Despite the long history of literature demonstrating the benefits of mindfulness, there remain inconsistencies in the field of psychology regarding the conceptualization and operationalization of mindfulness as a construct (Chiesa, 2013; Dreyfus, 2011; Gethin, 2011; Grossman, 2008). A principal concern is that the field lacks widely accepted and conceptually driven operational definitions of mindfulness (Grossman, 2011; Nilsson & Kazemi, 2016; Quaglia et al., 2015). Consistency in how a construct is operationally defined allows for researchers to ascertain they are studying the same phenomenon and compare results (Babbie, 2021). In mindfulness research, discrepancies in how researchers operationalize mindfulness have led to considerable debate over whether the current trend of studying mindfulness as a variable can progress without a re-evaluation of the ways researchers define and conceptualize mindfulness within the contexts of their studies (Chiesa, 2013; Grossman, 2019).

Bishop et al. (2004) proposed an initial operational definition of mindfulness with the goal of developing a uniform definition that could be disseminated and used by those conducting research. The authors posited two distinct components of mindfulness: the self-regulation of attention and an orientation of openness to experience. However, since that time researchers (e.g., Gethin, 2011; Grossman & Van Dam, 2011; Kang & Whittingham, 2010) have raised concerns that this definition and others developed by researchers may not reflect conceptualizations of experienced practitioners who have unique insight into mindfulness, such as those informed by Buddhist traditions. Additionally, research has shown experienced meditators to have different response patterns on mindfulness questionnaires compared to those with minimal or no experience (e.g., Baer, 2011; Belzer et al., 2013; Morgan et al., 2020), suggesting that those with meditation experience might be interpreting items in a particular way.

Further, it is not clear how the Bishop et al. (2004) consensus definition included perspectives from those with extensive meditation experience. The operational definition proposed by Bishop et al. does not cite Buddhist conceptualizations of mindfulness, and the authors do not provide details about the participants of their consensus panel or their experience with mindfulness practice or Buddhism. Chiesa (2013) discussed literature which suggests that “…a large amount of mindfulness meditation practice, is required before an in-depth experience and understanding of mindfulness can be actually achieved” (p. 262). Similarly, Grossman and Van Dam (2011) noted that operationalizations of mindfulness should address that training one’s attention via mindfulness is a gradual and lengthy process that can lead to unique insights. Grossman (e.g., 2011; 2019) has been a notable critic of Western conceptualizations of mindfulness, suggesting that they do not capture the intricacies of mindfulness as described and elaborated upon in Buddhist origins of mindfulness. Gethin (2011) and Lindahl (2015) express that modern researchers may have been overly influenced by descriptions of mindfulness as “bare attention,” while missing key aspects of “right mindfulness,” which relate specifically to adherence to Buddhist conceptualizations of the nature of reality. They describe that a literal interpretation of the term sati may be closer to English terms associated with memory and recollection of experiences, and that such recollection is meant to be applied to the Buddhist Eightfold Path which describes the true nature of reality and how one can use mindfulness practice to overcome suffering. Thus, research is needed to ascertain whether experienced practitioners, including Buddhists, conceptualize mindfulness in a way that is similar to what is published in the academic literature or used in clinical applications of mindfulness.

Christopher et al. (2014) sought to evaluate the cultural validity of state and trait measures of mindfulness developed by researchers among a sample of practicing Zen Buddhists in the USA. In addition to administering the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) and Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS; Lau et al. 2006), they conducted interviews in which participants were asked to evaluate how well the scales matched their understanding of mindfulness. Results provided evidence for three significant themes missing from the content of the measures: intentionality of returning attention to the present moment, awareness of suffering and aversion, and extending awareness beyond the self. In addition, some participants indicated that the term mindfulness could refer to all internal experiences including judgments and distractibility, which are seen as antithetical to mindfulness in some Western interpretations. Jones (2023) notes that goals of mindfulness practice in Buddhist traditions include enlightenment and awareness of non-self, which may oppose Western clinical practice goals which serve to soothe the self via attending to specific mental health symptoms.

