Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation

Author:

Van Dam Nicholas T.12,van Vugt Marieke K.3,Vago David R.4,Schmalzl Laura5,Saron Clifford D.6,Olendzki Andrew7,Meissner Ted8,Lazar Sara W.9,Kerr Catherine E.10,Gorchov Jolie11,Fox Kieran C. R.12,Field Brent A.13,Britton Willoughby B.14,Brefczynski-Lewis Julie A.15,Meyer David E.16

Affiliation:

1. Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne

2. Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

3. Institute of Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Engineering, University of Groningen

4. Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, Departments of Psychiatry and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center

5. College of Science and Integrative Health, Southern California University of Health Sciences

6. Center for Mind and Brain, University of California, Davis

7. Integrated Dharma Institute, Amherst, Massachusetts

8. Center for Mindfulness, University of Massachusetts Medical School

9. Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School

10. Department of Family Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University

11. Silver School of Social Work, New York University

12. Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences, Stanford University

13. Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University

14. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University

15. Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, School of Medicine, West Virginia University

16. Department of Psychology, University of Michigan

Abstract

During the past two decades, mindfulness meditation has gone from being a fringe topic of scientific investigation to being an occasional replacement for psychotherapy, tool of corporate well-being, widely implemented educational practice, and “key to building more resilient soldiers.” Yet the mindfulness movement and empirical evidence supporting it have not gone without criticism. Misinformation and poor methodology associated with past studies of mindfulness may lead public consumers to be harmed, misled, and disappointed. Addressing such concerns, the present article discusses the difficulties of defining mindfulness, delineates the proper scope of research into mindfulness practices, and explicates crucial methodological issues for interpreting results from investigations of mindfulness. For doing so, the authors draw on their diverse areas of expertise to review the present state of mindfulness research, comprehensively summarizing what we do and do not know, while providing a prescriptive agenda for contemplative science, with a particular focus on assessment, mindfulness training, possible adverse effects, and intersection with brain imaging. Our goals are to inform interested scientists, the news media, and the public, to minimize harm, curb poor research practices, and staunch the flow of misinformation about the benefits, costs, and future prospects of mindfulness meditation.

Funder

National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health

National Institute on Aging

National Institute of Mental Health

National Institute of General Medical Sciences

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

General Psychology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3