Mindfulness Facets Predict Helping Behavior and Distinct Helping-Related Emotions

1 23

Mindfulness ISSN 1868-8527 MindfulnessDOI 10.1007/s12671-014-0383-2

Mindfulness Facets Predict HelpingBehavior and Distinct Helping-RelatedEmotions

C. Daryl Cameron & BarbaraL. Fredrickson

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all

rights are held exclusively by Springer Science

+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is

for personal use only and shall not be self-

archived in electronic repositories. If you wish

to self-archive your article, please use the

accepted manuscript version for posting on

your own website. You may further deposit

the accepted manuscript version in any

repository, provided it is only made publicly

available 12 months after official publication

or later and provided acknowledgement is

given to the original source of publication

and a link is inserted to the published article

on Springer's website. The link must be

accompanied by the following text: "The final

publication is available at link.springer.com”.

ORIGINAL PAPER

Mindfulness Facets Predict Helping Behavior and DistinctHelping-Related Emotions

C. Daryl Cameron & Barbara L. Fredrickson

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract Contemplative practices have long emphasized thedevelopment of mindfulness: a skill that involves present-focused attention and nonjudgmental acceptance of experi-ences. In the current study, we examine the relationship be-tween these two facets of mindfulness—which are indepen-dent in novices—and helping behavior and its emotionalcorrelates. Attention and acceptance each predicted self-reported engagement in real-world helping behavior.Additionally, present-focused attention predicted increasedpositive emotions during helping—such as love/closeness,moral elevation, and joy—but did not predict negative emo-tions. By contrast, nonjudgmental acceptance predicted de-creased negative emotions during helping—such as stress,disgust, and guilt—but did not predict positive emotions.When helping others, it appears to take two processes—atten-tion and acceptance—to support our intention and reap therichest emotional consequences.

Keywords Mindfulness . Helping behavior . Altruism

Introduction

Contemplative practices have long emphasized the develop-ment of mindfulness: nonjudgmental, receptive attention toexperiences in the present moment (Brown et al. 2007). One

of the most well known definitions of mindfulness involvestwo components (Bishop et al. 2004). The first component ispresent-focused attention: regulating attention so that it focus-es on current experiences (Bishop et al. 2004; Brown et al.2007; Holzel et al. 2011). Empirical research shows thatpresent-focused attention involves the ability to sustain atten-tion to a single stimulus, to switch attention between stimuli,and to forestall ruminative elaboration on current experiences(Holzel et al. 2011). The second component of mindfulness isnonjudgmental acceptance of experiences: the ability toapproach experiences with open-minded interest and cu-riosity, even if they are unpleasant (Bishop et al. 2004).Studies of clinical and nonclinical populations reveal thatnonjudgmental acceptance enables people to meet mentalexperiences without overreacting (Hayes et al. 2006;Holzel et al. 2011; Linehan 1993).

Present-focused attention and nonjudgmental acceptancehave both been theorized to allow for greater awareness andcontrol of thought and behavior (Bishop et al. 2004; Holzelet al. 2011). Among untrained novices, present-focused atten-tion (often assessed via the Five Facet MindfulnessQuestionnaire observe subscale) and nonjudgmental accep-tance (often assessed via the FFMQ nonjudging subscale) arenot correlated (Baer et al. 2006; Coffey et al. 2010; Dekeyseret al. 2008). Attention and acceptance are, however, positivelycorrelated for experienced meditators (Baer et al. 2008), sug-gesting that meditation practice may foster integration be-tween these mindfulness subcomponents.

Many contemplative scholars have argued that mindfulnesscan increase compassion and pro-social behavior (Dalai Lamaand Ekman 2008). One way to specify this relationship is toconsider distinct emotions that arise in helping contexts. Inmany situations, people automatically empathize with others,where empathy is defined as vicarious sharing of others’affective states (Decety 2011; Preston and de Waal 2002).This empathic response can transition into different emotional

C. D. Cameron (*)Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, E11 Seashore Hall,Iowa City, IA 52242, USAe-mail: [email protected]

B. L. FredricksonDepartment of Psychology, University of North Carolina at ChapelHill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA

MindfulnessDOI 10.1007/s12671-014-0383-2

Author's personal copy

states, of which two have received the most empirical atten-tion: compassion and distress (Batson 2011; Klimecki andSinger 2012). Compassion refers to other-oriented feelingsof care and concern for others (Batson 2011; Decety 2011;Goetz et al. 2010; Klimecki and Singer 2012). Distress refersto an aversive, self-oriented response (Batson 2011; Klimeckiand Singer 2012). Whereas compassion leads people to helpothers even at cost to themselves, distress leads people toescape from helping situations if able to do so (Batson 2011;Klimecki and Singer 2012). Helping should be most commonamong people who are able to maximize compassion whileminimizing distress (Klimecki and Singer 2012).

