When two mindfulnesses meet

The study of mindfulness proceeds from a number of perspectives. Two of the best-known academic conceptualizations of mindfulness are those identified with Kabat-Zinn and Langer. These conceptions, meditative and socio-cognitive, have been built from different foundations and have been argued to be quite distinct. However, Hart, Ivtzan and Hart 1 suggested that self-regulation of attention is a mediator between the two. To put this hypothesis to a test, a convenience sample of participants (n = 208) were asked to complete the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS), and the Self-Regulation Scale (SRS), a measure of the self-regulation of attention. These three dispositional measures were shown to be correlated. Self-regulation passes a statistical test for partial mediation of the relationship between the two measures of mindfulness. This suggests that reliance on the capacity to regulate attention in pursuit of a goal is shared by these two approaches to mindfulness. However, there is no clear conceptual basis for mediation in either particular direction. Further, the correlation between the LMS and FFMQ is highest for those with the highest SRS scores; we discuss the implications for conceptual distinctions within mindfulness.

93 freely without restraint or evaluation). These factors do not all relate to attention as a 94 mechanism in the same way (for a discussion of the factors see Rau and Williams 20 ). Some 95 of the scores (e.g. observing and acting with awareness) lend themselves to description in 96 attentional terms. The status of the other subscales is less clear, as non-judgment and non-97 reactivity are traditionally considered fruits of mindfulness practice as much as signs of 98 successful direction of attention.

99
Langer and her colleagues developed their concept of socio-cognitive mindfulness in 100 the 1970s. In this concept, the primary theoretical distinction is between mindlessness -101 acting and thinking largely from learned experience -and mindfulness in which attention is 114 distinctions emphasizes its importance 7 . To avoid mindlessness requires both a willingness 115 and a capacity to make an effort with our attention. We would not only need less automatic 139 override one response, thereby making a different response possible". Since it is effortful, 140 self-control seems to have a limited capacity in the short term. But it may also improve 141 through training, and become more automatic 27 .

176
In the present study, the main hypothesis is that self-regulation of attention 177 mediates the relationship between meditative (as measured by the FFMQ) and socio-  220 Please see the demographic characteristics in Table 1 for more information.

303
In the present study, the FFMQ, a measure developed within the meditative 304 approach to mindfulness, and the LMS, a measure developed by the leading exponent of the 305 socio-cognitive approach, were correlated. Our data provide some support to the Hart et al. 1 306 predictions, but also opens additional questions. We find that the correlation between the 307 FFMQ and LMS is partially mediated by scores on the SRS. These results support the claim 308 that self-regulation of attention can be identified as a central aspect of both approaches.
309 However, there are a few complications in interpreting this finding. One of the first is that 310 the Sobel-Goodman test presumes a direction of causality. There is no reason to suppose a 311 particular direction of influence between these two measures; however, the size of the

331
From a conceptual point of view, the other possibility is that the FFMQ and LMS have 332 more in common than has been generally supposed. There are two arguments to consider.  However valid a test, it should not be expected to perform equally well in every 375 population to which it is administered. Other researchers have reported lower correlations 376 between the FFMQ and LMS than was found in this study. Differences between our sample 377 and those involved in other studies may be able to explain this. The present study used 378 different strategies of recruitment, amongst university students as well as in the 379 community. We may have more diversity than is typical of the literature. However, although 380 the sample size in the present study is adequate for the estimates of correlations, the 381 questionnaires did not gather enough detail about meditation practice, or other potentially 382 relevant factors to be able to address possible differences. The questionnaires were