Are Mindfulness and Mind-Wandering Opposite Constructs? It Depends on How Mindfulness is Conceptualised
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 55 · Cited by 3
- Authors
- Somaraju, L. H., Temple, E. C., Cocks, B., & Bizo, L. A.
- Affiliations
- University of New England (AU)
- Charles Sturt University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Somaraju, Lakshmi H.
- Venue
- Psychological Reports
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-01-16
- Volume
- 127
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 2505-2525
- ISSN
- 0033-2941 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-691X
- OpenAlex
- W4316505889
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 0.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RUNE (Research UNE) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Commonwealth of Australia
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Mind wandering and attention
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Functions and Memory
- Keywords
- trait mindfulness, mind wandering, mindful attention, acceptance, non-judgment, Sustained Attention to Response Task, sustained attention
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality, Young Adult, Mindfulness
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