Existing research suggests that mindfulness may be usefulin this regard. Medical students who took part in an 8-weekmindfulness-based stress reduction course showed increasedcompassion and decreased distress (Shapiro et al. 1998).Similarly, participants who took part in 8-week training ineither mindfulness or compassionmeditation were more likelythan active control participants to offer their seat to aconfederate on crutches (Condon et al. 2013). Trainingnovices in loving-kindness meditation—which fosterspresent-focused attention to compassion—increases positiveemotions and social connections over time (Fredrickson et al.2008). In another study, novice meditators initially responded toscenes of human suffering with self-reported negative affect andactivation of brain areas that past research has linked to distress;after loving-kindness meditation training, these novicesresponded to human suffering with increased self-reportedpositive affect and activation of brain areas that past researchhas linked to compassion (Klimecki et al. 2013). Finally,2-week compassion meditation (vs. cognitive reappraisal)training led to increased charitable behavior in an economicredistribution game and decreased amygdala response (thatpast work links to distress) and increased anterior insularesponse (that past work links to compassion) in response todepictions of human suffering (Weng et al. 2013).

We believe that further unpacking mindfulness intopresent-focused attention and nonjudgmental acceptance ofexperiences will enrich understanding of the relationship be-tween mindfulness, compassion, distress, and helping, espe-cially in the general population of those who have not benefit-ed from mind training. First, present-focused attention shouldpredict increased positive emotions during helping—such ascompassion, joy, and moral elevation—but be unrelated tonegative emotions during helping, such as distress, disgust,and guilt. People tend to report being less happy when theyhave been mind wandering rather than focusing attention onthe present moment (Killingsworth and Gilbert 2010).Attending to the present moment also increases the ability toup-regulate and savor positive emotions (Quoidback et al.2010). Studies reveal that present-focused attention increasesmental self-awareness, which allows more nuanced empathyand perspective taking for others (Decety 2011; Dekeyser

et al. 2008; Holzel et al. 2011). Present-focused attention hasalso been theorized to give people greater flexibility to focuson important aspects of the situation (Garland and Fredrickson2013; Hayes et al. 2006). Present-focused attention may high-light positive features of helping, such as consequences forthose who are helped (Garland and Fredrickson 2013).Broadened attention to these aspects of the situation couldinspire more positive emotions in turn, creating an upwardspiral of broadened situational awareness and other focus(Garland and Fredrickson 2013). If present-focused attentionis associated with increased positive emotions, then it shouldalso predict greater likelihood of helping others (Isen 1987).Past research is equivocal on the relationship between present-focused attention and negative emotions; some studies finda positive correlation (Baer et al. 2006; Coffey et al.2010)—because attending to negative emotions may ampli-fy their intensity—whereas other studies do not (Dekeyseret al. 2008).

On the other hand, we predict that nonjudgmental accep-tance of experiences will be associated with reduced negativeemotions during helping—such as distress—but be unrelatedto positive emotions such as compassion. Accepting experi-ences nonjudgmentally may be a general marker of psycho-logical health and has been linked empirically with reduceddistress (Baer et al. 2006; Coffey et al. 2010; Dekeyser et al.2008; Kashdan et al. 2006; Shallcross et al. 2013). For in-stance, work by Shallcross et al. (2013) found that age-relateddeclines in anger and anxiety—measured as emotional traits,physiological responses to stress, and daily emotion experi-ences—were each mediated by age-related increases in accep-tance. Many clinical treatments encourage people to accepttheir experiences, so that they do not engage in experientialavoidance that further compounds distress and suffering(Hayes et al. 2006; Kashdan et al. 2006; Linehan 1993).Within helping situations, nonjudgmental acceptance mayallow people to disengage from their negative emotions andfocus on those in need of help (Coffey et al. 2010).Acceptance may enable people to reinterpret the helping con-text as less threatening, forestalling self-focused distress(Bishop et al. 2004). If nonjudgmental acceptance is associat-ed with reduced negative emotions, then it should also predictgreater likelihood of helping others.

In the current study, we tested whether two components ofmindfulness—attention and acceptance, which are uncorrelat-ed in those without mind training—predicted engagement inreal-world helping behavior. Additionally, we tested whetherthese components of mindfulness would relate to differentvalences of emotions during helping. We had threehypotheses:

1. Present-focused attention and nonjudgmental acceptancewould be independently associated with greater likeli-hood of engaging in helping behavior.

Mindfulness


2. For those participants who help others, present-focusedattention would predict increased positive emotions dur-ing helping.

