Do you mind a closer look? A jingle-jangle fallacy perspective on mindfulness
Open accessAbstract
Mindfulness is defined inconsistently, and its various measures resemble established personality self-report scales. Therefore, jingle and jangle fallacies are likely to undermine the construct’s utility. To address these issues, we conducted two studies to test three hurdles of validity: 1) a sound definition and measurement model, 2) empirical distinctiveness, and 3) incremental criterion validity. We established an overarching and inclusive mindfulness definition covering twelve aspects. Based on this definition, we used an item sampling algorithm to select items from eight mindfulness scales. We established an eclectic bi-factor and a single-factor model, both fitting the data well. Bivariate latent variable correlations between a single mindfulness factor and big-five/six personality factors reached up to .68. Although 50% of mindfulness' variance was unaccounted for by the personality factors, it provided no meaningful incremental criterion validity over personality factors. Our results indicate that mindfulness has little or no incremental utility above established personality factors.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 main dimensions of mindfulness are observing, identifying, not judging, and accepting the experience of the present moment.
“Thus, these features cover the main dimensions of mindfulness: observing, identifying, not judging, and accepting the experience of the present moment (Altgassen et al., 2023); Kabat-Zinn, 2015)”
From Mapping mindfulness in psychotherapy: a scoping review on conceptualization, applications, and research directions (2026) · cites this paper as Altgassen et al., 2023
Cites
Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191105283504 · Cited by 7,511 · cited 6× · see citing works
“…instructions usually include phrases such as “ your opinion of what is generally true for you ” (Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire, FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) or “ a collection of statements about your everyday experience ” (Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. G. (2006) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007 · Cited by 3,185 · see citing works
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00047.x · Cited by 2,361 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Personality factors relate to a range of life outcomes, such as divorce, mortality, and occupational attainment (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts et al., 2007).”
BackgroundFeldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J.-P. (2007) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8 · Cited by 1,630 · see citing works
Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D., Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Gorchov, J., et al. (2018) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617709589 · Cited by 1,506 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Although this conceptualization seems closer to Buddhistic understanding, these state mindfulness scales are rarely used in psychological research (van Dam et al., 2018).”
BackgroundMeasuring mindfulness—The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI)
Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt, S. (2006) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025 · Cited by 1,475 · cited 4× · see citing works
“We compared eclectic bi-factor and single-factor models which go beyond the eight individual instruments and earlier unifying approaches (Baer et al., 2006; Bergomi et al., 2014; Siegling & Petrides, 2014; Walach et al., 2006).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Assessment of Present-Moment Awareness and Acceptance: The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale
Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/1073191107311467 · Cited by 940 · see citing works
Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis
Giluk, T. L. (2009) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.026 · Cited by 593 · see citing works
Grossman, P., & Van Dam, N. T. (2011) · Contemporary Buddhism · doi:10.1080/14639947.2011.564841 · Cited by 548 · see citing works
Chadwick, P., Hember, M., Symes, J., Peters, E., Kuipers, E., & Dagnan, D. (2008) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466508x314891 · Cited by 517 · see citing works
Hollis-Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.09.033 · Cited by 498 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For example, when assessing personality factors with the NEO-PI-R and mindfulness with the FFMQ, the manifest correlation be-tween mindfulness and openness is at r = .35 (Hollis-Walker & Colosimo, 2011).”
MethodSegal, Z. V., Teasdale, J. D., Williams, J. M., & Gemar, M. C. (2002) · Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · doi:10.1002/cpp.320 · Cited by 432 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Since mindfulness interventions are of particular interest in clinical psychology, an apparent criterion for mindfulness is mental health (Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Segal et al., 2002).”
BackgroundMindfulness, spirituality, and health-related symptoms
Carmody, J., Reed, G., Kristeller, J., & Merriam, P. (2008) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.06.015 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
Carpenter, J. K., Conroy, K., Gomez, A. F., Curren, L. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2019) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101785 · Cited by 342 · see citing works
Social mindfulness: skill and will to navigate the social world.
Van Doesum, N. J., Van Lange, D. A. W., & Van Lange, P. A. M. (2013) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0032540 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
Greeson, J. M., Webber, D. M., Smoski, M. J., Brantley, J. G., Ekblad, A. G., Suarez, E. C., & Wolever, R. Q. (2011) · Journal of Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1007/s10865-011-9332-x · Cited by 159 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…by nutritional or exercise habits or sustainable living, indicated by different sustainable consumption scales (S. M. Geiger et al., 2019; Lentz et al., 2019; Soriano-Ayala et al., 2020); relationship quality (McGill et al., 2016); and spirituality (Carmody et al., 2008; Greeson et al., 2011).”
BackgroundSiegling, A. B., & Petrides, K. V. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01164 · Cited by 109 · cited 2× · see citing works
“We compared eclectic bi-factor and single-factor models which go beyond the eight individual instruments and earlier unifying approaches (Baer et al., 2006; Bergomi et al., 2014; Siegling & Petrides, 2014; Walach et al., 2006).”
BackgroundMethodExamining mindfulness and psychological inflexibility within the framework of Big Five personality
Latzman, R. D., & Masuda, A. (2013) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2013.02.019 · Cited by 104 · cited 6× · see citing works
“Some authors take a one-dimensional perspective on the construct, for example, as represented by the MAAS, Cognitive and Affective Mind-fulness Scale Revised (CAMS-R, Feldman et al., 2007), Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI, Walach et al., 2006), and the Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire (SMQ, Chadwick et al., 2…”
MethodInfluentialThe mindful personality: A meta-analysis from a cybernetic perspective
Hanley, A. W., & Garland, E. L. (2017) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0736-8 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
F. Wong, K., A. A. Massar, S., Chee, M. W. L., & Lim, J. (2018) · Mindfulness · doi:10.1007/s12671-017-0880-1 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Is mindfulness a noticeable quality? Development and validation of the observed mindfulness measure
Bartlett, L., Martin, A. J., Bruno, R., Kilpatrick, M., Sanderson, K., & Neil, A. L. (2022) · Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment · doi:10.1007/s10862-021-09936-6 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
R., M., A., C., Q., Y., M., J., C., N., & K., M. (2026) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08767-y
- Authors
- Altgassen, E., Geiger, M., & Wilhelm, O.
- Affiliations
- Universität Ulm (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Altgassen, Elisa
- Venue
- European Journal of Personality
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2023-05-26
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 365-387
- ISSN
- 0890-2070 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0984
- OpenAlex
- W4378390953
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 11.04
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Journal of Personality (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
- Keywords
- mindfulness, mindfulness measurement, construct validity, personality factors, bifactor model, mindfulness scale
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
