The mindful personality: A meta-analysis from a cybernetic perspective

Abstract

Dispositional mindfulness (DM), or the tendency to attend to present moment experience, may have important implications for the structure of human personality. However, relationships between DM and the Big Five Model of Personality (BF) have not been definitively established. Therefore, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to extend previous investigations of the relationship between DM and the BF, utilizing a larger sample of studies, attending to relational inconsistencies potentially associated with alternative methods of operationalizing DM, conducting the first meta-analysis of the DM subdomains in relation to the BF, and situating the results in a cybernetic model. Results indicate that neuroticism evidenced the strongest, negative relationship with DM and conscientiousness evidenced the strongest, positive relationship with DM, suggesting the mindful personality may be characterized principally by emotional stability and conscientious self-regulation - potentially reflective of an inclination towards the personality metatrait stability. Measurement differences were also observed, with the mindful personality arrived at through the FFMQ differing to some extent from the mindful personality emerging from the MAAS. Broadly, the mindful personality associated with the FFMQ appears to reflect greater personality complexity, with the FFMQ evidencing associations with all five personality factors while the MAAS appears primarily linked with only three personality factors (Neuroticism, Conscientiousness and Agreeableness). Examination of the relationships between the BF and DM at the facet level also suggest unique patterns of association between the DM facets and each of the personality factors.

Introduction

Although not counted among the canonical personality domains, dispositional mindfulness may be an important aspect of human personality. Mindfulness is robustly associated with well-being (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003; Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012). Similarly, specific personality configurations are also linked to well-being and more positive life outcomes (Ozer, 2006; Roberts, 2007). Therefore, clarifying associations between dispositional mindfulness (DM) and the Big Five Model of Personality (BF) may have valuable implications for well-being. Yet, relations between dispositional mindfulness (DM) and the Five Factor Model of Personality (FFM) have not been definitively established. Previous investigations of these relationships have yielded inconsistent results (Giluk, 2009; Rau & Williams, 2016). Notably different estimates of the strength of association between DM and several of the BF personality factors have been reported (e.g., Extraversion: Baer et al., 2006 vs. Tucker et al., 2014; Openness to Experience: Gootzeit et al., 2014 vs. Hollis-Walker et al., 2011). Furthermore, the only extant meta-analysis of DM and the FFM identified a relatively wide range of reported relationships between DM and the BF, urging continued investigation of these relationships (Giluk, 2009).

While a number of factors could potentially contribute to this variability, varying approaches to measuring DM are believed to underlie these equivocal findings (Giluk, 2009; Rau & Williams, 2016). Specifically, it may be that unidimensional (i.e., Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale; Brow & Ryan, 2003) and multidimensional (i.e., Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; Baer et al., 2006) DM scales are differentially related to the BF. Indeed, a preliminary review of how the BF relate to uni- and multidimensional scales suggests systematic differences. Specifically, greater variability in the associations between DM and extraversion, openness as well as agreeableness has been reported in studies measuring DM with the MAAS (Baer et al., 2006; Kong, 2015; Ortner, 2007; Waters, 2007) in comparison with studies using the FFMQ (Hollis-Walker, 2011; Karakashian, 2011; McGarvey, 2010; Schurtz, 2011). Thus, inconsistent findings may originate from measurement selection decisions.

Furthermore, theoretical advancements in personality psychology may offer a compelling, integrative framework for interpreting associations between DM and the BF. The Cybernetic Big Five Theory (CB5T; DeYoung, 2015) is based on the premise that humans are cybernetic systems. Cybernetic systems are goal-directed, complex systems whose behavior is driven by feedback processes (Bateson, 1972; Macy, 1991). Cybernetics emerged in response to the inadequacy of traditional, linear approaches to modeling biological behavior (Macy, 1991; von Bertalanffy, 1968). In contrast, cybernetic models assume behavior is emergent, dynamic, and iterative (Macy, 1991; Wiener, 1948). The CB5T contends that the BF represent behavioral parameters of mechanisms that evolved to guide human behavior, with each personality factor reflecting cybernetic mechanisms that facilitate pursuit of both evolved and individually defined goals. Situating the relationships between DM and the BF in a cybernetic framework may offer greater explanatory utility, exploring personality in a holistic manner. Furthermore, a cybernetic approach is likely to offer more applied interpretations of the relationship between DM and the BF, providing insight into the dispositional behavioral tendencies of mindful individuals.

Broadly, this meta-analysis has two primary purposes: 1) to clarify the nature of the relationship between DM and the BF, and 2) to expand theoretical interpretations of this relationship. First, with respect to clarification, previous meta-analytic work examining the relationships between DM and the BF will be updated, utilizing a larger sample of studies. More significantly, two novel approaches to the meta-analysis of the link between DM and the BF will be pursued to examine, a) the relationships between DM and the BF across alternative methods of operationalizing DM, and, b) the relationships between the subdomains of DM and the BF. Second, with respect to interpretation, a more refined understanding of the relationship between DM and the BF is the natural result of the more granular analytic approaches targeting the subdomains of DM. Additionally, the relationships between DM and the BF will be interpreted in a novel, cybernetic framework, as proposed by the CB5T. Relationships between DM and each of the BF personality factors, as cybernetic parameters, will be considered.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness is a construct of considerable interest in the psychological literature. This interest is likely driven by evidence linking mindfulness with a wide range of psychological (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Carmody & Baer, 2008, Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012), physical (Chiesa & Serreti, 2009; Grossman, Niemann, Schmidt, & Walach, 2004; Paul-Labrador et al., 2006) and relational (Barnes et al., 2007; Carson, Carson, Gil & Baucom, 2004; Coatsworth, Duncan, Greenberg & Nix, 2010; Jones et al., 2011) benefits. Consequently, considerable effort has been devoted to creating conceptual and operational definitions of mindfulness. Unfortunately, conceptual and operational consensus has not been entirely achieved, leaving broader conclusions about mindfulness tentative without the assurance of consistent terminology or measurement equivalency (e.g., Bergomi, Tschacher & Zupper, 2013). Adding to this complexity, mindfulness has simultaneously been conceptualized as a state, disposition, practice and intervention (Vago & Silbersweig, 2012). Operationally, at least ten measures of mindfulness have been developed. Eight of these measures are designed to assess dispositional mindfulness (Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale, Brown & Ryan, 2003; Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness, Baer, Smith & Allen, 2004; Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory, Walach et al., 2006; Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, Baer et al., 2006; Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale – Revised, Feldman et al., 2007; Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale, Cardaciotto et al., 2008; Southampton Mindfulness Questionnaire, Chadwick et al., 2008; Toronto Mindfulness Scale Trait Version, Davis et al., 2009). The remaining two measures are designed to assess the cognitive state of mindfulness (Toronto Mindfulness Scale, Lau et al., 2006), and the process of implementing mindfulness in the context of interventions (Applied Mindfulness Process Scale, Li, Black, & Garland, 2016). This breadth of research demands clear delineation of how researchers operationalize the construct of DM to ensure clarity of communication and a base level of generalizability for results.