3. For those participants who help others, nonjudgmentalacceptance would predict reduced negative emotions dur-ing helping.

Method

Participants

Participants were 313 adults who responded to a request toparticipate in a research project on reactions to everydayevents. They were compensated $10 for completing a surveyonline. The sample included 222 women and 91 men. Therewere 241 White participants, 41 Black participants, 22 Asianparticipants, and 9 participants who did not list their race. Theaverage age was 44 years old (SD=15.07 years; range 21–87 years), and average income was between $45,000 and $54,999 (minimum income=$0–14,999; maximum=$85,000+).We used a two-phase instruction check designed to verify thatparticipants were following study instructions (Oppenheimeret al. 2009).

Procedure

All participants gave informed consent prior to participating inthe study. After providing consent, participants completed allmeasures online.

Measures and Data Analysis

Helping Behavior As part of a larger life event measure calledthe event reconstruction method (ERM), participants wereasked to describe a recent instance in which they had helpedsomeone: “Think of the last time you helped someone for atleast 20 min or more (e.g., voluntarily assisting someone elsewith a home repair project, listening to someone who needs totalk, not a required activity for school or job). Take a momentto recall and mentally relive this event, including how theevent unfolded, what time of day it was, and what it was like.First, please briefly describe the event (a sentence or phrase isenough).” Then, participants completed our binary helpingvariable: “As indicated by my response above, (1) I do engagein this activity even if only on occasion, or (0) generally, I donot engage in this activity.” Thus, although everyone recalleda helping event, this dichotomous variable assessed generallikelihood of engaging in helping behavior. In the event re-construction method, participants also reported engagement inother behaviors that were not the focus of the current research:eating a nutritiousmeal, eating an unhealthymeal, engaging in

physical activity, watching television, going outdoors, havingsex, learning something new, drinking alcohol, sitting,interacting socially, getting ready, hugging someone, working,and commuting.

Emotions During Helping If participants indicated that theyhad engaged in helping behavior, they completed follow-upquestions about emotions during the helping event that theyhad described (using the modified Differential EmotionsScale; Fredrickson 2013). These items had the form of“What is the most X you felt” (from 0=not at all to 4=extremely). Each emotion was assessed via a combination ofthree terms. Positive emotions included the following:amused, fun loving, and silly; awe, wonder, and amazement;grateful, appreciative, and thankful; hopeful, optimistic, andencouraged; inspired, uplifted, and elevated; interested, alert,and curious; joyful, glad, and happy; love, closeness, andtrust; proud, confident, and self-assured; and serene, content,and peaceful. Negative emotions included the following: an-gry, irritated, and annoyed; ashamed, humiliated, anddisgraced; contemptuous, scornful, and disdainful; disgust,distaste, and revulsion; embarrassed, self-conscious, andblushing; guilty, repentant, and blameworthy; hate, distrust,and suspicion; sad, downhearted, and unhappy; scared, fear-ful, and afraid; and stressed, nervous, and overwhelmed.Within this study, love/closeness/trust most closelycorresponded to compassion, and stressed/nervous/overwhelmed most closely corresponded to distress. To testhypotheses 2 and 3, we constructed composites of positiveemotions (α=0.93) and negative emotions (α=0.86), whichwere negatively correlated (r=−0.13, p=0.04).

Carolina Empirically Derived Mindfulness Inventory In thecurrent study, we utilized a 22-item scale that was empiricallyderived by Coffey et al. (2010) to capture the Bishop et al.(2004) definition of mindfulness as involving both attention tothe present moment and nonjudgmental acceptance of expe-riences. They drew upon items from the Five FacetMindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al. 2006) andthe Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratzand Roemer 2004). Factor analyses revealed the presence oftwo independent factors: a present-focused attention factorcomprised the FFMQ observe subscale (e.g., “I pay attentionto how my emotions affect my thoughts and behaviors”), anda nonjudgmental acceptance factor comprised the FFMQnonjudging subscale (e.g., “I criticize myself for having irra-tional or inappropriate emotions”; reverse-coded) and DERSnonacceptance subscale (e.g., “When I’m upset, I becomeirritated with myself for feeling that way”; reverse-coded).The Carolina Empirically Derived Mindfulness Inventory(CEDMI) was chosen instead of the original FFMQ becauseit was statistically evaluated to capture distinct mindfulnessmechanisms (present-focused attention and nonjudgmental

Mindfulness


acceptance; Bishop et al. 2004). In the current sample,present-focused attention (α=0.84) and nonjudgmentalacceptance (α=0.94) were uncorrelated (r=−.05, p=0.38).

