Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-fvjsw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T07:01:44.985Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minding the Mechanisms: A Discussion of How Mindfulness Leads to Positive Outcomes at Work

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2015

Dexter Miksch,
Meghan I. H. Lindeman and
Lebena Varghese
Dexter Miksch*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University
Meghan I. H. Lindeman
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University
Lebena Varghese
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dexter Miksch, Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, IL 60115. E-mail: Z1564977@students.niu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (2015) asserted that the many benefits of mindfulness practices have been underutilized and understudied at work. We agree with the focal article's stance that more research is needed on mindfulness at work. We extend this argument to include a request that future research pays attention to the mechanisms responsible for the effects of mindfulness at work. In this commentary, we (a) briefly discuss the practical importance of understanding the mechanisms by which mindfulness practices lead to positive outcomes, (b) outline the mediating mechanisms proposed by the leading theoretical model of mindfulness effects and how those mediators apply to work, and (c) argue that more rigorous, empirical research is needed to understand the mechanisms through which mindfulness practices lead to positive work outcomes.

Information

Type
Commentaries
Information
Industrial and Organizational Psychology , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , December 2015, pp. 620 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2015 

Hyland, Lee, and Mills (Reference Hyland, Lee and Mills2015) asserted that the many benefits of mindfulness practices have been underutilized and understudied at work. We agree with the focal article's stance that more research is needed on mindfulness at work. We extend this argument to include a request that future research pays attention to the mechanisms responsible for the effects of mindfulness at work. In this commentary, we (a) briefly discuss the practical importance of understanding the mechanisms by which mindfulness practices lead to positive outcomes, (b) outline the mediating mechanisms proposed by the leading theoretical model of mindfulness effects and how those mediators apply to work, and (c) argue that more rigorous, empirical research is needed to understand the mechanisms through which mindfulness practices lead to positive work outcomes.

The Mechanisms Matter

Understanding the causal mechanisms responsible for the positive outcomes associated with mindfulness practices is important for both researchers and practitioners. By developing an understanding of the mechanisms, researchers can use this information to inform the choice of interventions and training programs implemented within organizations. Knowing the mechanism responsible for a particular outcome will allow practitioners and researchers to carefully craft mindfulness-training programs geared toward the most desirable outcomes for their organization. Furthermore, understanding the mechanisms will allow for troubleshooting of failed mindfulness-training programs. With an understanding of the mediators, practitioners may be able to amend their intervention in a more deliberate manner, which will result in more effective training programs in the workplace.

As mentioned in the focal article, mindfulness-training programs are often diluted to accommodate the time constraints present in an organizational setting. Therefore, understanding the mechanisms responsible for the positive effects of mindfulness will help guide how training programs can be condensed while retaining the essence of mindfulness. Understanding the mechanisms will also allow researchers and practitioners to make informed, testable hypotheses about outcomes that may be associated with mindfulness practices.

The Underlying Mechanisms of Mindfulness

As comprehensively discussed in the focal article, there are many benefits of mindfulness in the workplace, and unfortunately, those benefits are understudied. Similarly, the causal mechanisms through which mindfulness leads to positive outcomes have received little empirical attention. Here, we will discuss one of the most prominent models of causal mechanisms (Gu, Strauss, Bond, & Cavanagh, Reference Gu, Strauss, Bond and Cavanagh2015) in hopes of spurring more empirical research in this area. Undoubtedly, empirical testing of the self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART) model (Vago & Silbersweig, Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012) in workplace samples will be beneficial to understanding the usefulness of mindfulness in the workplace. Furthermore, the development and consideration of potential alternative models of mindfulness will be beneficial to advancing the understanding of mindfulness practices at work. Therefore, we ask that researchers consider and test this leading model in the workplace, as well as consider alternative models that may better fit the data.

