پیش بینی تفاوت های فردی در ذهن آگاهی: نقش اضطراب صفت، اضطراب دلبستگی و کنترل توجه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|32171||2009||6 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||4658 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Personality and Individual Differences, Volume 46, Issue 2, January 2009, Pages 94–99
Two correlational studies sought to identify possible predictors of individual differences in naturally occurring mindfulness. In study one, trait anxiety and attachment anxiety, but not attachment avoidance, were negatively predictive of mindfulness. In study two, trait anxiety (−) and attentional control (+), but not openness or parental nurturance, predicted mindfulness. In addition, there was evidence of a partial mediation effect of attentional control on the association between trait anxiety and mindfulness. Key features of trait anxiety such as attentional and interpretative processing biases, as well as those of attachment anxiety such as rumination and hypersensitivity, are at odds with mindfulness characteristics such as attention to what is present coupled with an attitude of openness and acceptance. Thus, whether generalised or specific, anxiety appears to be antagonistic to mindfulness; control over one’s attentional resources may form part of the underlying explanation.
Originating in contemplative traditions such as Buddhism, mindfulness is defined as a state of enhanced attention to, and awareness of, what is taking place in the present (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Such awareness is characterised as open and receptive, but not judgemental (Bishop et al., 2004 and Deikman, 1982). Mindfulness appears to be absent when attention is captured by rumination and fantasy (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Building on the original work of Kabat Zinn (1982), mindfulness-based interventions have proliferated over the past twenty years, mostly with very positive outcomes (Baer, 2003 and Grossman et al., 2004). Underpinning most of these studies is an assumption that mindfulness training increases levels of mindfulness and such increases mediate the observed positive outcomes. However, attempts to validate this assumption have rarely been undertaken, the most likely reason being the absence of appropriate measures. It is only in the last few years that psychometrically valid measures of mindfulness have appeared in the literature (Baer et al., 2004, Brown and Ryan, 2003 and Walach et al., 2006). In developing their measure, Brown and Ryan (2003) argued that mindfulness could be considered a ‘naturally occurring characteristic’ (p. 822) with both inter- and intra-personal variation. Similarly, Walach et al. (2006) argued that mindfulness could be expressed dispositionally and in state form, depending on the time-frame in question. Given the importance of the construct in terms of physical and psychological well-being, Brown and Ryan (2003) emphasised the need to explore its antecedents. As an initial step in this direction, the two studies reported here were designed to investigate possible predictors of mindfulness. 2. Study 1 Whilst it is likely that individual differences in mindfulness will eventually prove to be multiply determined, a decision was made in the first instance to explore both the developmental and personality domains for factors that might possess predictive utility. Attachment and trait anxiety emerged as strong candidates from their respective fields. 2.1. Attachment Attachment processes developed in early childhood are believed to remain active throughout the lifespan (Bowlby, 1988). Current conceptualisations of attachment suggest a two-dimensional system, namely anxiety and avoidance (Brennan et al., 1998 and Fraley and Waller, 1998). Low levels of anxiety and avoidance reflect secure attachment (Schachner, Shaver, & Mikulincer, 2005). Insecure attachment, however, can take one of two forms. If proximity-seeking is highly desired, then a ‘hyper-activating’ attachment strategy is adopted. This is characterised by intensive efforts to seek proximity and protection, hypersensitivity to signs of rejection and abandonment, and excessive rumination upon one’s personal deficiencies and threats to one’s relationships (Mikulincer & Florian, 1998). Collectively, these features constitute attachment anxiety (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). In contrast, where it is felt that proximity-seeking will not serve to reduce threat, a ‘deactivating’ attachment strategy is adopted. Here, one removes oneself from stimuli that are likely to activate the attachment system. This results in the avoidance of proximity-seeking, the denial of attachment needs and the suppression of signs of vulnerability. This strategy is known as attachment avoidance (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003). The current study seeks to determine whether attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance predict mindfulness. According to Bishop et al. (2004), mindfulness involves attending to immediate experience and adopting an attitude of curiosity, openness and acceptance. It also includes a ‘decentred’ approach to one’s thoughts which serves to reduce cognitive elaboration and prevents rumination (Teasdale et al., 2000). Finally, instead of observing one’s experiences through various filters of beliefs and expectations, mindfulness involves direct observation of them. Thus, given the hypersensitivity to rejection and rumination on personal deficiencies associated with attachment anxiety, together with the thought suppression, relationship avoidance and person perception biases associated with attachment avoidance, it seems that these dimensions are essentially antithetical to many of the key features of mindfulness. Therefore, it is hypothesised that both attachment anxiety (H1) and attachment avoidance (H2) will be negatively predictive of mindfulness. Furthermore, since low scores on both attachment dimensions are associated with secure forms of attachment, the analysis will examine the interaction of the two main predictors to see if it accounts for additional amounts of criterion variance. 2.2. Trait anxiety Trait anxiety is closely related to one of the ‘big five’ personality factors, namely neuroticism; however, the underlying cognitive architecture of the former is probably better understood (Eysenck, 1992 and Eysenck, 1997). People high in trait anxiety are thought to possess both attentional and interpretative processing biases (MacLeod, 1990). Specifically, they are more likely than low anxious counterparts to detect threat, regardless of its source (Eysenck, 2000). Similarly, they are more likely to make threatening interpretations of ambiguous stimuli whereas low anxious counterparts are inclined to make neutral interpretations (Eysenck, Mogg, May, Richards, & Mathews, 1991). This bias towards detecting, interpreting and elaborating threat may be contrasted with mindfulness which advocates an open acceptance of what is present. Accordingly, it may be hypothesised that trait anxiety will be negatively predictive of mindfulness (H3).
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
In the two studies reported here, trait anxiety emerged as a reliable predictor of mindfulness irrespective of how either variable was measured. Key features of trait anxiety such as attentional and interpretative processing biases (Eysenck, 1992) are incompatible with what are believed to be the central components of mindfulness, namely, attention to one’s immediate experiences and an attitude of openness and acceptance (Bishop et al., 2004, Brown and Ryan, 2003 and Walach et al., 2006). In addition, attachment anxiety is also negatively predictive of mindfulness. Again, examination of the mechanisms and processes underpinning hyper-activation and attachment anxiety such as effortful proximity-seeking, hypersensitivity and excessive rumination (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) provides a clear rationale for the observed association. Thus, regardless of the specificity with which it is assessed, anxiety appears to militate against the expression of mindfulness. While the lack of attentional control associated with anxiety (Derryberry & Reed, 2002) constitutes part of the explanation of its association with mindfulness, other factors are clearly implicated. However, the reliance of the current studies on self-report methods, cross-sectional and correlational designs, limits the extent to which conclusions can be drawn about possible pathways between anxiety, attentional control and mindfulness.