Emotion Reports Participants were asked to rate the degree towhich they had experienced a variety of emotions over theprior 2-week period, using the same modified DifferentialEmotions Scale as earlier (Fredrickson 2013). Participantswere told: “Please think back to how you felt these past2 weeks, and how often you experienced the following emo-tions” (0=not at all, 1=hardly, 2=some of the time, 3=often,4=most of the time).

Savoring Beliefs As another measure of present-focused at-tention and nonjudgmental acceptance, participants complet-ed the Savoring Beliefs Inventory (Bryant 2003), a 24-itemself-report measure of savoring experiences (e.g., “I knowhow to make the most of a good time,” “I feel fully able toappreciate good things that happen to me”).

Results

In our sample, 85 % of participants reported engaging inhelping behavior. Example behaviors included listening to afriend’s problems, giving advice, babysitting, helping out withhousework or homework, providing a car ride, fixing some-thing at no cost, donating to charity, and volunteering in thelocal community. We conducted a logistic regressionpredicting engagement in helping behavior. On the first step,we entered gender, age, and annual income as demographicpredictors. Men were marginally less likely than women toreport engaging in helping behavior, B=−0.57, SE=0.35,Wald=2.71, p=0.10. Age did not predict helping, B=0.01,SE=0.01, Wald=0.51, p=0.48. Participants with higher in-come were more likely to report helping others, B=1.86, SE=0.18, Wald=104.00, p<0.001. On the second step of thelogistic regression, we entered the present-focused attentionand nonjudgmental acceptance subscales of the CEDMI.Present-focused attention predicted greater helping, B=0.57,SE=0.23, Wald=6.20, p=0.01. Nonjudgmental acceptancealso predicted greater helping, B=0.40, SE=0.20, Wald=3.91, p=0.05. In support of hypothesis 1, attention to thepresent moment and acceptance of emotional states wereindependently associated with greater likelihood of helping,above and beyond gender, age, and income.

To examine whether these relationships were specific tohelping behavior, we also predicted engagement in each of theother behaviors from the event reconstruction method inven-tory from present-focused attention and nonjudgmental accep-tance. Table 1 displays logistic regression results for mindful-ness facets predicting each ERM behavior, while controlling

for age, gender, and income. Although some behaviors wereassociated with either present-focused attention or nonjudg-mental acceptance, helping was the only behavioral outcomeindependently associated with both mindfulness facets.

We next examined whether present-focused attentionwould predict changes in emotional experiences during help-ing for those who reported having helped (N=252; those whoindicated not having helped did not complete the emotionreports). We predicted the positive emotion composite fromgender, age, income, and present-focused attention and non-judgmental acceptance. Positive emotions during helpingwere unrelated to gender, age, and income (all ps>0.11).Whereas nonjudgmental acceptance did not predict positiveemotions, β=0.01, p=0.83, present-focused attention did, β=0.22, p<0.001. Figure 1 displays the relationship betweenpresent-focused attention, nonjudgmental acceptance, andpositive emotions. We also predicted each positive emotionin the composite (see Table 2). Similar patterns emerged foreach emotion, with attention—but not acceptance—predictingincreased amusement, awe, gratitude, hope, inspiration/eleva-tion, interest, joy, love/closeness, pride, and serenity.Supporting hypothesis 2, participants who were more likelyto attend to the present moment reported greater amounts ofpositive emotions during helping.

We predicted negative emotions from gender, age, income,and the present-focused attention and nonjudgmental accep-tance subscales. Negative emotions during helping were un-related to gender and income (ps>0.60), but age was associ-ated with reduced negative emotions, β=−0.14, p=0.04.Whereas present-focused attention did not predict negativeemotions, β=0.02, p=0.73, nonjudgmental acceptance wasassociated with reduced negative emotions, β=−0.25,p<0.001. Figure 1 displays the relationship between present-focused attention, nonjudgmental acceptance, and negativeemotions. We also predicted each negative emotion in thecomposite (see Table 2). Similar patterns emerged for eachemotion, with acceptance—but not attention—predicting de-creased anger, contempt, disgust, embarrassment, fear, guilt,hate, sadness, shame, and stress during helping. Supportinghypothesis 3, participants who were more likely to acceptinternal experiences reported lower amounts of negative emo-tions during helping.

An alternative explanation for hypotheses 2 and 3 is thatspecific relationships between mindfulness facets and emo-tions are driven by stereotyped expectations about emotionsduring helping. For instance, someone who is high in present-focused attention might believe that helping is more positiveand so report more positive emotions during helping. Toexamine this possibility, we assessed the relationships betweenmindfulness facets and domain-general modified DifferentialEmotions Scale (mDES) positive emotions (α=0.86) and neg-ative emotions (α=0.71) for the previous 2-week period.Present-focused attention predicted increased positive

Mindfulness


emotions, r(312)=0.32, p<0.001, but not negative emotions,r(312)=−0.01, p=0.84. Nonjudgmental acceptance predicteddecreased negative emotions, r(312)=−0.34, p<0.001, andincreased positive emotions, r(312)=0.11, p=0.05. Thus, themindfulness-emotion relationships were present for emotionreports not specific to helping, suggesting that earlier relation-ships were not driven by stereotypes about helping-relatedemotions.