Dispositional mindfulness (DM) will be the primary focus of this meta-analysis. Operationally, only studies employing the most frequently used unidimensional measure of DM (Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale; Brown & Ryan, 2003) and multidimensional measure of DM (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; Baer et al., 2006) will be included. Notable similarities are apparent in the conceptual definitions informing both the MAAS and FFMQ, despite structural differences in the measures. Brown and Ryan (2003) state that mindfulness is “being attentive to and aware of what is taking place in the present” (p.822). Baer et al. (2006) slightly extend Brown and Ryan's definition by stating that mindfulness is “bringing one's attention to experiences occurring in the present moment, in a nonjudgmental or accepting way” (p.27). The propensity to express these psychological qualities of attentiveness, awareness, and acceptance in daily life can be conceptualized as dispositional mindfulness.

Both the MAAS and FFMQ were designed to be multidimensional. The MAAS initially contained two factors, presence and acceptance, but only the presence factor was retained in the final scale. The FFMQ's multidimensional structure was arrived at by factor analyzing the five dispositional mindfulness scales available at the time: Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003), Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (Buchheld, Grossman, &Walach, 2001), Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness (Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004), Cognitive Affective Mindfulness Scale (Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, & Greeson, 2004; S. C. Hayes & Feldman, 2004), and the Mindfulness Questionnaire (Chadwick, Hember, Mead, Lilley, & Dagnan, 2005). This analysis yielded five facets of mindfulness: observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonreacting and non-judging. The observing facet refers to attending to experiences both internally and externally (e.g., “I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars passing”), but concerns about differential item functioning have led to recent critiques of this facet (Gu et al., 2016; Siegling, Furnham & Petrides, 2016; Siegling & Petrides, 2016; Van Dam, Earleywine & Danoff-Burg, 2009). Systematic differences in the observing facet have been found in meditating and non-meditating samples (Van Dam, Earleywine & Danoff-Burg, 2009), and emerging evidence suggests that the observing facet may not be valid measure of DM for individuals without a meditation history (Siegling, Furnham & Petrides, 2016; Siegling & Petrides, 2016). The describing facet reflects the use of words to label internal experiences (e.g., “I'm good at finding words to describe my feelings”). The acting with awareness facet denotes being present moment oriented during activities (e.g., “I am easily distracted” – reversed scored). The non-judging of inner experiences facet suggests being nonevaluative toward cognitive or emotional events (e.g., “I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them”). The non-reactivity to inner experience facet indicates a metacognitive disengagement from aversive thoughts or feelings, allowing them to come and go without attempting to control them (e.g., “When I have distressing thoughts or images, I ‘step back,’ and I am aware of the thought or image without getting taken over by it”).

The nomological net surrounding DM is ripe for continued expansion and clarification. Such expansion is valuable for advancing theory and improving clinical practice. Insofar as evidence suggests that DM is salutary (e.g., Chiesa & Serreti, 2009; Eberth & Sedlmeier, 2012), pursuing a better understanding of DM and its psychological correlates may provide conceptual insights with potential therapeutic applications. The investigation of DM in relation to the Big Five personality factors may be one such valuable pursuit.

Personality as a Cybernetic System and Dispositional Mindfulness

The delineation of personality domains has been shown to provide behavioral insights and lend predictive power in a variety of domains (e.g., Eysenck, 1998). Indeed, personality factors, such as those identified by the Big Five Model of Personality (BF), evidence strong predictive utility with respect to general well-being, relationship satisfaction, occupational attainment, and mortality (Ozer, 2006; Roberts, 2007). The BF is one of the most empirically validated configurations of personality, consisting of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, and neuroticism (John, Naumann & Soto, 2008). Traditionally, these five personality factors have been conceptualized as distinct constructs. However, a recently proposed theory of personality, the Cybernetic Big Five Theory (CB5T; DeYoung, 2015), suggests that cybernetics provides a conceptual framework capable of integrating the BF. More specifically, the CB5T suggests that the BF function as behavioral parameters in the human cybernetic system.

Cybernetic systems are characterized by three primary qualities: 1) goal-directed behavior, 2) the sensory capacity to receive environmental feedback, and 3) the ability to adaptively respond to environmental feedback. The field of cybernetics arose from biological and technological investigations (von Bertalanffy, 1968; Wiener, 1948), but has also been usefully applied to the analysis of human behavior. DeYoung (2015) outlines basic cybernetic operations using a schematic cycle of five stages: 1) goal activation, 2) action selection, 3) action, 4) outcome interpretation, and 5) goal comparison. In the following sections, each of the personality factors will be linked to this model of cybernetic operations. However, it is important to emphasize that these stages rarely, if ever, operate linearly. Relations between these five stages of cybernetic operation are more appropriately characterized as simultaneous and dynamic. Thus, this stage model should be interpreted as a useful heuristic, designed to highlight the different functions that the human mind must accomplish, and not as an immutable structure. Furthermore, it should be expected that multiple personality factors will be relevant at each stage of the cybernetic cycle. However, for reasons of parsimony, the BF personality factors will be coupled with only their most prominent stages of the cybernetic cycle. For a more extensive exploration of the more complex relationships between the BF and the cybernetic stages see DeYoung (2015).

Previous research has examined associations between DM and five factors of personality (see Rau & Williams, 2016), although not from a cybernetic perspective. The following sections will provide brief descriptions of each of the BF factors of personality, Then, each personality factor's cybernetic role will be presented along with a brief discussion of how DM may influence that role.

Extraversion

Extraverted individuals are commonly characterized as “warm, outgoing and socially engaged” (Rau & Williams, 2016, p.36). From a cybernetic perspective, extraversion is conceived as the personality factor most closely linked with the cybernetic cycle's first stage: goal activation (DeYoung, 2015). Goals “govern information processing and behavior” (DeYoung, 2015, p.41) by signaling the possibility of a reward. A reward, from the cybernetic perspective, is any indication of goal relevant progress. Thus, extraversion appears to reflect the degree to which a reward may be sufficiently motivating.