Alvear et al. (2022) used qualitative data and thematic analysis to evaluate how lay mindfulness practitioners conceptualize mindfulness in comparison with academics. The authors recruited 325 Spanish-speaking meditators who indicated they had meditated or practiced mindfulness before in their life, with 41.7% of the sample reporting having meditated for 4 years or longer. Practice types reported by participants included mindfulness generally (63.7%), Zen (4.6%), and Vipassana (4.3%) among others. Participants were asked to define mindfulness using their own language in an open-ended response format, and data was analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. Seven themes emerged from the analysis: mindfulness as attention/awareness, a non-evaluative attitude, an instrumental strategy, a theoretically derived concept, a psycho-affective-spiritual state, a personal development tool, and a concept that is unknown or not yet understood by the practitioner. The authors note that while the definitions offered by lay practitioners were generally, “…quite aligned with scientific-academic definitions” (p. 1551), they differed with regard to emphasis on particular qualities (e.g., mindfulness as a temporary state compared with mindfulness as a developmental strategy) and were limited in relation to Buddhist conceptualizations of mindfulness. The authors recommend future research be devoted to better understanding how non-academic definitions of mindfulness relate to those developed in the realm of academia, particularly with regard to better understanding specific differences in the lexicon and conceptualizations.

Given discrepancies in the way mindfulness is conceptualized and operationalized in research, there is a need to determine if the existing definitions are reflective of experienced practitioners’ conceptualizations and evaluate if there is an academia-practitioner divide. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to use an exploratory approach to analyze how experienced mindfulness practitioners define mindfulness and evaluate established definitions found in academic literature and Buddhist historical sources. In a review of literature on mindfulness as a research construct, Malinowski (2008) highlighted the importance of speaking to experienced practitioners, discussing the potential that “…the experience of advanced states of mindfulness are something else than their conceptualization within psychological discourse” (p. 162). With prior research indicating that one’s mindfulness experience may lead to distinctive result profiles on mindfulness measures (e.g., Morgan et al., 2020), more research is needed to understand how such individuals conceptualize mindfulness and whether this is distinct from current interpretations in research. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to build upon previous research by evaluating how a large sample of experienced mindfulness practitioners define mindfulness and evaluate different conceptualizations of mindfulness cited from academic and historical sources. Given limited prior research on this topic, no specific hypotheses were generated and quantitative and qualitative data were evaluated using an exploratory approach to understand how experienced practitioners evaluated published definitions of mindfulness.

Method

Participants

Data from 134 participants were included in the study. To meet eligibility for the study, participants were required to speak English, reside in the USA, and have access to internet to complete the survey. Participants were also required to report currently engaging in formal mindfulness practice for at least 1 hr per month, and have at least 1 year of experience practicing mindfulness. In the hopes of casting a wide net of diverse practitioners, these criteria were slightly less rigorous than previous research on experienced meditators (e.g., Bergomi et al., 2015; Morgan et al., 2020; Wittman et al., 2015). However, all participants reported practicing at least once per week and for a minimum of 1 year, which is consistent with previous research which recruited experienced meditators. Of the 134 participants, 76 identified as female, 50 as male, and 6 as genderqueer/gender non-conforming (the remaining chose to not disclose their gender or provide their own description for their gender). The mean age was 57 (SD = 15.2), ranging from 23 to 80, and the majority of participants identified their race as White (82.8%) and ethnicity as non-Hispanic (94.8%). Participants were located across 31 US states, and the majority of participants self-reported as having completed a graduate degree (65.7%) or bachelor’s degree (19.4%), being retired (31.3%), or “other occupation” (28.4%; e.g., information technology, business owner). The most frequently reported religious affiliation was Buddhist (57.0%). Additional sample demographics are provided in Table 1.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics
Full size table

Information about participants’ educational background and experiences related to mindfulness can be viewed in Tables 2 and 3. Participants reported a mean of 20.3 (Mdn = 20.0; SD = 12.8) years of experience with mindfulness practice, ranging from 1 to 55 years of experience. All participants reported engaging in at least one “formal” mindfulness practice per week, defined as engagement, “...in mindfulness during a particular mindfulness practice (e.g., mindfulness meditation, taking a mindful walk, mindful eating).” All participants (100%) endorsed experiences with breath awareness meditation, and nearly all reported experiences with mindful walking/movement (99.3%) and body scan (97.8%) exercises. The majority of participants also endorsed experiences with mindful engagement with the senses (94.0%), open/non-directed meditation (81.3%), mindful yoga (76.9%), and mindful creative activities (70.1%).

Table 2 Mindfulness practice habits
Full size table
Table 3 Mindfulness practice and educational experiences
Full size table

With regard to educational backgrounds related to mindfulness, 111 participants (82.8%) reported education related to Buddhist conceptualizations of mindfulness, with nine participants describing undergoing formal education and/or ordination within a Buddhist community. Of the 134 participants, 117 (87.3%) reported having attended at least one half-day meditation retreat in their lifetime. Over half of participants (51.7%) reported clinical and/or educational exposure to mindfulness-based psychotherapies including Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1990) (16.4%), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT; Linehan, 1993) (3.0%), and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Segal et al., 2002) (2.2%).