The S-ART model builds on the assumptions proposed by Hölzel et al. (Reference Hölzel, Lazar, Gard, Schuman-Olivier, Vago and Ott2011) regarding the mechanisms through which mindfulness effects occur. Specifically, Hölzel et al. stated that the four underlying mechanisms responsible for the effects of mindfulness are changes in attention regulation, body awareness, emotion regulation, and perspective of the self. Vago and Silbersweig later refined the model proposed by Hölzel et al. to address the paucity of empirical evidence surrounding mindfulness bodily awareness studies and therefore trimmed bodily awareness as a mechanism from the model (Khalsa et al., Reference Khalsa, Rudrauf, Damasio, Davidson, Lutz and Tranel2008; Nielsen & Kaszniak, Reference Nielsen and Kaszniak2006). As such, Vago and Silbersweig's resultant model proposes three mechanisms through which mindfulness effects occur: development of self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence. Each of these proposed causal mechanisms leads to positive outcomes (e.g., stress reduction, increased well-being), albeit through different avenues.

Self-Awareness

According to the S-ART model, a change in self-awareness is one mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and positive outcomes. Self-awareness is defined by Vago and Silbersweig (Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012) as awareness of one's own awareness. Importantly, self-awareness has been linked to both mindfulness practices (Vago & Silbersweig, Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012) and positive outcomes at work (Reb, Narayanan, & Ho, Reference Reb, Narayanan and Ho2013; Zamahani & Rezaei, Reference Zamahani and Rezaei2014). However, to our knowledge, the mediating role of self-awareness in the relationship between mindfulness and positive work outcomes has never been investigated in a single study. This is unfortunate considering both classical and contemporary practices of mindfulness contend that developing high levels of self-awareness through mindfulness practices can help people to develop a skillful way of responding to mental processes that account for maladaptive behavior and emotional distress. For instance, self-awareness equips individuals with the ability to be aware of and to control cognitive impulses that often cause anxiety and induce distress (Bishop et al., Reference Bishop, Lau, Shapiro, Carlson, Anderson, Carmody and Devins2004; Buddhaghosa, Reference Buddhaghosa1991; Kabat-Zinn, Reference Kabat-Zinn2011). Empirical literature notes that managerial self-awareness is positively associated with managerial effectiveness and career development (McCarthy & Garavan, Reference McCarthy and Garavan1999). Career development can be perceived in terms of individual agency, which involves an individual actively directing and managing his/her career. Individuals who showcase higher levels of self-awareness also demonstrate high levels of emotional intelligence, which is essential for establishing personal relationships and increasing managerial effectiveness (Goleman, Reference Goleman1996, as cited in McCarthy & Garavan, Reference McCarthy and Garavan1999). Managers who are self-aware are able to critically examine their own work behaviors, cultivate positive management styles, and gauge the impact of their management styles on subordinates and peers (Atwater & Yammarino, Reference Atwater and Yammarino1992). Individuals who are self-aware are inclined to assess their own strengths and weaknesses. Hence, self-aware individuals have insight into their developmental needs, which makes them employees who actively participate in developmental activities and training programs (Noe & Wilk, Reference Noe and Wilk1993). McCarthy and Garavan (Reference McCarthy and Garavan1999) assert that developmental and training programs that do not focus on development of self-awareness within their training design are less likely to bring about change and managerial effectiveness. Therefore, mindfulness-training programs can be one of the promising means to help employees develop a sense of self-awareness.

According to the S-ART model, self-awareness is a highly developed skill attained though the practice of sustained attention. Most mindfulness practices involve practitioners focusing on thoughts, feelings, and sensations as they arise in a nonevaluative manner (Gunaratana, Reference Gunaratana2011). Gradually, one's own awareness becomes the object of attention, and sustained attention to one's own awareness leads to development of self-awareness. It is important to recognize the assertion that self-awareness is gradually developed over extended mindfulness practices. As such, it is possible that development of self-awareness may not occur in mindfulness-training programs that are diluted for implementation in the workplace.