Another alternative explanation is that the mindfulnessscales shared method variance with the emotion measures(for both helping and domain-general measures). Thepresent-focused attention items tend to focus on positiveevents, which may make them correspond to positive (butnot negative) emotions, whereas the nonjudgmental accep-tance items tend to focus on negative events, which may make

them correspond to negative (but not positive) emotions. Totest whether these relationships were driven by item content,we conducted a supplementary analysis with savoring beliefs,a scale that did not have a division between positive andnegative item content. Twelve participants did not complete

Fig. 1 Standardized regression coefficients representing the relationshipsbetween mindfulness and intensity of emotions during helping, as afunction of mindfulness subcomponent (present-focused attention,nonjudgmental acceptance) and emotion valence (positive, negative).Error bars reflect 1 standard error of the mean

Table 2 Multivariate linear regressions predicting helping-relatedemotions

Present-focused attention Nonjudgmental acceptance

β t p β t p

Amusement 0.16 2.53 0.01 −0.02 −0.36 0.72

Awe 0.14 2.12 0.04 −0.02 −0.38 0.71

Gratitude 0.22 3.53 0.0005 −0.05 −0.81 0.42

Hope 0.17 2.70 0.007 0.05 0.82 0.41

Inspiration 0.16 2.56 0.01 0.02 0.36 0.72

Interest 0.21 3.40 0.001 0.07 1.12 0.26

Joy 0.18 2.84 0.005 0.01 0.12 0.90

Love/Closeness 0.23 3.64 0.0003 −0.003 −0.05 0.96

Pride 0.13 2.02 0.04 0.06 0.93 0.35

Serenity 0.13 2.15 0.03 −0.04 −0.65 0.51

Anger 0.02 0.26 0.80 −0.19 −3.00 0.003

Contempt 0.03 0.42 0.68 −0.15 −2.39 0.02

Disgust −0.001 −0.02 0.98 −0.16 −2.53 0.01

Embarrassment 0.06 0.88 0.38 −0.22 −3.56 0.0004

Fear 0.03 0.43 0.67 −0.21 −3.39 0.001

Guilt −0.01 −0.19 0.85 −0.21 −3.30 0.001

Hatred −0.04 −0.66 0.51 −0.11 −1.77 0.08

Sadness 0.02 0.28 0.78 −0.14 −2.23 0.03

Shame 0.005 0.08 0.94 −0.15 −2.30 0.02

Stress 0.03 0.54 0.59 −0.16 −2.49 0.01

Table 1 Multivariate logistic regressions predicting helping and other behavioral outcomes from present-focused attention and nonjudgmentalacceptance

Present-focused attention Nonjudgmental acceptance

B (SE) Wald p Exp (B) B (SE) Wald p Exp (B)