Procedure

Following Institutional Review Board approval, recruitment utilized a snowball sampling methodology. This sampling technique was chosen due to it being cost-effective and allowing for practitioners to recruit from their own known communities of fellow practitioners. These benefits were seen to outweigh disadvantages, such as less control over sample selection. The principal investigator emailed mindfulness communities and centers across the USA, including those based in Buddhist mindfulness practices. The email consisted of an overview of the purpose of the study, followed by a request to send an attached flyer to members with further information about the study. The flyer described the purpose of the study, instructions to enroll via a link to the Qualtrics survey, and a request to forward the flyer to other individuals whom they know engage in mindfulness practice regularly. The principal investigator also posted the flyer on online communities which center around discussion topics including Buddhism and mindfulness.

When participants clicked on the link to the Qualtrics survey, after consenting, they completed the mindfulness conceptualization questions, as well as additional questionnaires relating to mindfulness which were not included in the present study. Demographics questions were interspersed throughout the battery. Attention check questions that feature varying presentations (e.g., math problems, logical statements, directed queries) have been shown to improve efficacy of capturing inattention (Abbey & Meloy, 2017), and such questions were interspersed throughout the battery. Participants who answered three or more attention check questions incorrectly were removed from the study. Following completion of the survey, participants were presented with debriefing information and an opportunity to enter their email address if they wanted to be enrolled into a US$100 gift card raffle. One participant who indicated an interest in the raffle was selected at random to be the winner and was provided the gift card via email.

Measures

In addition to a demographics questionnaire which included items relating to participants’ mindfulness practice history and training experiences, participants answered questions (developed for this study) that assessed their conceptualizations of mindfulness. First, participants were asked to submit their own definition of the term mindfulness in an open-ended format with the prompt, “Please provide your definition of the term ‘mindfulness.’”

Following this, participants were provided with definitions of mindfulness from different academic domains drawn from a list gathered by Nilsson and Kazemi (2016), who conducted a systematic search of multidisciplinary research articles which included the term mindfulness in the title. Specifically, Nilsson and Kazemi compiled a list of 33 definitions of mindfulness from peer-reviewed studies published between 1993 and March 2016 which were theoretical or empirical and written in English; they also included definitions from several Buddhist historical sources. Of the 33 definitions identified by Nilsson and Kazemi, only 13 were included in the present analysis in order to reduce participant burden. Definitions were chosen for inclusion based on which had the highest number of research citations relative to the academic field of origin. Nilsson and Kazemi’s work was used to specify the academic discipline of each definition (e.g., clinical psychology, social work, Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism). Citations were calculated using Google Scholar Citations (GSC) of the referenced article. Previous research indicates that GSC is an effective tool to sum citations of articles due to its accuracy and wide-ranging scope, and it has been recommended for conducting research on citations in social sciences as well as comparing a concept across multiple disciplines. (Martín-Martín et al., 2017; Thelwall & Kousha, 2017). In the present study, definitions from the academic fields of parapsychology and “oriental language” were not included due to these sources being outside of the intended scope of this study. In addition, the definition by Goldstein and Kornfield (2001) was not included due to its classification as Buddhist in a general sense to aid in comparison of specific branches of Buddhism (i.e., Theravada, Zen, and Tibetan). This resulted in a list of 13 definitions. Table 4 displays the complete list of the 13 definitions used in the study.

Table 4 Definitions used in the study, compiled from Nilsson and Kazemi (2016)
Full size table

Participants were presented with each of the 13 definitions (administered in random order) and asked to rate on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Entirely inconsistent with my understanding to 7 = Entirely consistent with my understanding) how consistent the presented definition was with their understanding of mindfulness. Following their initial ratings, participants were then provided with a list of any definitions they rated 5 or higher, and were asked to rank-order these definitions based on which were most consistent with their own conceptualization of mindfulness. This was an original approach, given limited prior research directly comparing conceptualizations of practitioners with academic definitions, with the intention of gathering multiple aspects of preferred definitions: preferences across participants (measured via Likert data) and preferences among each participant (measured via rank-order data). Afterwards, participants were provided another open-ended prompt in which they were asked if anything important was missing from the previously shown definitions. Participants were additionally asked questions relating to their conceptualization of mindfulness as a “state” and/or a “trait.” Finally, participants were administered two established self-report measures of mindfulness for the purposes of gathering exploratory data: the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS; Cardaciotto et al., 2008), a 20-item self-report measure that examines mindfulness as a bidimensional trait-like construct consisting of Awareness and Acceptance, and the Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire-15 (FFMQ-15; Baer et al., 2012), a 15-item self-report measure that is a short form of the 39-item Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006). The FFMQ was developed via factor analysis on items of multiple measures of mindfulness available during the time of its creation, and the FFMQ-15 was validated with regard to factor structure and psychometric properties by Gu et al. (2016).