Self-Regulation

A change in self-regulation is another mechanism through which mindfulness might lead to positive effects. Self-regulation is the ability to manage and alter one's responses and various impulses (Vago & Silbersweig, Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012). Developing self-regulation aids the mindfulness practitioner by rectifying attentional biases caused by dispositional factors or experiential factors (Vago & Silbersweig, Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012). Attentional biases can cause ruminating behavior, which can impede information processing ability and cause cognitive interference during tasks (Yiend, Reference Yiend2010).Various mindfulness practices have been shown to reduce negatively biased thoughts and perceptions that may impair self-regulation (Chiesa & Malinowski, Reference Chiesa and Malinowski2011). Continued mindfulness practice also helps to facilitate approach behavior (as opposed to avoidance behavior), which typically leads to healthier outcomes by promoting interest, approval, and acceptance (Sin & Lyubomirsky, Reference Sin and Lyubomirsky2009; Waikar & Craske, Reference Waikar and Craske1997).

Mindfulness based practices have also been shown to have a profound effect on emotional regulation (Baer, Walsh, & Lykins, Reference Baer, Walsh, Lykins and Didonna2009; Carmody, Reference Carmody2009). Emotion regulation is an important part of self-regulation because it involves the ability to shift one's focus of attention at will while regulating ongoing emotional activity (Carver & Scheier, Reference Carver, Scheier, Vohs and Baumeister2004; Koole, Van Dillen, & Sheppes, Reference Koole, Van Dillen, Sheppes, Vohs and Baumeister2011). McEwen (Reference McEwen2008) posits that mindfulness based practices allow one to regulate how they respond to situations. This helps break preservative and chronic responses to real or imagined stress related physiological and psychological stimuli. This form of self-regulation helps prevent allostatic load, which is cumulative stress that is placed on the body and the mind (McEwen, Reference McEwen1998). Allostatic load occurs from poor or mismanaged responses to stress and has a plethora of adverse health effects associated with it, such as suppression of the immune system, cardiovascular disease, weight gain, loss of bone density, sexual and reproductive impairments, decreased neurogenesis, and increased neural cell death (Jameison & Dinan, Reference Jameison and Dinan2001; McEwen, Reference McEwen2008; Sapolsky, Reference Sapolsky2003).

Exercising self-regulation has various practical applications within the workplace. Self-regulation is key to achieve managerial excellence. Self-regulation within the managerial context involves standard setting, detecting discrepancies, and actively reducing these detected discrepancies. A manager's ability to actively assess the needs and goals of various stakeholders and his or her capability to actively seek feedback to gauge how his or her performance is assessed by others requires self-regulation. These persistent self-regulatory behaviors are shown to enhance managerial effectiveness (Ashford & Tsui, Reference Ashford and Tsui1991). Impairment of self-regulation, which is characterized by ego depletion and experience of intrusive thoughts, renders employees vulnerable to engaging in unethical behaviors such as impulsively cheating on a problem-solving task. The lack of self-regulatory resources diminishes an individual's moral awareness, which heightens the tendency to engage in immoral and unethical behaviors (Gino, Schweitzer, Mead, & Ariely, Reference Gino, Schweitzer, Mead and Ariely2011).