Helping 0.57 (0.23) 6.20 0.01 1.77 0.40 (0.20) 3.91 0.05 1.49

Drinking alcohol 0.50 (0.17) 8.71 0.003 1.65 0.04 (0.15) 0.06 0.81 1.04

Nutritious meal 0.79 (0.38) 4.30 0.04 2.20 0.27 (0.35) 0.61 0.44 1.31

Sexual activity 0.44 (0.19) 5.29 0.02 1.56 −0.03 (0.17) 0.02 0.88 0.97

Commuting 0.01 (0.22) 0.001 0.98 1.01 0.38 (0.19) 4.12 0.04 1.46

Physical activity 0.25 (0.28) 0.79 0.38 1.29 0.54 (0.25) 4.63 0.03 1.72

Social interaction 0.27 (0.33) 0.67 0.42 1.30 0.82 (0.29) 7.92 0.005 2.28

Getting ready 0.41 (0.39) 1.13 0.29 1.51 0.05 (0.36) 0.02 0.88 1.05

Going outside 0.30 (0.26) 1.25 0.26 1.34 0.23 (0.24) 0.97 0.32 1.26

Hugging someone 0.32 (0.25) 1.68 0.19 1.38 0.32 (0.22) 2.17 0.14 1.37

Learning something 0.28 (0.23) 1.45 0.23 1.32 0.25 (0.21) 1.41 0.24 1.28

Unhealthy meal 0.07 (0.18) 0.16 0.69 1.07 −0.12 (0.16) 0.56 0.45 0.89

Working 0.30 (0.25) 1.47 0.23 1.35 0.28 (0.23) 1.52 0.22 1.32

Mindfulness


the scale and were excluded from analysis. Savoring beliefs(α=0.94) correlated positively with present-focused attention,r(300)=0.27, p<0.001, and nonjudgmental acceptance,r(300)=0.38, p<0.001. Because this measure overlaps withboth mindfulness facets, it should predict helping, as well aspositive and negative emotions during helping. Savoring be-liefs predicted greater likelihood of helping, B=0.58, SE=0.20,Wald=8.57, p=0.003. Among participants who engagedin helping behavior, savoring beliefs predicted reduced nega-tive emotions during helping, β=−0.18, t=−2.81, p=0.01, andmarginally increased positive emotions during helping, β=0.11, t=1.70, p=0.09. These relationships were not domain-specific to helping, as savoring beliefs correlated positivelywith mDES ratings of positive emotions, r(300)=0.32,p<0.001, and negatively with mDES ratings of negative emo-tions, r(300)=−.21, p<0.001. Thus, the mindfulness relation-ships were not driven by shared item content, as a distinctmeasure associated with both facets showed similar relation-ships to helping and emotional outcomes.

Discussion

Many scholars and practitioners have argued that mindfulnesscan increase compassion and pro-social behavior (Dalai Lamaand Ekman 2008). The current study provides some of the firstevidence that trait mindfulness relates to real-world helpingbehavior. It also is the first to show how distinct facets ofmindfulness—present-focused attention and nonjudgmentalacceptance—relate in distinct ways to emotions during help-ing. By crossing the two-component definition of mindfulness(Bishop et al. 2004) with the two classes of emotions duringhelping (positive, including compassion, and negative, includ-ing distress; Batson 2011; Klimecki and Singer 2012), thecurrent study integrates the mindfulness and helping litera-tures while suggesting a new research trajectory movingforward.

In the current study, people who were more attentive to thepresent moment, and who were more accepting of experi-ences, were each more likely to report helping others.Importantly, these facets of mindfulness had independentrelationships with pro-social behavior. These are some of thefirst results to indicate that individual differences in mindful-ness facets predict real-world helping behavior. Additionally,of the different behavioral outcomes assessed, helping behav-ior was the only outcome that was independently related toboth facets of mindfulness.

Moreover, these mindfulness facets corresponded tohelping-related emotions in distinct ways. Higher scores onpresent-focused attention were associated with more positiveemotions—including love/closeness, our proxy for compas-sion (Goetz et al. 2010)—whereas higher scores on nonjudg-mental acceptance were associated with experiencing fewer

negative emotions, including stress, our proxy for distress.Although particularly interesting within the context of helpingothers, which can draw out positive or negative emotions (orboth), these patterns of emotion experience may also mirrordomain-general processes, as present-focused attention andnonjudgmental acceptance may calibrate positive and nega-tive emotions in similar ways across different situations.

Although attention and acceptance were associated withhelping behavior in similar ways, their distinct relations tohelping emotions are instructive. Many of the positive emo-tions that we examined have been linked with helping, such ascompassion (Batson 2011), joy (Isen 1987), and elevation(Schnall et al. 2010). Many of the negative emotions that weexamined interfere with helping, such as distress (Batson2011) and disgust (Batson et al. 1997). Emotions felt duringhelping could feed forward into future helping decisions(Baumeister et al. 2007). Joy or contentment could reinforcethe behavior (Isen 1987), gratitude could emphasize social ties(Algoe 2012), elevation could inspire altruism (Schnall et al.2010), and compassion could inform people that they valuethe welfare of those they are helping (Batson 2011). Similarly,negative emotions may reduce motivation to help, especiallyif escape would more easily soothe distress (Batson 2011).Mindfully accepting these negative experiences may bufferagainst their deterrent effects on future helping. To explorethis possibility, we conducted an exploratory logistic regres-sion predicting helping behavior from the mDES positive andnegative emotion composites, mindfulness facets, and theirinteractions. There was a marginal interaction between non-judgmental acceptance and prior negative emotion, B=0.94,SE=0.50, Wald=3.60, p=0.06, such that negative emotionpredicted lesser likelihood of helping, but only for participantswho were low in acceptance. Importantly, this was the onlyERM behavior for which this pattern emerged, suggesting adomain-specific role for the interaction of negative emotionsand nonjudgmental acceptance in predicting helping behavior.