Data Analyses

Data were initially downloaded from Qualtrics into SPSS. Of 141 participants who completed the study, seven were removed from the final analysis for reasons including atypically rapid completion times, answering three or more attention check questions incorrectly, and/or highly unusual responding on self-report measures (e.g., endorsement of only extreme values; more than six consecutive invariant responses), resulting in a final dataset of 134 participants.

Qualitative analyses were used to examine frequent terminology used across participants’ definitions of mindfulness. Participants’ responses to the question, “Please provide your own definition of the term ‘mindfulness’” were downloaded into Microsoft Excel. A user-defined VBA Macro (Cheusheva, 2023), reviewed via manual inspection, was used to remove duplicate terms from individuals’ responses and identify terms most frequently used across participants (i.e., terms used at least once by participants). A manual approach using the “find and replace” function, in addition to manual inspection, was used to remove prepositions, account for grammatical variations (e.g., “attending” vs. “attention”), and remove terms beginning with “mindful” (e.g., “mindfulness,” “mindfully”). The same qualitative approach was used to evaluate frequent terminology used in the 33 definitions of mindfulness compiled by Nilsson and Kazemi (2016). Definitions were downloaded into Microsoft Excel and the same user-defined VBA was used to remove duplicate terms and identify most frequently used terms across definitions. The “find and replace” function in addition to manual inspection was once again used to remove prepositions and account for grammatical variations, in order to identify the most frequently used terms across the 33 definitions. Finally, to assess participants’ views of whether important information may have been missing from the 13 definitions of mindfulness used in the study, participants were provided an opportunity to identify and describe important details missing from definitions in an open-ended format. Responses were reviewed via manual inspection to identify common concerns expressed among participants.

Quantitative approaches were used to evaluate how participants rated and ranked the 13 mindfulness definitions provided in the study. To assess participants’ evaluations of established definitions of mindfulness, they were presented with the 13 definitions of mindfulness (administered in a random sequential order) and asked to rate, “…how consistent the definition is with your own understanding of mindfulness” on a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 7. Mean Likert-scale ratings and standard deviations were calculated to identify which definitions were rated as most consistent with participants’ understandings of mindfulness. Participants were also asked to rank-order all definitions that they rated as 5 or higher on the Likert scale. Mean rankings and standard deviations for each definition were calculated to identify which definitions were ranked highest by participants. To assess whether participants conceptualize mindfulness as a state and/or a trait, participants were provided the following prompt: “Some researchers believe that ‘mindfulness’ can be described as a state (i.e., a temporary condition that arises through mindfulness practice), while others believe it can be described as a trait (i.e., a more stable characteristic of an individual who engages with mindfulness).” They were then asked whether they agree with the statements, “Mindfulness can be described as a state” and “Mindfulness can be described as a trait,” with the opportunity to endorse both options if they wish. Means were calculated for responses to this question to identify the percentage of participants who view mindfulness as a state or trait, or both. Finally, means and standard deviations were calculated for subscale scores on the PHLMS and FFMQ-15.

Results

Qualitative Results

Terminology Used in Participants’ and Researchers’ Definitions of Mindfulness

Results indicated that the five most frequent terms used by participants when asked to define mindfulness were “aware”/“awareness” (61.2% of participants), “moment” (57.5%), “present” (54.5%), “mind” (22.4%), and “attention” (21.6%). Among the 33 definitions of mindfulness compiled by Nilsson and Kazemi (2016), results indicated that the five most frequent terms used across these definitions were “aware”/“awareness” (54.5% of academic and historical definitions), “present” (45.5%), “attention” (42.4%), “moment” (33.3%), and “experience” (30.3%). See Table 5 for the full results.

Table 5 Terms used in participants’ and researchers’ definitions of mindfulness
Full size table

Concepts Reported as Missing from Provided Definitions

Of the 134 participants, 50 (37.3%) indicated there were important concepts missing from the definitions presented in the study. The most frequently reported concern (n = 11) was that definitions were limiting in their delineation of mindfulness as being focused on the “present moment,” with participants suggesting one can be mindful of future or past-oriented experiences as well. Other terms not found in the presented definitions that were cited by multiple participants included “insight,” “equanimity,” “wisdom,” and “loving kindness.” Some participants also raised that specific Buddhist concepts/references were missing from the provided definitions (n = 4) and indicated disagreement with the idea that mindfulness can be defined at all (n = 3).