Investigations of the relationship between extraversion and DM have yielded mixed results (Baer et al., 2006; Hollis-Walker, 2011; Karakashian, 2011; Ortner, 2007). However, positive relationships between extraversion and DM appear most common, and have been interpreted to result from both constructs evidencing positive associations with well-being and positive affect (Giluk, 2009; Rau & Williams, 2016). Well-being and positive affect are intimately linked with reward sensitivity. Functionally, well-being and positive affect are achieved by responding to cues signaling the potential availability of a reward (e.g., Chiew & Braver, 2011). Extraverts are likely to be more sensitive to and motivated by such cues (DeYoung, 2015).

Openness to Experience

Individuals open to experience tend to be “attentive to and curious about their inner (i.e., emotions, thoughts) and outer (i.e., activities, foods, social values) experiences” (Rau & Williams, 2016, p.37). From a cybernetic perspective, openness is conceived as the personality factor most closely associated to the elements of the cybernetic cycle situated on either side of action: action selection and outcome interpretation (DeYoung, 2015). During the second stage of the cybernetic cycle, action selection, the most appropriate action is selected to further goal relevant progress. During the fourth stage, outcome interpretation, environmental feedback is processed to inform interpretation of the selected action's impact on the current state of the world.

Applied to the cybernetic cycle, openness to experience plays a central role at two stages of the cycle. However, it appears to operate similarly at both points. Both the action selection and outcome interpretation stages are characterized by an examination (elaboration and synthesis) of behavioral or interpretative options, yielding greater behavioral and cognitive flexibility. Mindfulness has long been implicated in deautomatization – i.e., reinvesting conscious attention in behaviors which have become habitual (Deikman, 1966). Thus, DM may foster heightened involvement with decision making rather than reflexive engagement in overlearned, automatized routines. Indeed, DM has been linked with greater behavioral () and cognitive () flexibility. Greater breadth at the point of action selection would provide a wider range of behavioral options for goal attainment and flexible selection of alternative strategies should the initial action prove ineffective. Similarly, Greater breadth at the point of outcome interpretation would provide more interpretive possibilities. By increasing access to novel information, such cognitive breadth is likely to allow for more nuanced contextual appraisals, allowing for adaptive reconstrual of events to emerge from the multiple interpretive possibilities nested in any single event. Indeed, accumulating empirical evidence suggests that mindfulness may facilitate reappraisal by virtue of increasing openness to novel perceptual input and perspective taking (for a review, see Garland et al., 2015).

Conscientiousness

Conscientious individuals are likely to be “self-disciplined and deliberate … described as dependable, responsible, rule-abiding, and achievement-oriented” (Rau & Williams, 2016, p.39). From a cybernetic perspective, conscientiousness is conceived as the personality factor most closely linked with the third stage of the cybernetic cycle: action (DeYoung, 2015). Thus, conscientiousness is proposed to function cybernetically as the protector of long-term, eudaimonic goals, along with the behavioral strategies supporting those goals. Simultaneously, conscientiousness is thought to limit the disruptive ability of short-term, appetitive goals.

Investigations of the relationship between conscientiousness and DM have yielded generally consistent results. Associations between the two constructs are typically positive and moderately strong (Giluk, 2009; Rau & Williams, 2016). Such consistency may be the result of conceptual similarities between the DM and conscientiousness. Specifically, metacognitive awareness and self-regulatory capacities characterize both constructs. Giluk (2009) emphasizes that deliberate, intentional responding is the hallmark of both DM and conscientiousness as opposed to impulsive reactivity that may be expected for individuals low in conscientiousness or DM. Kabat-Zinn (1990) asserts that DM can be understood as the opposite of “autopilot”. Mindful behavior is marked by intention and awareness. As such, mindfulness appears closely linked with conscientiousness when characterized cybernetically as motivational stability.

Neuroticism

Neurotic individuals are inclined “to experience negative affect such as anxiety, hostility, depressed mood, and emotional sensitivity” (Rau & Williams, 2016, p.35). From a cybernetic perspective, neuroticism is conceived as the personality factor most closely linked with the cybernetic cycle's final stage: goal comparison (DeYoung, 2015). Goal comparison involves comparing the current state with the desired state to identify any discrepancies between desired and observed outcomes. Discrepancies signal errors that can range from trivial to profound. A more trivial discrepancy may simply signal that an inadequate behavioral strategy was previously selected. A more profound discrepancy may signal a fundamentally inadequate schemas of the self or the world (DeYoung, 2015). Mismatches between expected and observed outcomes are likely to trigger negative emotions and defensive responses (DeYoung, 2015). Broadly, neuroticism, within a cybernetic framework, indicates the degree to which discrepant goal comparisons elicit negative emotions and defensive responses.

Investigations of the relationship between neuroticism and DM have yielded generally consistent results. Neuroticism is the BF personality factor most strongly related with DM, most often investigated in conjunction with DM, and the only BF personality factor unequivocally negative in its association with DM (Giluk, 2009; Rau & Williams, 2016). The conceptual inverse of neuroticism can be understood as emotional stability (Giluk, 2009). Thus, a defining feature of neuroticism is reactivity (Suls & Martin, 2005; Rau & Williams, 2016); and, the reactivity characteristic of neuroticism may be attributed to self-regulatory deficits, both emotional and behavioral. Indeed, neurotic individuals tend to be highly attuned and sensitive to aversive stimuli, responding to threats with avoidance (e.g., Lommen, Engelhard & van den Hout, 2010). In contrast, self-regulation is a central feature of mindfulness, and emotion regulation is a core mechanism supporting self-regulation (Tang, Holzel & Posner, 2015). Both these mindful regulatory capacities are exhibited behaviorally as nonreactivity – a key facet of DM. Nonreactivity may allow more mindful individuals to better navigate the inevitability of discrepant goal comparisons and accompanying experiences of negative emotionality (e.g., Hill & Updegraff, 2012), suspending habitual scripts triggered by negative emotions and allowing for more adaptive, intentional behavioral responses (e.g., Vago & Silbersweig, 2012).

Agreeableness

Agreeable individuals can be described as “level-headed, considerate, and trusting in [their] approach to social relationships … generally good-natured, cooperative, caring and concerned for others” (Rau & Williams, 2016, p.38). Agreeableness is also unique among the BF personality traits with respect to its cybernetic function. Agreeableness is not singularly linked with any specific stage of the cybernetic cycle. Instead, agreeableness is believed to impact all stages of the cybernetic cycle as individual goals are enacted in a social context (DeYoung, 2015). Thus, cooperation is often necessary for the pursuit of personal goals. Personal goals must be balanced in relation to the goals of others, all of which are situated within larger social structures. DeYoung (2015) concludes that “the human cybernetic system is pervasively shaped by our sociality” (p.46)

Investigations of the relationship between agreeableness and DM have yielded generally consistent results. Associations between the two constructs are typically positive and moderately strong (Giluk, 2009; Rau & Williams, 2016). The qualities traditionally descriptive of agreeableness, introduced above, are resonant with prosocial qualities often associated with DM, such as empathy (Block-Lerner et al., 2007; Birnie, Speca & Carlson, 2010) and compassion (Neff, 2008; Neff & Germer, 2013). Such interpersonal tendencies may allow more mindful individuals to be more present and responsive in their social interactions.

