Perils and Promise in Defining and Measuring Mindfulness: Observations From Experience

Mindfulness is increasingly recognized as a phenomenon with functional import for outcomes as diverse as physical health, psychological well-being, work and sport performance, and relationships. Paralleling this recognition is an increased interest in naturally occurring variations in mindfulness and how interventions and practices that facilitate mindfulness actually work. As this research advances, the need for exacting theoretical and operational definitions of mindfulness becomes more salient. However, mindfulness is a deceptively simple concept that is difficult to characterize accurately. Intrepid scholars seeking to do so must enter the shadowy realm of consciousness, the domain from which mindfulness arises. As old as the study of consciousness is within the field of psychology, it nonetheless remains largely uncharted and mysterious territory (Chalmers, 1995). Thus, Bishop, Lau, Shapiro, Carlson, and Anderson (this issue) are to be commended for taking on the bold task of proposing a definition of mindfulness, both conceptually and operationally. In this commentary, we share our perspectives on Bishop et al.’s theory of, and proposed measurement approach to, mindfulness, drawing upon our own recent research experiences (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003, in press). Specifically, we address four topics of central concern to Bishop et al.: the nature of mindfulness, the relation of acceptance to present-centered attention and awareness, the link between mindfulness and meditative practice, and the measurement of mindfulness in meditative contexts and beyond.