Quantitative Results

Participants’ Ratings of Research Definitions of Mindfulness

Means and standard deviations for participants’ ratings of the 13 definitions are shown in Table 6. The definitions with the highest mean ratings were by Dane (2011; “. . . mindfulness may be defined as a state of consciousness in which attention is focused in present moment phenomena occurring both externally and internally”; M = 6.01, SD = 1.15) and Brown et al. (2007; “A receptive attention to and awareness of present moment events and experience”; M = 5.96, SD = 1.11). The lowest-rated definition came from Bodhi (2011; “...sati...provides the connection between its two primary canonical meanings: as memory and as lucid awareness of present happenings.”). Given that this definition is from a Buddhist source, an independent samples t-test was used to evaluate whether there were significant differences in the rating of this definition between participants who identified as Buddhist and those who did not. Although the mean rating for this definition was higher among Buddhists (M = 4.58) than non-Buddhists (M = 4.21), results indicated a relatively small effect size (Cohen’s d = −0.21), and there was not a significant difference between these two groups at the 0.05 alpha level (t(132) = −1.22, p = 0.11).

Table 6 Mindfulness definitions—Likert-scale ratings and rank-order data
Full size table

Participants were also asked to rank-order definitions which they rated as 5 or higher in the previous Likert-scale questions. The definition ranked first by most participants (selected by 15.7% of participants) came from Segal et al. (2002): “. . . in mindfulness practice, the focus of a person’s attention is opened to admit whatever enters experience, while at the same time, a stance of kindly curiosity allows the person to investigate whatever appears, without falling prey to automatic judgment or reactivity.” Complete results are available in Table 6.

Conceptualization of Mindfulness as a State and/or Trait

In response to a prompt asking participants to identify whether they view mindfulness as a state or a trait, or both, results showed that 60.4% of participants endorsed that mindfulness is best conceptualized as both, followed by “state-only” (32.8%) and “trait-only” (6.7%).

Mindfulness Self-report Measures

Results of administration of the PHLMS and FFMQ-15 are available in Table 7. Participants’ mean scores on both the Acceptance (M = 37.85) and Awareness (M = 42.07) subscales of the PHLMS were generally consistent with those of experienced meditators in a validation study of the measure (Morgan 2020), and higher than established norms for the subscales (Cardaciotto et al., 2008). While the present authors are unaware of prior research on experienced practitioners using the short-form FFMQ-15, mean scores were higher on each of the five subscales (Observe, M = 12.51; Describe, M = 11.61; Act with Awareness, M = 10.27); Nonjudgment, M = 13.47; Nonreactivity, M = 11.11) than those from a study which assessed individuals who had completed a course of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT; Segal et al., 2002) (Gu et al., 2016).

Table 7 PHLMS and FFMQ-15 subscale scores
Full size table

Discussion

There remain conceptual disagreements between researchers regarding how to define mindfulness, with some (e.g., Gethin, 2011; Grossman, 2008; Grossman & Van Dam, 2011) arguing that the wisdom of experienced practitioners is needed to develop more comprehensive and inclusive operational definitions of the construct. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to evaluate how experienced practitioners define mindfulness and evaluate how consistent published definitions were with these practitioners’ conceptualizations. The sample consisted of 134 practitioners with an approximate mean of 20 years of experience with mindfulness, with a little more than half of the sample (56.7%) identifying as Buddhist. An exploratory approach relying on qualitative and quantitative data was used to evaluate areas of agreement and disagreement between researchers and practitioners.

Points of Agreement

Consistency in Common Language and Conceptual Understandings

Results showed broad general agreement in understandings of mindfulness which emphasize cultivating attention and awareness of the present moment; based on similar terminology used by participants and in academic definitions, participant ratings of most academic definitions as “slightly consistent” or higher with their own understanding, and the majority of participants denying that important concepts were missing from the academic definitions.

Analyzing terminology used in participants’ own definitions of mindfulness revealed that experienced practitioners tended to describe mindfulness using similar language as researchers. Notably, four of the five terms used most frequently across participants were also among the five most common terms from the 33 definitions compiled by Nilsson and Kazemi (2016): “awareness,” “present,” “moment,” and “attention.” The results support the notion that orienting one’s awareness and attention to the present moment are key components of mindfulness as it is understood by both researchers and experienced practitioners, and lend support to operational definitions which are inclusive of these terms.

Participants were also asked to rate definitions of mindfulness sourced from research and historical sources on a Likert scale, then rank-order the definitions in order of how consistent they were with their own understanding of mindfulness. In general, conceptual agreement was observed in participants’ evaluations of established mindfulness definitions from research and historical sources. Results showed that 10 of the 13 definitions received an average rating of 5 (Slightly consistent with my understanding) or higher across the sample. Further, the majority of participants (62.7%) responded that important concepts were not missing from the provided definitions. While specific discrepancies were observed in the present study (described further below), the broad patterns of results are suggestive of agreement, in particular with regard to basic terminology used in defining mindfulness.