Summary

Continued investigation is needed to clarify relationships between DM and the BF. Both empirical and theoretical advancements may be instrumental in this pursuit. A number of new studies have been conducted since Giluk's (2009) original meta-analysis of DM and the BF. This larger body research allows for novel analytic inquiries. Thus, the present meta-analysis has three analytic aims: 1) update previous meta-analytic work exploring the relationships between DM and the BF by using a more uniform inclusion criteria with respect to the measurement of DM; 2) explore differences in the relationships between the BF and DM as measured by unidimensional and multidimensional measures of DM; 3) examine relationships between the BF and the five facets of mindfulness as delineated by the FFMQ. In addition, a new theoretical framework of personality has been proposed, capable of organizing the BF personality factors into an integrative, cybernetic cycle. Thus, this study has an additional theoretical aim: to ground the relationships between DM and the BF observed in the present meta-analysis in a five stage cybernetic cycle as detailed by the Cybernetic Big Five Theory (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Proposed Relationships between the Cyberntic System, Cybernetic Personality and Mindfulness. Quotations from DeYoung, 2015.

Method

The analytic methods and inclusion criteria for this meta-analysis were identified in advance in accordance with the PRISMA Statement (Moher et al., 2009).

Data Selection

A computerized database search was performed, using PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, and ProQuest Dissertations. Studies referencing dispositional mindfulness and the five facet model of personality were identified using the following search terms: mindfulness, dispositional mindfulness, personality, five facet, big five, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, openness to experience, neuroticism, and emotional stability. This search yielded 932 potential studies, including peer-reviewed journal articles as well as unpublished manuscripts and dissertations. Date of publication was not limited and studies from each database's first available date until March 11, 2016 were included. Abstracts from these studies were reviewed for relevance or duplication, and 186 studies with relevant or ambiguous abstracts were retained. Both ancestry and dependency searches were performed using Google Scholar, but these searches revealed no new studies. Studies from a previous meta-analysis (Giluk, 2009) and a recent review article (Rau & Williams, 2016) examining the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and the FFM were also carefully reviewed. Several studies addressed in the meta-analysis and review articled were excluded from the current study to increase the precision of this analysis's measurement of mindfulness.

Ultimately, 45 original studies met the following inclusion criteria:

• - The study described an empirical investigation

• - The study evaluated the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and at least one of the five factors of personality

• - Dispositional mindfulness was measured by either the Mindful Attention Awareness

Scale (MAAS) of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ)

• - The sample consisted of nonclinical, native English speaking adults

• - The publication provided enough data to compute effect sizes

One of the selected studies reported relationships between DM and the FFM using both measure of DM in a single sample. Several other studies reported multiple samples within the same manuscript. These samples were scored separately, resulting in a final set of 46 independent samples from 38 manuscripts. Sample characteristics and measurement method for the final set of included studies is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Overview of Included Studies.

#	Author	Year	Sample	N	Age	Female	Personality Measure	Extra	Agree	Consc	Open	Neuro
	Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale
1	Baer	2006	Undergraduate Psychology Students	613	21	70%	NEO-FFI	-.08	-	-	.23	-.41
2	Brown	2012	Introductory Psychology Students	34	22	61%	NEO-FFI	-	-	-	-	-.44
3	Brown_1	2003	University Students	313	20	66%	NEO-PI	-	-	-	.18	-.56
	Brown_2	2003	University Students	187	20	62%	NEO-FFI	-	-	-	.12	-.33
	Brown_3	2003	University Students	145	20	64%	NEO-FFI	-	-	-	.19	-.56
4	Chavers (T)	2013	Adults over 22	208	46	80%	NEO-FFI	.24	.40	.30	.09	-.53
5	Earley (T)	2011	Adults	291	-	70%	NEO-FFI	.12	.30	.27	.09	-.52
6	Feltman_1	2009	Undergraduate Students	195	-	59%	GB-B	-	-	-	-	-.49
	Feltman_2	2009	Undergraduate Students	94	-	52%	GB-B	-	-	-	-	-.48
7	Fetterman_1	2010	Undergraduate students	91		56%	GB-B	-	-	-	-	-.49
	Fetterman_2	2010	Undergraduate students	67	-	-	GB-B	-	-	-	-	-.67
	Fetterman_3	2010	Undergraduate students	68	-	59%	GB-B	-	-	-	-	-.53
8	Gootzeit (T)	2014	College Students and Mechanical Turk users	830	19	71%	IPIP (20)	.06	.08	.33	.01	-.27
9	Klockner	2013	Workers	92	-	35%	IPIP (50)	0.11	-0.10	0.02	0.15	-0.44
10	Kong	2015	Undergraduate Students	86	20	80%	Mini Markers	0.21	0.37	0.46	0.31	-0.36
11	Kostanski	2007	Pre-service Tertiary Students	267	-	-	NEO-FFI	.15	.27	.40	-	-0.58
12	Latzman	2013	Undergraduate College Students	429	21	80%	BFI	0.19	0.41	0.5	0.09	-0.44
13	Niemiec_1	2010	Undergraduate Students	64		78%	NEO-FFI	-	-	-	-	-0.34
	Niemiec_2	2010	Undergraduate Students	216	-	73%	NEO-FFI	0.18	0.34	0.31	-0.02	-0.32
14	O'loughlin	2008	Undergraduate Students	265		74%	BFI	-	-	-	-	-0.28
15	Ortner_1	2007	Meditation Practitioners	28	36	54%	BFI	0.36	0.54	0.23	-.14	-.43
	Ortner_2	2007	University Students	82	23	76%	BFI	0.19	0.21	0.46	0.06	-0.28
16	Philip (T)	2010	Undergraduate Students	427	20	71%	BFI (10)	0.10	0.29	0.41	0.07	-0.35
17	Plaut	2012	Undergraduate Students	181	19	41%	TIPI	0.00	0.09	0.27	0.13	-0.28
18	Rush (D)	2013	American Adults	287	30	71%	GB-B	-	-	-	-	-0.42
19	Schnitker	2007	Undergraduate Psychology Students	324	21	78%	BFI	0.00	0.43	0.29	0.03	-0.36
20a	Siegling	2014	British University Students	358	22	76%	BFI	0.14	0.31	0.31	0.02	-0.35
21	Taren	2013	American Adults	152	41	50%	NEO	0.25	-	0.31	-	-0.39
22	Thompson	2007	Introductory Psychology Students	167	19	71%	IPIP (50)	-0.05	0.29	0.28	0.04	-0.41
23	Walsh	2009	Psychology Students and Staff	127	-	79%	NEO-PI	-	-	-	-	-0.33
24	Waters (D)	2007	Undergraduate Students	60	-	55%	BFI	-0.01	-0.09	-	-	-0.41
25	Way	2010	Undergraduate Students	27	-	60%	IPIP (10)	-	-	-	-	-.24
26	Williams	2007	Undergraduate Students	261	19	58%	NEO-FFI	0.13	0.28	-	-	-0.34
27	Wupperman	2008	Introductory Psychology Students	342	-	73%	EPQ	-	-	-	-	-0.54
28	Yang (D)	2015	Health Care Professionals	72	34	93%	IPIP (20)	0.11	0.23	0.25	0.19	-0.24
	Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
29	Barnhofer	2011	Community Sample	144	43	60%	EPQ	-	-	-	-	-0.6
30	Eisenlohr-Moul	2012	Introductory Psychology Students	296	19	55%	FFF	0.25	0.09	0.25	0.06	-0.44
31	Hanley	2015	University Students	485	21	78%	BFI	0.22	0.31	0.38	0.31	-0.44
32	Hollis-Walker	2011	University Students and Demographically Community Members	123	21	78%	NEO-PI	0.42	0.36	0.46	0.35	-0.66
33	Karakashian (D)	2011	University Students	174	23	76%	BFI (10)	0.19	0.28	0.28	0.05	-0.51
34	McGarvey (D)	2010	Leaders who practice mindfulness	118	50	47%	NEO-PI	0.28	0.3	0.27	0.38	-0.67
35	Schurtz (D)	2011	University Students	141	20	66%	FFF	0.28	.01	0.15	0.05	-0.52
20b	Siegling	2014	British University Students	358	22	76%	BFI	0.34	0.27	0.37	0.31	-0.47
36	Tucker	2014	University Students	315	19	65%	FFF	0.36	0.24	0.29	0.23	-0.42
37	Westbrook (T)	2013	Undergraduate University Students	114	21	64%	IPIP (50)	0.20	0.04	0.33	0.32	-0.4
38	Zabelina	2011	Undergraduate University Students	81	21	48%	GB-B	-	-	-	-	-0.39

