Over the past two decades, the concept of mindfulness has become hugely popular around the world. An increasingly ubiquitous part of society, it’s taught everywhere from workplaces and schools to sports programs and the military.
On social media, television, and wellness apps, mindfulness is often shown as one simple thing—staying calm and paying attention to the moment.
Large companies like Google use mindfulness programs to help employees stay focused and less stressed. Hospitals use it to help people manage pain and improve mental health. Millions of people now use mindfulness apps that promise everything from lowering stress to sleeping better.
But as a professor of religious studies who has spent years examining how mindfulness is defined and practiced across different traditions and historical periods, I’ve noticed a surprising problem beneath the current surge of enthusiasm: Scientists, clinicians, and educators still don’t agree on what mindfulness actually is—or how to measure it.
Because different researchers measure different things under the label “mindfulness,” two studies can give very different pictures of what the practice actually does. For someone choosing a meditation app or program based on research findings, this matters.
The study you’re relying on may be testing a skill like attention, emotional calm, or self-kindness that isn’t the one you’re hoping to develop. This makes it harder to compare results and can leave people unsure about which approach will genuinely help them in daily life.
From ancient traditions to modern science
Mindfulness has deep roots in Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Sikh, and other Asian contemplative lineages. The Buddhist “Satipatthana Sutta: The Foundations of Mindfulness” emphasizes moment-to-moment observation of body and mind.
The Hindu concept of “dhyāna,” or contemplation, cultivates steady focus on the breath or a mantra; Jain “samayika,” or practice of equanimity, develops calm balance toward all beings; and Sikh “simran,” or continuous remembrance, dissolves self-centered thought into a deeper awareness of the underlying reality in each moment.
In the late 20th century, teachers and clinicians began adapting these techniques for secular settings, most notably through mindfulness-based stress reduction and other therapeutic programs. Since then, mindfulness has migrated into psychology, medicine, education, and even corporate wellness.
It has become a widely used—though often differently defined—tool across scientific and professional fields.
Why scientists disagree about mindfulness
In discussing the modern application of mindfulness in fields like psychology, the definitional challenge is front and center. Indeed, different researchers focus on different things and then design their tests around those ideas.
Some scientists see mindfulness mainly in terms of emphasizing attention and paying close attention to what’s happening right now.
Other researchers define the concept in terms of emotional management and staying calm when things get stressful.
Another cohort of mindfulness studies emphasizes self-compassion, meaning being kind to yourself when you make mistakes.
And still others focus on moral awareness, the idea that mindfulness should help people make wiser, more ethical choices.
These differences become obvious when you look at the tests researchers use to measure mindfulness. The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, or MAAS, asks about how well someone stays focused on the present moment. The Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory—FMI—asks whether a person can notice thoughts and feelings as they come and accept them without judgment. The Comprehensive Inventory of Mindfulness Experiences—CHIME—adds something most other tests leave out: questions about ethical awareness and making wise, moral choices.
As a result, comparative research can be tricky, and it can also be confusing for people who want to be more mindful but aren’t sure which path to take. Different programs may rely on different definitions of mindfulness, so the skills they teach and the benefits they promise can vary a lot.
This means that someone choosing a mindfulness course or app might end up learning something very different from what they expected unless they understand how that particular program defines and measures mindfulness.
Why different scales measure different things
John Dunne, a Buddhist philosophy scholar at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, offers a helpful explanation if you’ve ever wondered why everyone seems to talk about mindfulness in a different way. Dunne says mindfulness isn’t one single thing, but a “family” of related practices shaped by different traditions, purposes, and cultural backgrounds.
This explains why scientists and people trying to be mindful often end up talking past each other. If one study measures attention and another measures compassion, their results won’t line up. And if you’re trying to practice mindfulness, it matters whether you’re following a path that focuses on calming your mind, being kind to yourself, or making ethically aware choices.
Why this matters
Because mindfulness isn’t just one thing, that affects how it’s studied, practiced and taught. That’s important both at the institutional and individual level.
Whether for places like schools and health care, a mindfulness program designed to reduce stress will look very different from one that teaches compassion or ethical awareness.
Without clarity, teachers, doctors, and counselors may not know which approach works best for their goals. The same rough idea applies in business for organizational effectiveness and stress management.
Despite the disagreements, research does show that different forms of mindfulness can produce different kinds of benefits. Practices that sharpen attention to the moment are associated with improved focus and workplace performance.
Approaches oriented towards acceptance tend to help people better manage stress, anxiety, and chronic pain. A focus on compassion-based methods can support emotional resilience. Programs that emphasize ethical awareness may promote more thoughtful, prosocial behavior.
These varied outcomes help explain why researchers continue to debate which definition of “mindfulness” should guide scientific study.
For anyone practicing mindfulness as an individual, this is a reminder to choose practices that fit your needs.
Ronald S. Green is a professor and chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies at Coastal Carolina University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.