Several definitions stood out in the present study. The definitions by Brown et al. (2007) and Dane (2011) received mean ratings close to 6 out of 7 (Mostly consistent with my understanding) and had low standard deviations relative to other definitions, suggesting that they may serve as conceptualizations of mindfulness which can be related to by experienced practitioners. These two definitions share notable features: they are relatively short (i.e., one sentence) and include the most commonly used terms by participants in their own definitions of mindfulness (i.e., “attention,” “present,” and “moment”). The latter notion may be of particular importance to researchers who attempt to define mindfulness in the context of working with diverse study participants. Common language may be preferred in such settings to ensure that participants are conceptualizing mindfulness in a similar manner and that such understandings are consistent with those who have advanced insight and experience into the subject.

As described above, Bishop et al. (2004) provided the first known attempt to develop an operational definition of mindfulness via a two-factor model. The results of the present study suggest that experienced practitioners tended to rate the definition by Bishop et al. as consistent with their own understanding of mindfulness (M = 5.54). In addition, when participants were asked to rank the definitions, only one other definition received more top-place rankings than that of Bishop et al. The results provide support that the operational definition from Bishop et al. is consistent with understandings of mindfulness among experienced practitioners, lending support to its dissemination across research settings in which mindfulness is conceptualized in alignment with the authors’ proposed bifactor model.

Points of Disagreement

Emphasis on Present Moment

As reported above, the most-commonly endorsed critique of the definitions presented to participants was an overemphasis on the present moment. Participants described how one can be mindful of other types of experiences as well. To provide an example, a self-described retired participant with a reported history of participation in multiple Buddhist trainings wrote, “Mindfulness can include focusing the attention on a past event in order to bring understanding and even transformation to it. The present orientation is not about forgetting or ignoring the past, it's about seeing clearly, with paññā.” Another retired participant with a reported history of participation in multiple Buddhist meditation retreats discussed this topic as well, writing, “If your mind is dwelling in the past or future, you hold that and look at that too. You hold both joy and suffering in equal measure with loving kindness.” While the operational definition from Bishop et al. (2004) identifies attention to present-moment experiences as one of two factors of mindfulness, they nonetheless write, “Note that mindfulness is not a practice in thought suppression; all thoughts or events are considered an object of observation, not a distraction” (p. 232). This notion appears consistent with how experienced practitioners in the present study emphasized mindfulness as an orientation which can be applied to any experience. This point may be worthy of further emphasis in definitions of mindfulness used by researchers given that over one-third of the present sample (37.3%) expressed this criticism, and that similar sentiments were expressed by practitioners in the Christopher et al. (2014) study.

State vs. Trait Conceptualization

There are differences in the way mindfulness is defined in research relating to its conceptualization as a state-like and/or trait-like phenomenon (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015; Medvedev et al., 2017; Sauer et al., 2013). In a commentary for a Special Issue on mindfulness research in the journal Emotion, Davidson (2010) wrote that authors within the issue differed in their conceptualization of mindfulness as either a dispositional quality (i.e., trait) or a type of mental experience (i.e., state) that can lead to various outcomes. The results of the present study revealed that a slight majority of experienced practitioners (60.4%) identified mindfulness as both a state and a trait (or did not conceptualize this distinction), while 32.8% reported conceptualizing mindfulness as a state only.

It is possible that state-like and trait-like conceptualizations of mindfulness represent distinct constructs, an idea supported by research finding inconsistent relationships between measures of state and trait mindfulness (e.g., Bravo et al., 2018; Tanay & Bernstein, 2013; Thompson & Waltz, 2007). Thompson and Waltz administered both a state-like mindfulness measure (TMS, Lau et al., 2006) and trait-like measures (MAAS, Brown & Ryan, 2003; Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R), Feldman et al., 2022; FFMQ, Baer et al., 2006) to college students with varying degrees of mindfulness experience, and did not find significant associations between the measures across the sample. Bravo et al. similarly did not find a relationship between subscales of the FFMQ and another assessment of state mindfulness, the State Mindfulness Scale (SMS, Tanay & Bernstein, 2013). It may be that meditation experience may moderate a relationship between state and trait mindfulness. Both Bravo et al. (2018) and Thompson and Waltz (2007) discovered significant associations between the Observe subscale of the FFMQ, which measures the extent to which one pays attention to mind and body experiences, and state measures of mindfulness when accounting for participants’ experience with meditation.