Note. Extra = Extraversion. Agree = Agreeableness. Consc = Conscientiousness. Open = Openness. Neuro = Neuroticism. GB-B = Goldberg Broad-Bandwidth. BFI = Big Five Inventory. IPIP = International Personality Item Pool. EPQ = Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. FFF= Five Factor Form. TIPI = Ten Item Personality Inventory (D) = Dissertation. (T) = Thesis.

Siegling used both the MAAS and FFMQ to measure mindfulness.

Efforts to Obtain Additional Data

For those studies deemed eligible but not including requisite information, (e.g., correlations between DM and the five personality factors), study authors were contacted by email. Study author's contact information was obtained from either the study manuscript, the authors' academic institution website, or from a Google search. The first authors of 13 manuscripts were contacted, with 9 (69%) providing usable data and 4 (31%) proving unable to be reached.

Effect Size Calculation

The effect size Pearson r was used in this analysis. Effect sizes were calculated using a random effects model as the included studies were comprised of heterogeneous samples and multiple measures of DM and the FFM were used. As Pearson's r is not normally distributed, r values were transformed into Fisher's Z scores for the meta-analytic calculations and then converted back to r scores for reporting purposes (Quintana, 2015).

Analysis Plan

Three sets of analysis were performed to address the relationships between DM and the FFM for 1) all identified studies of DM and the BF, 2) only those studies measuring DM with the MAAS, and 3) only those studies measuring DM with the FFMQ. Each set of analysis entailed five separate analyses, one for each personality factor. Five more sets of analysis with 5 analyses in each set were performed examining the relationships between the five DM facets (observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-reacting, and non-judging) and the FFM.

Results

Meta-analytic results from the full analysis, MAAS analysis, and FFMQ analysis are reported in Table 2. Meta-analytic results for the exploration of each mindfulness facet are reported in Table 3. Both tables also include tests of heterogeneity (I², Tau², Q) and publication bias (Rank Correlation Test, Egger Test).

Table 2. Results for Full Meta-Analyses, MAAS Meta-Analyses, and FFMQ Meta-Analyses.

Trait	K	N	r	SE	95%	CI	I2	Tau2	Q	Rank	Egger
	Full Analysis
Extraversion	28		.17	.024	.12	.22	74%	.012	118.92 (p<.001)	.062 (p=.64)	1.034 (p=30)
Agreeableness	26		.26	.028	.20	.31	78%	.015	117.89 (p<.001)	-.154 (p=.26)	-.648 (p=.52)
Conscientiousness	25		.34	.020	.30	.38	55%	.005	55.12 (p<.001)	-.110 (p=.43)	-1.356 (p=.18)
Openness	27		.15	.022	.10	.19	71%	.010	98.52 (p<.001)	.114 (p=.40)	.291 (p=.77)
Neuroticism	45		-.47	.021	-.52	-.43	72%	.013	159.26 (p<.001)	-.052 (p=.61)	-.380 (p=.70)
	MAAS Analysis
Extraversion	20		.11	.024	.06	.15	59%	.006	48.34 (p<.001)	.116 (p=.50)	1.439 (p=.15)
Agreeableness	18		.27	.037	.20	.35	81%	.018	90.99 (p<.001)	-.177 (p=.33)	-.463 (p=.64)
Conscientiousness	17		.35	.027	.29	.40	61%	.007	40.39 (p<.001)	-.132 (p=.49)	-1.157 (p=.25)
Openness	19		.10	.021	.06	.14	47%	.003	35.41 (p=.008)	.216 (p=.21)	.389 (p=.70)
Neuroticism	35		-.45	.023	-.49	-.40	69%	.011	114.22 (p<.001)	-.032 (p=.80)	-.147 (p=.88)
	FFMQ Analysis
Extraversion	9		.29	.028	.24	.35	33%	.002	11.74 (p=.16)	.111 (p=.76)	.081 (p=.94)
Agreeableness	9		.22	.042	.14	.30	70%	.010	25.05 (p=.002)	-.278 (p=.36)	-.612 (p=.54)
Conscientiousness	9		.33	.030	.27	.39	41%	.003	13.92 (p=.08)	-.111 (p=.76)	-.585 (p=.56)
Openness	9		.23	.047	.14	.33	76%	.014	31.84 (p<.001)	-.056 (p=.92)	.275 (p=.78)
Neuroticism	11		-.55	.039	-.63	-.48	70%	.011	28.77 (p=.001)	-.345 (p=.16)	-1.44 (p=.15)

Table 3. Results for FFMQ Facet Meta-Analyses.