Self-Transcendence

Self-transcendence occurs when a person overcomes self-centeredness and values prosocial behavior (Vago & Silbersweig, Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012). Self-transcendence involves increasing prosocial characteristics, transcending self-focused needs, and improving the focus on others (Fiori, David, & Aglioti, Reference Fiori, David and Aglioti2014). These mechanisms have been shown to improve organizational citizenship behaviors and reduce workplace materialistic attitudes (Torlak & Koc, Reference Torlak and Koc2007). Several studies have posited that mindfulness can cultivate an interdependence of self in specific social settings that foster a supportive framework of empathy and mentalizing (Decety & Chaminade, Reference Decety and Chaminade2003; Singer & Lamm, Reference Singer and Lamm2009). As such, increased mindfulness facilitates several aspects of prosocial behavior (Vago & Silbersweig, Reference Vago and Silbersweig2012). These tendencies toward interdependence and prosocial behavior may have a neuropsychological basis, because enhancements in functional activity in social-cognitive networks associated with mentalizing and empathy have been demonstrated in several studies with adult populations (de Greck et al., Reference Segal, Williams and Teasdale2012; Fan, Duncan, de Greck, & Northoff, Reference Fan, Duncan, de Greck and Northoff2011; Singer & Lamm, Reference Singer and Lamm2009). Eisenberg, Eggum, and Di Giunta (Reference Eisenberg, Eggum and Di Giunta2010) found that an individual's empathetic ability affects others' perceptions and feelings toward the individual, which promotes relationship building and maintenance among individuals. Furthermore, engaging in prosocial behaviors, as a result of attaining self-transcendence, is also shown to boost self-esteem, which is a proximal predictor of work related outcomes such as job satisfaction (Judge & Bono, Reference Judge and Bono2001; Laible, Carlo, & Roesch, Reference Laible, Carlo and Roesch2004). Prosocial behaviors are crucial from an organizational standpoint. Employees who engage in prosocial behaviors enhance organizational effectiveness, which is measured in the form of performance quantity and quality, financial efficiency indicators, and customer service indicators (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, Reference Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine and Bachrach2000).

Classical forms of mindfulness characterize different aspects of self-transcendence as the distinction between the experience of oneself and one's thoughts, emotions, and feelings (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, Reference Varela, Thompson and Rosch1992). This realization is described as “nonattachment” (Sahdra, Shaver, & Brown, Reference Sahdra, Shaver and Brown2010). Salzberg (Reference Salzberg2011) describes this as a transcendence of “self–object duality” by characterizing the self as empty and groundless. This type of self-transcendence is most commonly seen in MBCT (mindfulness based cognitive training), which involves a disengagement between one's immediate experience via an external observer's perspective (e.g., “I am not a smart person” vs. “I am having the thought that I am not a smart person”; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, Reference Segal, Williams and Teasdale2012). Safran and Segal (Reference Safran and Segal1996) point out that the insight provided by self-transcendence provides awareness that one's thoughts are always subjective and transient. This insight benefits the practitioner by facilitating nonattachment, which helps to improve life satisfaction, well-being, and interpersonal functioning (Sahdra, Shaver, & Brown, Reference Sahdra, Shaver and Brown2010).

Current Empirical Research Needs More Rigor

Thus far we have discussed the leading causal model for the positive outcomes associated with mindfulness trainings. We will now discuss how future research might proceed to provide a better understanding of the mechanisms responsible for the positive effects of mindfulness trainings at work.

Because the mindfulness-training methods employed in workplace settings differ from those that have been tested in the laboratory, researchers must investigate, rather than assume, the effectiveness of mindfulness in the workplace. We feel that rigorous field experiments will be most beneficial to advancing the understanding of mindfulness at work. It is generally accepted that experimental designs are the most rigorous approach to determining intervention and training effectiveness (Boruch, Reference Boruch1997; Cook & Shadish, Reference Cook and Shadish1994). Although some aspects of experimental design are difficult to employ in field settings (Lipsey & Cordray, Reference Lipsey and Cordray2000), such as organizational settings, there is precedence that it is possible (for example see, Klatt, Buckworth, & Malarkey, Reference Klatt, Buckworth and Malarkey2008). Whenever possible, future research on mindfulness-training programs should ensure that groups are randomly assigned. It is also important that appropriate control conditions are used. One meta-analysis has shown that studies of the same types of interventions found different results when using random assignment compared with those using nonrandom assignment (Lipsey & Wilson, Reference Lipsey and Wilson1993). The groups to which participants are assigned should also be carefully considered to ensure use of appropriate control groups for comparison. Importantly, a simple no intervention or waitlist control group may not always be the best control group for comparison in workplace settings (Kinser & Robins, Reference Kinser and Robins2013). Further, because the workplace is host to many contextual factors, field studies investigating the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions ought to measure how interventions interact with the situational factors that are present.