Similarly, in the present study, qualitative data provided by participants included references to the notion that with advanced practice, mindfulness can transition from a state-like practice to a more trait-like feature of one’s individuality. One participant who reported experience with Shamantha meditation techniques wrote, “I feel that there is a time when we are learning mindfulness and then a time when it becomes incorporated into everyday awareness permanently.” Another participant wrote, “When a practitioner is skilled enough, no effort is required to maintain mindfulness.” These results, in tandem with research suggestive of a link between meditation experience and the relationship between assessments of state and trait mindfulness, support Thompson and Waltz’s assertion that more research is needed to “…improve our operationalizations of mindfulness…and reappraise the ways in which mindfulness can manifest as a state and as a trait” (p. 199).

Discrepancies Between Buddhist and Western Conceptualizations

Although some of the definitions included in the study were from Buddhist historical sources, a few participants still emphasized discrepancies between the 13 definitions presented in the study and conceptualizations related to Buddhism in their open-ended responses. Examples of participants who specifically referenced Buddhist concepts include a self-described tile-setter who reported a history of attending mindfulness retreats and workshops, writing, “Mindfulness is part of a path of practice and ethics, the Noble Eightfold Path, and cannot be separated from it as just a tool.” Another participant, a self-described “Walker” who reported attending mindfulness retreats as well as practices with Theravada monastic teachers expressed, “In a Buddhist context, the term ‘sati’ means to keep something in mind. In the context of Right Mindfulness, it means to maintain an ideally consistent attention paid to one of the four frames of mindfulness defined in the Satipattana Sutta.” Another participant who identified as Buddhist and reported experiences with reflective practices elaborated on this notion: “In only one definition was memory mentioned, and there are so many other qualities of sati - reflection, recollection, receptivity, relaxation, self-honesty. Overemphasis on present moment and being accepting, non-judgmental, non-reactive.” Consistent with the contentions of Grossman and others (e.g., Grossman 2019; Purser & Milillo, 2015), these practitioners view mindfulness as a construct which must be understood in relation to the principal goals stated in Buddhist texts. Purser and Milillo emphasize the importance of memory and adherence to “Right mindfulness” when defining the term, and caution against attempts to remove mindfulness from the context of Buddhism. They write:

Instrumental and de-ethicized forms of mindfulness might be better represented by shedding the term mindfulness altogether and relabeling their programs as some form of attentional control training. Theorists and practitioners need to take heed that a mindfulness that is “Buddhist-inspired” cannot be divorced from its civic aspect that represents the wider ethical, social, and political dimensions. (p. 17)

Such concerns are consistent with criticisms of researchers’ conceptualizations of mindfulness (e.g., Gethin, 2011; Lindahl, 2015). Further research is needed to understand specific elements which may be missing from Western academic conceptualizations of mindfulness and whether they translate to research outcomes on mindfulness interventions.

Whereas researchers have begun using dismantling strategies to identify benefits of different components of mindfulness (e.g., Krafft et al., 2017; Lindsay et al., 2018; Simione et al., 2021), little research has included components unique to Buddhist conceptualizations including ethical-mindedness or contemplation of non-self. In addition, in the present study, one of the lowest-rated definitions came from a publication grounded in Theravāda Buddhist theory (Bodhi, 2011). It may be that if certain Buddhist conceptualizations are unrelated to Western research goals and outcomes (e.g., overcoming the self as compared with pacifying the self), Purser and Millilo’s (2015) suggestion to use alternative terminology such as “attentional control training” may be advisable. Insight from experienced Buddhist practitioners can help clarify whether researchers’ conceptualizations are similar enough to those from experienced Buddhist practitioners to warrant use of the same terminology.

Limitations and Future Research

Several important limitations to the present study should be noted. While the sample achieved target goals of finding advanced practitioners with insight into Buddhism, all participants resided in the USA and a significant majority identified their race as White. Such demographics are clearly inconsistent with those of practitioners from cultural contexts in which Buddhism and mindfulness have played more central roles for thousands of years. Prior research on this topic has used relatively small sample sizes (n < 25) (Christopher et al., 2009, 2014) or focused on lay practitioners (Alvear et al., 2022). Therefore, the goal of the present study was to hear from a large, diverse, and experienced sample. While the present sample of practitioners had similar experience with mindfulness regarding frequency and years of practice to previous studies on experienced practitioners, given research that conceptualizations may change with years of practice, it may be that 1 year of experience is not enough to adequately represent a participant as an “experienced practitioner.” Future research may be needed to address what adequately constitutes an “experienced” practitioner. Finally, defining formal mindfulness practice as engagement, “...in mindfulness during a particular mindfulness practice (e.g., mindfulness meditation, taking a mindful walk, mindful eating)” may be viewed as controversial, as there are possible differences in mechanisms and outcomes across different types of mindfulness practices. For example, Sauer-Zavala et al. (2013) found differences in outcomes when comparing three forms of mindfulness practices (mindful yoga, sitting meditation, and body scan). More research is needed to achieve a balance of both scope and diversity (e.g., sociocultural variables, representation from different sects of Buddhism, experience with different forms of practice) when assessing conceptualizations of experienced practitioners to ensure researchers are not acting as “gatekeepers” and ignoring valuable intuition from those with more advanced insight into mindfulness.