Trait	K	r	SE	95%	CI	I2	Tau2	Q	Rank	Egger
	Observing
Extraversion	9	.13	.043	.05	.22	73%	.009	18.71 (p=.005)	.429(p=.24)	1.403 (p=.16)
Agreeableness	9	.13	.040	.05	.21	69%	.007	20.50 (p=.002)	-.048(p=1.00)	-.010 (p=.99)
Conscientiousness	9	.10	.054	-.01	.21	83%	.016	30.19 (p<.001)	.335(p=.38)	1.589 (p=.11)
Openness	9	.40	.050	.30	.50	85%	.016	40.52 (p<.001)	.286 (p=.40)	1.725 (p=.08)
Neuroticism	11	.02	.059	-.09	.14	89%	.024	41.35 (p<.001)	-.357(p=.28)	-1.294 (p=.20)
	Describing
Extraversion	9	.30	.039	.22	.37	66%	.006	16.91 (p=.01)	.429 (p=.24)	2.12 (p=.03)
Agreeableness	9	.20	.045	.11	.29	76%	.010	23.03 (p<.001)	-.333 (p=.38)	-1.28 (p=.20)
Conscientiousness	9	.24	.030	.19	.30	44%	.003	11.31 (p=.08)	-.048 (p=.1.00)	.937 (p=.35)
Openness	9	.27	.042	.19	.35	78%	.010	26.47 (p<.001)	.286 (p=.40)	1.167 (p=.24)
Neuroticism	11	-.24	.024	-.29	-.20	36%	.002	11.25 (p=.13)	-.143 (p=.72)	-.905 (p=.37)
	Acting with Awarness
Extraversion	9	.10	.044	.02	.19	75%	.010	23.99 (p<.001)	.238 (p=.56)	.679 (p=.50)
Agreeableness	9	.18	.067	.05	.31	89%	.027	55.68 (p<.001)	.238 (p=.56)	.411 (p=.68)
Conscientiousness	9	.50	.073	.35	.64	91%	.033	55.18 (p<.001)	.048 (p=1.00)	.873 (p=.38)
Openness	9	.01	.023	-.05	.06	50%	.003	12.96 (p<=07)	.071 (p=.90)	.115 (p=.91)
Neuroticism	11	-.40	.037	-.47	-.33	71%	.007	24.45 (p=.001)	-.071 (p=.90)	-.887 (p=.38)
	No-Reacting
Extraversion	9	.10	.021	.06	.14	0%	0	3.11 (p=.79)	.048 (p=1.00)	.940 (p=.35)
Agreeableness	9	.16	.051	.06	.26	81%	.014	28.89 (p<.001)	.238 (p=.56)	1.334 (p=.18)
Conscientiousness	9	.20	.055	.09	.31	84%	.017	32.62 (p<.001)	.714 (p=.03)	1.789 (p=.07)
Openness	9	.16	.018	.12	.20	.01%	<.001	9.41 (p=.22)	.000 (p=1.00)	.376 (p=.71)
Neuroticism	11	-.42	.077	-.57	-.27	94%	.043	67.83 (p<.001)	-.143 (p=.72)	-.820 (p=.41)
	Non-Judging
Extraversion	9	.16	.028	.11	.21	35%	.002	8.30 (p=.22)	.048 (p=1.00)	.480 (p=.63)
Agreeableness	9	.15	.057	.04	.27	85%	.018	37.81 (p<.001)	.143 (p=.77)	.321 (p=.75)
Conscientiousness	9	.18	.052	.08	.28	82%	.015	26.83 (p<.001)	-.143 (p=.77)	-.430 (p=.67)
Openness	9	.04	.046	-.06	.13	82%	.013	29.70 (p<.001)	.286 (p=.40)	1.789 (p=.07)
Neuroticism	11	-.55	.034	-.62	-.49	66%	.006	19.95 (p=.006)	-.357 (p=.28)	-1.790 (p=.07)

Full Analysis

In the full analysis, DM evidenced the strongest relationship with neuroticism (-.47), followed by conscientiousness (.34) and agreeableness (.26). Extraversion (.17) and openness (.15) were found to be the least associated with DM when examining results from both measures of DM in tandem.

MAAS vs. FFMQ

Differing patterns of association emerged across the five personality factors when compared across the two primary DM scales. The MAAS demonstrated relationships with the personality factors similar to the full analysis, with neuroticism (-.45), conscientiousness (.35), and agreeableness (.27) demonstrating the strongest relationships with this unidimensional measure of DM. In comparison with the MAAS, the FFMQ evidenced a stronger negative relationship with neuroticism (-.55) as well as stronger positive relationships with extraversion (.29) and openness to experience (.25). Similar magnitudes of association with conscientiousness (MAAS = .35; FFMQ = .33) and agreeableness (MAAS = .27; FFMQ = .22) were observed in both the MAAS and FFMQ analyses.

Mindfulness Facet Analysis

The mindfulness facets were differentially related to the personality factors. Both extraversion and agreeableness demonstrated similar patterns of association across all five DM facets, demonstrating significant, positive associations with each facet while being most strongly associated with the describing facet (extraversion = .30, agreeableness = .20). The remaining four mindfulness facets demonstrated relatively similar associations for both extraversion (.10 to .16) and agreeableness (.13 to .18). Neuroticism and conscientiousness were significantly associated with four of the five mindfulness facets, with neither demonstrating a relationship with the mindfulness facet observing. Neuroticism demonstrated the strongest levels of association across three mindfulness facets: acting with awareness (-.40), non-reacting (-.42), and nonjudging (-.55). Conscientiousness was primarily related to the acting with awareness mindfulness facet (.50), demonstrating relatively equivalent associations with the remaining three mindfulness facets (.18 to .24). Openness to experience was the personality factors least associated with the mindfulness facets, evidencing significant relationships with only three mindfulness facets. The observing mindfulness facet demonstrated the strongest association with openness to experience (.40).