Studies aiming to evaluate mindfulness-training program effectiveness should also include measures of the proposed mediating mechanisms (Carmody, Baer, Lykins, & Olendzki, Reference Carmody, Baer, Lykins and Olendzki2009). As previously mentioned, workplace settings are ripe with contextual factors that may impede or enhance the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions. As such, the causal mechanism responsible for outcomes in a laboratory setting may not occur in a field setting. For example, if increased empathy is the mechanism by which a mindfulness-training program increases cooperative behavior in a laboratory setting, such an effect might not occur in a workplace setting that encourages and rewards cutthroat competition among employees. By identifying contextual factors like these, organizations will be better able to select mindfulness-training programs that are most likely to be effective in their particular organization.

In addition to measuring the mechanisms of mindfulness, it is also important that all possible outcome variables are measured: for example, measuring both self-transcendence (the proposed mediator) and the predicted outcomes that might occur through self-transcendence (some examples might include occupational citizenship behaviors, counterproductive work behaviors, reduced work stress, increased worker well-being, employee retention). By understanding the mechanisms responsible for particular outcomes, the organization will be able to craft the mindfulness-training program to fit the unique needs of their employees.

Conclusion

We aimed to communicate why understanding the mechanisms are important, to describe the leading causal model, and to argue that more rigorous empirical research is needed to understand the mechanisms. Like the authors of the focal article, it is our hope that this issue inspires future research on mindfulness practices at work.