In the current study, we used a two-component definition ofmindfulness by Bishop et al. (2004) and a scale that wasvalidated to cleanly capture these components (Coffey et al.2010). Although there has been controversy over the defini-tion of mindfulness, all parties seem to agree that present-focused attention is a core feature (Brown et al. 2007), and wehave shown that it predicts helping behavior and its positiveemotional correlates. Regardless of whether nonjudgmentalacceptance is seen as a second component of mindfulness or adownstream consequence, we have shown that it has a distinctrelationship with helping and its negative emotional corre-lates. Moving forward, we believe that clear understandingof the emotional basis of helping will require thinking aboutboth attention and acceptance.

Much research has been devoted to factors that inhibitcompassion and helping (Cameron and Payne 2011) and toconsequences of compassion (Cameron and Payne 2012;

Mindfulness


Condon and DeSteno 2010; Oveis et al. 2010). We believethat more research needs to examine psychological factors thatsustain and enrich pro-social emotions and behavior.Mindfulness is one such factor, but others could includeprioritizing positivity (Catalino and Fredrickson 2011), behav-ioral synchrony (Vacharkulksemsuk and Fredrickson 2012;Valdesolo and DeSteno 2011), and cardiac vagal tone (Kokand Fredrickson 2010). Additionally, interventions couldtarget specific components of mindfulness to improvepro-sociality in ways that are tailored to specific con-texts. Training acceptance might help in situations inwhich negative emotions such as distress threaten toinhibit the presence or quality of helping. On the otherhand, training present-focused attention might encouragehelping in situations in which people need to upregulatethe compassion response above a low baseline. Giventhat these two facets converge in practiced meditators(Baer et al. 2008), long-term practice in meditation mayincrease both facets to levels that optimize the likeli-hood of helping others. Although other mechanismsbesides emotion might also mediate the relationshipbetween mindfulness facets and helping behavior—suchas decreased self-referential processing (Brewer et al.2011)—the current study suggests that changes in emo-tion may play an important role.

The current study has limitations that should be addressedin future research. Self-report measures of mindfulness havebeen validated in many studies but may be susceptible todesirability biases and lack of insight. Mitigating this concern,the results reported herein converge with intervention workthat manipulates mindfulness to examine effects on pro-socialoutcomes (e.g., Condon et al. 2013; Weng et al. 2013).Another limitation is that we only used retrospective ratingsof emotion, which may be influenced by beliefs about emo-tion rather than emotional experiences (Robinson and Clore2002). Although this is a valid concern, the mindfulness facetsused in the current study predict changes in onlineemotion assessed via experience sampling (Hill andUpdegraff 2012). The retrospective nature of the helpingbehavior measure could also be influenced by stereo-types about helping. Despite this possibility, we believethat our idiographic measurement of helping is advanta-geous to establish ecological validity. Additionally, thisstudy converges with findings that mindfulness predictspro-social behavior in controlled laboratory contexts(e.g., Condon et al. 2013; Weng et al. 2013).

We have shown that two facets of mindfulness—present-focused attention and nonjudgmental acceptance—predicthelping and differentially calibrate positive and negative emo-tions during the helping process. When we decide to helpothers, it appears to take two processes—attention and accep-tance—to both sustain our intention and reap the richestemotional consequences.

References

Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: the functions of gratitude ineveryday relationships. Social and Personality PsychologyCompass, 6, 455–469.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets ofmindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer,S., Walsh, E., Duggan, D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Constructvalidity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditatingand non-meditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329–341.

Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J.,Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L.(1997). Empathy and attitudes: can feeling for a member of astigmatized group improve feelings toward that group? Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118.

Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). Howemotion shapes behavior: feedback, anticipation, and reflection,rather than direct causation. Personality and Social PsychologyReview, 11, 167–203.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L. E., Anderson, N. D.,Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V., Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., &Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: a proposed operational definition.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11, 230–241.

Brewer, J. A., Worhunsky, P. D., Gray, J. R., Tang, Y. Y., Weber,J., & Kober, H. (2011). Meditation experience is associatedwith differences in default mode network activity and con-nectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,108, 20254–20259.

Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness:theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects.Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237.

Bryant, F. B. (2003). Savoring Beliefs Inventory (SBI): a scale formeasuring beliefs about savoring. Journal of Mental Health, 12,175–196.

Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2011). Escaping affect: how motivatedemotion regulation creates insensitivity tomass suffering. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 100, 1–15.

Cameron, C. D., & Payne, B. K. (2012). The cost of callousness: regu-lating compassion influences the moral self-concept. PsychologicalScience, 23, 225–229.

Catalino, L. I., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2011). Tuesdays in the lives offlourishers: the role of positive emotional reactivity in optimalmental health. Emotion, 11, 938–950.

Coffey, K. A., Hartman, M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Deconstructingmindfulness and constructing mental health: understanding mind-fulness and its mechanisms of action. Mindfulness, 1, 235–253.