Discussion

This meta-analysis of the relationships between DM and the BF found DM to be associated with each of the five personality factors in distinct ways. These relationships were examined at three levels of granularity: 1) the full analyses including the two most common measure of DM, 2) the scale specific analyses in which the most common unidimensional (MAAS) and multidimensional (FFMQ) measures of DM were explored individually in relation to the BF, and 3) the facet level analyses in which the relationships between the FFMQ's five facets of mindfulness are examined in relation with the BF. Results from the full analyses replicate an earlier meta-analysis (Giluk, 2009) and are resonant with a more recent systematic review of mindfulness and personality (Rau & William's, 2016). The scale specific analyses and the mindfulness facet analyses reflect novel contributions towards the effort to more fully characterize the relationship between the BF and DM. Additionally, interpreting the relationships between DM and the BF within a cybernetic framework represent novel, theoretical contributions from this study.

Full Analysis

Examining both mindfulness measures conjointly revealed associations between the BF and DM consistent with Giluk's (2009) results. Neuroticism demonstrated the strongest, negative relationship with DM, while conscientiousness demonstrated the strongest, positive relationship. Agreeableness evidenced a moderately strong association with DM. Openness to experience and extraversion were only minimally associated with DM. Taken together, the mindful personality emerging from all included studies is characterized principally by emotional stability and conscientious self-regulation, with a tendency towards prosociality.

From a cybernetic perceptive, mindfulness appears particularly relevant for the later stages of the cybernetic cycle, action (the third stage) and goal comparison (the fifth stage). Results suggest that more mindful individuals are more likely to maintain motivational stability in the pursuit of meaningful goals. Results further suggest that more mindful individuals are less likely to react defensively in response to uncertainty, threat and punishment – a proclivity that is likely to support the pursuit of long-term goals. The observed correlations between DM, extraversion, and openness to experience suggest that mindfulness is only modestly related to the earlier cybernetic stages of goal activation and action selection as well as the fourth stage of outcome interpretation. Possibly, mindful individuals may be more likely to be sensitive to rewards suggestive of eudaimonic ends. Furthermore, more mindful individuals are likely to have access to a broader range of behavioral options in pursuing their goals and a broader cognitive range in interpreting the outcome of their actions. Finally, more mindful individuals are more likely to be prosocial in their goal relevant pursuits, evidencing a willingness to coordinate their goals with others.

Examined holistically, these patterns of association suggest that DM may be better understood as correlate of personality metatraits. Factor analytic research on the BF has yielded two higher order metatraits: stability and plasticity (DeYoung, 2015). These metatraits are believed to capture fundamental attributes required for cybernetic systems to navigate the natural world and adapt to an ever changing environment. The CB5T therefore identifies these two metatraits as the broadest categorization of personality (DeYoung, 2015). The metatrait of stability, or the tendency to protect goals and beliefs from disruptive impulses, subsumes the factors of neuroticism (low), conscientiousness, and agreeableness (DeYoung, 2015). Viewed as elements of stability, these three personality factors can be alternatively conceptualized as emotional stability, motivational stability, and social stability, respectively. The metatrait of plasticity, or the tendency to explore and create new goals and beliefs, subsumes the factors of extraversion and openness. Viewed as elements of plasticity, these two personality factors can be alternatively conceptualized as reflecting tendencies toward behavioral exploration and cognitive exploration, respectively.

DM's associations with emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness may suggest that DM is closely related to the stability metatrait. Stability reflects the ability to maintain goal-relevant pursuit despite distracting impulses (DeYoung, 2015), a capacity very similar to the equanimous, non-reactive stance characterizing DM. However, mindfulness does not appear to be exclusively associated with stability. Associations were also observed between DM and the two personality factors constituting the plasticity metatrait, extraversion (i.e., behavioral exploration)and openness (i.e., cognitive exploration). These associations suggest that mindful individuals are unlikely to rigidly avoid anomalous or novel experiences, remaining open to both cognitive and behavioral exploration. Nevertheless, DM is much more closely associated with stability than plasticity, comparatively. The metatraits are conceived as the broadest dimension of personality as well as the principle means of survival for cybernetic systems endeavoring to maintain homeostasis in an unpredictable world (DeYoung, 2014). These results coupled with theoretical claims appear to suggest that mindfulness may be positioned at the intersection of stability and plasticity. Indeed, mindfulness has long been touted as a skillful means of maintaining equanimity in the face of suffering inherent in life (Rahula, 1959). While this study suggests a potential link between DM and the personality metatraits, future studies are encouraged to empirically test this proposed relationship through latent variable modeling approaches.

Scale Specific Analyses

Moving beyond replication of previous findings, this meta-analysis sought to address previous concerns about the impact of measurement decisions on the relationships between DM and the BF (Giluk, 2009; Rau & Williams, 2016). Measurement concerns were expressly highlighted in Giluk's (2009) previous meta-analysis. Findings from this study indicate notable differences in the associations between the two most common measures of DM, the MAAS and the FFMQ, and the BF. Associations between the MAAS and the BF largely reflect the patterns of association observed in the full meta-analysis. However, slightly weaker associations between the MAAS and both extraversion as well as openness to experience emerged when the MAAS was examined in isolation. The mindful personality delineated by the MAAS. therefore, is quite consistent with the mindful personality described above: emotionally stable, self-regulating and sociable. Cybernetically, emotional, motivational and social stability appear to support the maintenance of goal relevant actions while limiting negative emotionality and defensive responses to uncertainty or adversity.

The FFMQ, in contrast, demonstrated noticeably stronger relationships with neuroticism, extraversion and openness. With respect to conscientiousness and agreeableness, similar magnitudes of association were observed regardless of whether mindfulness was measured with the FFMQ or MAAS. Thus, the mindful personality arrived at through the FFMQ differs considerably from the mindful personality emerging from the MAAS and from the full analysis combining both scales. The mindful personality delineated by the FFMQ suggests an individual with considerable emotional stability along with pronounced tendencies towards self-regulation, and prosociality. This constellation of personality features is very similar to the highly stable personality linked to the MAAS. However, in addition to stability, the personality delineated by the FFMQ also suggests an individual with more pronounced tendencies towards extraversion and openness. Thus, plasticity is considerably more present in the FFMQ's mindful personality, displaying greater tendencies toward behavioral and cognitive exploration. Open, active engagement with life is consistent with classic psychological operationalizations of mindfulness that acknowledge the role of curiosity and receptivity to experience in mindful attention and awareness (Lau et al., 2006; Bishop et al., 2004). In that regard, the practice of mindfulness has been linked with increased openeness to experience and extraversion (van den Hurk et al., 2011).

