Tschacher, & Kupper, 2013; Grossman & Van Dam, 2011).”
  • Questionnaires used to measure mindfulness may reflect a lack of mindfulness-that is, mindlessness and unawareness.

    “Grossman and Van Dam (2011) emphasised that questionnaires used to measure mindfulness may reflect a lack of mindfulness-that is, mindlessness and unawareness.”
  • There are inherent limitations associated with the use of self-report questionnaires, particularly in the measurement of mindfulness, where it is not clear whether an individual can accurately report their own level of mindfulness.

    “Finally, there are inherent limitations associated with the use of self-report questionnaires, particularly in the measurement of mindfulness, where it is not clear whether an individual can accurately report their own level of mindfulness (Grossman and van Dam 2011).”

    From Development and Validation of the Equanimity Scale-16 (2021) · cites this paper as Grossman and van Dam 2011

  • A certain level of mindfulness is required for people to report mindfulness accurately; if individuals are not aware of their inattention or reactivity, they are unlikely to report it accurately.

    “In addition, it has been suggested that a certain level of mindfulness is required for people to report mindfulness accurately. Accordingly, if individuals are not aware of their inattention or reactivity, they are unlikely to report it accurately [12].”
  • It has been suggested that the entire construct of trait mindfulness is problematic; Grossman and Van Dam cite Buddhist texts to suggest that mindfulness is better characterized as a state or process rather than a trait.

    “Further, it has been suggested that the entire construct of trait mindfulness is problematic. Grossman and Van Dam [12] cite Buddhist texts to suggest that mindfulness is better characterized as a state or process, rather than a trait.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T.
Venue
Contemporary Buddhism
Published
2011-05-01
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
219-239
ISSN
  • 1463-9947 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-7953
OpenAlex
W2169256687
Cited by
548
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 17
FWCI
35.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Contemporary Buddhism (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Indian and Buddhist Studies
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
mindfulness, sati, Buddhist phenomenology, mindfulness-based interventions, mindfulness measurement, self-report inventory, insight meditation, Western 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