Do you mind a closer look? A jingle-jangle fallacy perspective on mindfulness

31Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Mindfulness is defined inconsistently, and its various measures resemble established personality self-report scales. Therefore, jingle and jangle fallacies are likely to undermine the construct’s utility. To address these issues, we conducted two studies to test three hurdles of validity: 1) a sound definition and measurement model, 2) empirical distinctiveness, and 3) incremental criterion validity. We established an overarching and inclusive mindfulness definition covering twelve aspects. Based on this definition, we used an item sampling algorithm to select items from eight mindfulness scales. We established an eclectic bi-factor and a single-factor model, both fitting the data well. Bivariate latent variable correlations between a single mindfulness factor and big-five/six personality factors reached up to.68. Although 50% of mindfulness' variance was unaccounted for by the personality factors, it provided no meaningful incremental criterion validity over personality factors. Our results indicate that mindfulness has little or no incremental utility above established personality factors.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Altgassen, E., Geiger, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2024). Do you mind a closer look? A jingle-jangle fallacy perspective on mindfulness. European Journal of Personality, 38(2), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231174575

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free