Other limitations of the study relate to the methodology of administering the academic and historical definitions of Buddhism to participants. As noted above, only 13 of the 33 definitions from peer-reviewed studies and historical sources identified by Nilsson and Kazemi (2016) were used in this study. Using definitions with more citations as inclusion criteria may have resulted in more recent definitions being overlooked (i.e., due to there being less time for the definition to have accumulated citations). In addition, given that citations were calculated with respect to the article source, as opposed to the specific definition itself, it is possible that this was not a fully accurate representation of the popularity of the definition in academia. When asked to rank-order academic definitions, participants were only provided with definitions they ranked as a 5 (Slightly consistent with my understanding) or higher. It is possible that if participants had been able to view and compare all 13 definitions at once, they may have chosen to include definitions previously rated as less than 5 in their final rankings of definitions. Moreover, a scale with more options (e.g., 10-point Likert scale) may have aided comparisons by allowing for participants to choose from a wider range of responses. Including definitions from Buddhism may have limited the ability to evaluate potential critiques of Western academic definitions among participants. Participants were asked about missing content from any of the definitions shown, and while some participants provided feedback on specific Western academic definitions, it is possible others choose not to after being shown Buddhist definitions.

There are limitations to the extent to which terminology used in definitions of mindfulness corresponds to conceptualizations of mindfulness. For example, while the term “acceptance” was not among the most frequently used terms by practitioners in the current study, participants did reference concepts relating to this theme including “curiosity” (n = 7), “openness” (n = 10), and “nonjudgment” (n =6). Given that such terms are often used by researchers to describe themes relating to acceptance (e.g., Bishop et al. (2004) used both the terms “acceptance” and “nonjudgment” to describe a single factor of mindfulness), it may be that the theme of acceptance is a central component of mindfulness even if participants used different terminology to describe it. The authors of the Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan, 2003) were experienced mindfulness practitioners who cited acceptance as an example of several “attitudinal components” of mindfulness which are common outcomes of mindfulness yet conceptually distinct from the psychological experience of a state of present-focused attention.

Future investigations into conceptualizations of mindfulness among practitioners may be able to help parse out how terminology relates to core themes of mindfulness and help clarify whether terms like “acceptance” are inherent to experienced practitioners’ conceptualizations and/or uniquely emphasized by researchers. Additionally, it may be worth further analyzing terms used by participants that were not common in academic definitions, such as “insight,” “equanimity,” “wisdom,” and “loving kindness.” The term equanimity has been a subject of multiple research investigations which suggest this concept may play an important role in how mindfulness meditation can act as a mechanism of change (e.g., Desbordes et al., 2015; Eberth et al., 2019; Weber, 2017). Eberth et al. developed a conceptual model to explain the process of mindfulness meditative change, in which both equanimity and insight are identified as key mechanisms which lead to desired outcomes of behavior change and new perspectives on the self. It may also be of benefit to better understand whether exposure to different mindfulness educations or trainings (e.g., Buddhist vs. psychotherapy) leads to distinct conceptualizations. Such investigations can help researchers advance toward the development of operational definitions which are reflective of both specific terminology and larger themes that experienced practitioners associate with mindfulness. As researchers continue to parse out how specific facets of mindfulness relate to various outcomes, perspectives of experienced practitioners can help assure researchers that such delineations are consistent with conceptualizations of individuals who are highly engaged and experienced with mindfulness. In particular, evaluating conceptualizations among advanced practitioners from different Buddhist backgrounds may lead to enhanced insight into specific conceptual distinctions.

Results of the current study show that mindfulness is a complex and nuanced construct, and while there may be general agreement regarding conceptualizations, more research is needed to move toward a uniform operational definition (or multiple definitions) that accounts for specific differences in the way it is currently understood by researchers and experienced practitioners. Exploring these topics can help researchers arrive at conceptually driven operational definitions of mindfulness which can increase confidence that those who study mindfulness are evaluating the same construct and provide more precise conclusions about its potential benefits.