Broadly, the mindful personality associated with the FFMQ appears to reflect greater personality complexity. The FFMQ evidenced associations with all 5 personality factors, capturing associations with both personality metatraits along with association with all five stages of the cybernetic cycle. Comparatively, the MAAS appears primarily linked with only three personality factors, reflecting only the stability metatrait and being primarily situated in the latter half of the cybernetic cycle. Discussion of the FFMQ's facet level meta-analyses may provide some insight into differences in personality emerging between the two measures.

Mindfulness Facet Analyses

Unique patterns of association between the DM facets and each of the personality factors were revealed by examining these interrelationships. Conscientiousness and extraversion each were associated with a single mindfulness facet. In contrast, neuroticism and openness to experience were associated with two distinct clusters of mindfulness facets. Finally, agreeableness evidenced relatively equivalent magnitudes of association across all five DM facets.

Conscientiousness, the BF personality factor most closely related with the action stage of the cybernetic cycle, was primarily associated with the DM facet acting with awareness. Thus, individuals more likely to act intentionally are also more likely to be self-disciplined and responsible. Both constructs reflect the capacity to sustain attention on a particular task as well as a metacognitive capacity to reorient attention back to task when distracted. Extraversion was primarily associated with the describing DM facet. Thus, individuals more capable of discriminating between internal states are also more likely to be responsive to the possibility of rewards. This conclusion is resonant with predictions from the CB5T.The mindful ability to identify cognitive and emotional states may allow more mindful individuals to respond to internal and external cues suggestive of rewarding possibilities. Neuroticism appears uniquely associated with the three DM facets denoting mindful self-regulation: acting with awareness, non-reacting, and non-judging. The larger pattern of association between the DM facets and neuroticism suggest that individuals reporting greater facility with self-regulation, measured behaviorally and cognitively, demonstrate greater emotional stability. Openness to experience was most strongly associated with the self-awareness DM facets, observing and describing. Thus, the tendency to observe internal and external experiences while also differentiating between internal states is suggestive of greater openness and curiosity about experience. Greater self-awareness may contribute to a more fluid knowledge of behavioral options in stage two of the cybernetic cycle, action selection. Furthermore, greater self-awareness would likely increase the range of interpretative options available in stage four of the cybernetic cycle, outcome interpretation. More generally, attention to internal and external events may allow more mindfully observant and descriptive individuals to more quickly identify discrepancies between their expectations and outcomes to facilitate goal pursuit. Agreeableness, in contrast, evidenced relatively equivalent magnitudes of association across all five DM facets. It appears that the mindfulness facets may work in concert, engaging both mindful self-awareness along with mindful self-regulation, to support social stability.

Limitations

While these results appear to be broadly consonant with previous findings and relatively consistent with theoretical expectations, limitations of this meta-analysis should be noted and considered when interpreting the results. First, considerable variability in the measurement of the BF was observed in this meta-analysis, with some scales consisting of only 10 items (e.g., Philip et al., 2010; Plaut et al., 2012), some scales using only adjectives (Kong et a., 2015), and others consisting of over 50+ items (Niemic et al., 2010; Earley et al., 2011). While each personality measure included in this meta-analysis was psychometrically sound and established within the personality literature, it is likely that different personality measures relate differently to DM. Future studies may be able to attend to specific personality measures along with specific DM measures. Second, sample characteristics should be take into consideration when thinking about the generalizability of these results. Only native English speakers were included in this meta-analysis to limit psychometric considerations potentially arising from translation. Hence, these results may not generalize cross-culturally. Also limiting generalizability, the majority of respondents in the included studies were WEIRD (Henrich, Heine & Norenzayan, 2010), disproportionately young adult female. Third, a lack of information on participants involvement with mindfulness practice may be another limitation as noticeable differences in the relationship between DM and the BF have been reported between individuals practicing mindfulness and those that do not (Van Dam, Earleywine & Danoff-Burg, 2009); and, evidence suggests that involvement with a mindfulness practice can impact personality presentation (e.g., van den Hurk, et al., 2011). Attending to practice involvement in future studies addressing DM and personality would likely account for a potential confounding variable. Fourth, a lack of heterogeneity in a few of the facet level analyses suggest that interpretation of results at the facet level should be done with caution and that continued exploration at this level of analysis is warranted. Finally, these results may be systematically biased as associations between DM and the BF were only derived from studies using the same method of measurement, self-report. As social desirability is differentially linked with the BF (Bäckström & Björklund, 2013), and presumably with DM as well, sources of variance other than the focal constructs could be accounting for (differences in) the observed associations. Future studies employing alternative measurement strategies are needed to corroborate these results.

Summary

Exploring relationships between DM and the BF emerging from specific measures of DM suggest that measurement decisions may be contributing to inconsistent results. Exploration at the facet level, providing further specificity, suggests that underlying differences in the associations between the BF differ between the two most common measure of DM. Scale specific analyses and facet level analyses suggest systematic differences in the relation between DM and the BF, likely contributing to discrepant results reported in the mindfulness literature. Differentiation of associative patterns at the facet level provide some insight into the cognitive and behavioral tendencies nested in the mindful disposition that manifest as particular personality characteristics. However, given the cross-sectional nature of this meta-analysis, posting a causal or directional claim is hazardous. Nevertheless, directional claims have been supported by experimental studies, with some researchers suggesting that personality factors may predispose certain individuals to either embrace or reject mindfulness practices (e.g., Tucker et al., 2014), while other researchers have provided evidence that mindfulness meditation can adjust personality reports (e.g., Crescentini & Capruso, 2015).

Given evidence of the malleability of both DM (e.g., Carmody & Baer, 2008) and personality (e.g., MacLean et al., 2011 Roberts, Walton & Viechtbauer, 2006), continued exploration of the relationship between DM and personality would likely be beneficial. Pragmatically, individuals identified as possessing personality traits inconsistent with DM could be targeted with early mindfulness-based interventions as a selective prevention strategy. Alternatively, individuals evidencing personality qualities attuned with the more mindful personality traits may be excellent candidates for mindfulness-based interventions or for engagement in long-term contemplative practice. Ultimately, continued exploration of associations between DM and personality at the facet level may afford a “personalized medicine” approach to mindfulness training, by providing a means of tailoring mindfulness techniques to specific personality profiles as a means of boosting clinical outcomes. For instance, targeting the development of greater behavioral and cognitive regulation skills may be particularly helpful in reducing neuroticism and thereby decrease the risk of developing future affective disorders. Or, learning mindfulness skills promoting the tendency to be descriptive of experience may allow individuals to be more outgoing or extraverted, with consequent prosocial benefits. These causal hypotheses could be tested empirically with studies utilizing mindfulness based interventions.