Condon, P., & DeSteno, D. (2010). Compassion for one reduces punish-ment for another. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47,698–701.

Condon, P., Desbordes, G., Miller, W., & DeSteno, D. (2013). Meditationincreases compassionate responses to suffering. PsychologicalScience, 24, 2125–2127.

Dalai Lama, T. G., & Ekman, P. (2008). Emotional awareness: overcom-ing the obstacles to psychological balance and compassion: aconversation between the Dalai Lama and Paul Ekman. NewYork: Times Books/Henry Holt.

Decety, J. (2011). Dissecting the neural mechanisms mediating empathy.Emotion Review, 3, 92–108.

Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008).Mindfulness skills and interpersonal behaviour. Personality andIndividual Differences, 44, 1235–1245.

Mindfulness


Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build.Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1–53.

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M.(2008). Open hearts build lives: positive emotions, induced throughloving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1045–1062.

Garland, E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Mindfulness broadens aware-ness and builds meaning at the attention-emotion interface. In T. B.Kashdan & J. Ciarrochi (Eds.), Mindfulness, acceptance, and pos-itive psychology: the seven foundations of well-being (pp. 30–67).Oakland: New Harbinger Publications.

Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: anevolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin,136, 351–374.

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment ofemotion regulation and dysregulation: development, factorstructure, and initial validation of the Difficulties in EmotionRegulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and BehavioralAssessment, 26, 41–54.

Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006).Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes, and out-comes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1–25.

Hill, C. L., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Mindfulness and its relationship toemotional regulation. Emotion, 12, 81–90.

Holzel, B. K., Lazar, S.W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., &Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposingmechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 537–559.

Isen, A. M. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social be-havior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 203–253.

Kashdan, T. B., Barrios, V., Forsyth, J. P., & Steger, M. F. (2006).Experiential avoidance as a generalized psychological vulnerability:comparisons with coping and emotion regulation strategies.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1301–1320.

Killingsworth, M. A., & Gilbert, D. T. (2010). A wandering mind is anunhappy mind. Science, 330, 932.

Klimecki, O., & Singer, T. (2012). Empathic distress fatigue rather thancompassion fatigue? Integrating findings from empathy research inpsychology and social neuroscience. In B. Oakley, A. Knafo, G.Madhavan, & D. S. Wilson (Eds.), Pathological altruism (pp. 368–383). New York: Oxford University Press.

Klimecki, O. M., Leiberg, S., Lamm, C., & Singer, T. (2013). Functionalneural plasticity and associated changes in positive affect aftercompassion training. Cerebral Cortex, 23, 1552–1561.

Kok, B., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Upward spirals of the heart:autonomic flexibility, as indexed by vagal tone, reciprocally andprospectively predicts positive emotions and social connectedness.Biological Psychology, 85, 432–436.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderlinepersonality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.

Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructionalmanipulation checks: detecting satisficing to increase statisticalpower. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.

Oveis, C., Horberg, E. J., & Keltner, D. (2010). Compassion, pride, andsocial intuitions of self-other similarity. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 98, 618–630.

Preston, S. D., & de Waal, F. B. (2002). Empathy: its ultimate andproximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 25, 1–20.

Quoidback, J., Berry, E. V., Hansenne, M., & Mikolajczak, M. (2010).Positive emotion regulation and wellbeing: comparing the impact ofeight savoring and dampening strategies. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 49, 368–373.

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Belief and feeling: evidence foran accessibility model of emotional self-report. PsychologicalBulletin, 128, 934–960.

Schnall, S., Roper, J., & Fessler, D. M. T. (2010). Elevation leads toaltruistic behavior. Psychological Science, 21, 315–320.

Shallcross, A. J., Ford, B. Q., Floerke, V. A., & Mauss, I. B. (2013).Getting better with age: the relationship between age, acceptance,and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,104, 734–749.

Shapiro, S. L., Schwartz, G. E., & Bonner, G. (1998). Effects ofmindfulness-based stress reduction on medical and premedical stu-dents. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 21, 581–599.

Vacharkulksemsuk, T., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2012). Strangers in sync:achieving embodied rapport through shared movements. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 48, 399–402.

Valdesolo, P., & DeSteno, D. (2011). Synchrony and the social tuning ofcompassion. Emotion, 11, 262–266.

Weng, H. Y., Fox, A. S., Shackman, A. J., Stodola, D. E., Caldwell, J. Z.,Olson,M. C., Rogers, G.M., &Davidson, R. J. (2013). Compassiontraining alters altruism and neural responses to suffering.Psychological Science, 24, 1171–1180.

Mindfulness


Mindfulness Facets Predict Helping Behavior and Distinct Helping-Related Emotions

Documents