Cited by 14Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Too Much or Not Enough of a Good Thing?: Reconciling Differing Perspectives on the Optimal Dose of Mindfulness Meditation and Advancing a Dose-Response Research Agenda

Open access
Bowles, Nicholas I., Davies, Jonathan N., Strohmaier, Sarah, Galante, Julieta, Van Dam, Nicholas T.·2026·Journal of Contemplative Studies

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Mindfulness meditation is now practiced broadly in both religious and secular contexts, with numerous studies indicating potential benefits across a range of psychosocial domains.However, despite significant research effort, we still know little about dose-response effects-how frequently or for how long individuals might need to practice mindfulness meditation to achieve certain practice goals.Increasingly, recommended amounts of practice are becoming shorter, with unclear effects on outcomes.We review and critically appraise the state of knowledge about dose-response effects drawn from empirical investigations, traditional sources, and trends in contemporary teaching and practice.We argue that limitations inherent to the range of doses and analytic approaches used in previous studies reduce our ability to inform the dose-response question.We propose a practical research agenda that prioritizes the question of dose response, incorporating design features optimized specifically to understand the dose-response relationship and how it might vary between outcomes and individuals.Prioritizing the dose-response agenda will allow us to reconcile differences between knowledge sources and enable us to optimize mindfulness programs based on individuals, their goals, and the context in which they practice.

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 · 10.57010/caxs3076

Cites

77 of 77 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

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

3 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bowles, N. I., Davies, J. N., Strohmaier, S., Galante, J., & Van Dam, N. T.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Canterbury Christ Church University (GB)
Venue
Journal of Contemplative Studies
Published
2026-02-12
ISSN
3066-9030 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7128630120
Cited by
14
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7
FWCI
56.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Journal of Contemplative Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
mindfulness meditation, dose-response relationship, optimal dose, research agenda

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