References

Ashford, S., & Tsui, A. (1991). Self-regulation for managerial effectiveness: The role of active feedback seeking. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (2), 251–280. doi:10.2307/256442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwater, L., & Yammarino, F. (1992). Does self–other agreement on leadership perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45 (1), 141–164. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1992.tb00848.xGoogle Scholar
Baer, R. A., Walsh, E., & Lykins, E. L. (2009). Assessment of mindfulness. In Didonna, F. (Ed.), Clinical handbook of mindfulness (pp. 153–168). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09593-6_10Google Scholar
Bishop, S., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N., & Carmody, J., . . . Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11 (3), 230–241. doi:10.1093/clipsy.bph077Google Scholar
Boruch, R. F. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide (Vol. 44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Buddhaghosa, B. (1991). The path of purification (Visuddhimagga). Onalaska, WA: Buddhist Publication Society Pariyatti Editions.Google Scholar
Carmody, J. (2009). Evolving conceptions of mindfulness in clinical settings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23 (3), 270–280. doi:10.1891/0889-8391.23.3.270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmody, J., Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L. B., & Olendzki, N. (2009). An empirical study of the mechanisms of mindfulness in a mindfulness‐based stress reduction program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65 (6), 613–626. doi:10.1002/jclp.20579Google Scholar
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2004). Self-regulation of action and affect. In Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 13–39). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Chiesa, A., & Malinowski, P. (2011). Mindfulness-based approaches: Are they all the same? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67 (4), 404–424.Google Scholar
Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R. (1994). Social experiments: Some developments over the past fifteen years. Annual Review of Psychology, 45 (1), 545–580. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.002553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decety, J., & Chaminade, T. (2003). When the self represents the other: A new cognitive neuroscience view on psychological identification. Consciousness and Cognition, 12 (4), 577–596. doi:10.1016/S1053-8100(03)00076-XGoogle Scholar
de Greck, M., Wang, G., Yang, X., Wang, X., Northoff, G., & Han, S. (2012). Neural substrates underlying intentional empathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7 (2), 135–144. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq093CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Di Giunta, L. (2010). Empathy‐related responding: Associations with prosocial behavior, aggression, and intergroup relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4 (2), 143–180. doi:10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.xGoogle Scholar
Fan, Y., Duncan, N. W., de Greck, M., & Northoff, G. (2011). Is there a core neural network in empathy? An fMRI based quantitative meta-analysis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35 (3), 903–911. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.10.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiori, F., David, N., & Aglioti, S. M. (2014). Processing of proprioceptive and vestibular body signals and self-transcendence in Ashtanga yoga practitioners. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 (1). doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00734Google Scholar
Gino, F., Schweitzer, M. E., Mead, N. L., & Ariely, D. (2011). Unable to resist temptation: How self-control depletion promotes unethical behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 115 (2), 191–203. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.03.001Google Scholar
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. Learning, 24 (6), 49–50.Google Scholar
Gu, J., Strauss, C., Bond, R., & Cavanagh, K. (2015). How do mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta-analysis of mediation studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 37, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.006Google Scholar
Gunaratana, H. (2011). Mindfulness in plain English. Boston, MA: Wisdom.Google Scholar
Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptual and neural perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6 (6), 537–559. doi:10.1177/1745691611419671CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hyland, P. K., Lee, R. A., & Mills, M. J. (2015). Mindfulness at work: A new approach to improving individual and organizational performance. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8 (4), 576–602.Google Scholar
Jameison, K., & Dinan, T. G. (2001). Glucocorticoids and cognitive function: From physiology to pathophysiology. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 16 (4), 293–302. doi:10.1002/hup.304CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Judge, T., & Bono, J. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 80–92. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.1.80CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2011). Some reflections on the origins of MBSR, skillful means, and the trouble with maps. Contemporary Buddhism, 12 (1), 281–306. doi:0.1080/14639947.2011.564844Google Scholar
Khalsa, S. S., Rudrauf, D., Damasio, A. R., Davidson, R. J., Lutz, A., & Tranel, D. (2008). Interoceptive awareness in experienced meditators. Psychophysiology, 45 (4), 671–677. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2008.00666.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinser, P. A., & Robins, J. L. (2013). Control group design: Enhancing rigor in research of mind-body therapies for depression. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 1–10. doi:10.1155/2013/140467Google Scholar
Klatt, M. D., Buckworth, J., & Malarkey, W. B. (2008). Effects of low-dose mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR-ld) on working adults. Health Education & Behavior, 42 (3), 1–14. doi:10.1177/1090198108317627Google Scholar
Koole, S. L., Van Dillen, L. F., & Sheppes, G. (2011). The self-regulation of emotion. In Vohs, K. D. & Baumeister, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 22–40). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Laible, D., Carlo, G., & Roesch, S. (2004). Pathways to self-esteem in late adolescence: The role of parent and peer attachment, empathy, and social behaviours. Journal of Adolescence, 27 (6), 703–716. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.05.005Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51 (1), 345–375. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.345Google Scholar
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48 (12), 1181–1209. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.12.1181Google Scholar
McCarthy, A. M., & Garavan, T. N. (1999). Developing self-awareness in the managerial career development process: The value of 360-degree feedback and the MBTI. Journal of European Industrial Training, 23 (9), 437–445. doi:10.1108/03090599910302613Google Scholar
McEwen, B. S. (1998). Stress, adaptation, and disease: Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 840 (1), 33–44. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1998.tb09546.xGoogle Scholar
McEwen, B. S. (2008). Central effects of stress hormones in health and disease: Understanding the protective and damaging effects of stress and stress mediators. European Journal of Pharmacology, 583 (2), 174–185. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2007.11.071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nielsen, L., & Kaszniak, A. W. (2006). Awareness of subtle emotional feelings: A comparison of long-term meditators and nonmeditators. Emotion, 6 (3), 392–405. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.392CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noe, R., & Wilk, S. (1993). Investigation of the factors that influence employees' participation in development activities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (2), 291–302. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.291Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26 (3), 513–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reb, J., Narayanan, J., & Ho, Z. W. (2013). Mindfulness at work: Antecedents and consequences of employee awareness and absent-mindedness. Mindfulness, 6 (1), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Safran, J., & Segal, Z. V. (1996). Interpersonal process in cognitive therapy. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Sahdra, B. K., Shaver, P. R., & Brown, K. W. (2010). A scale to measure nonattachment: A Buddhist complement to Western research on attachment and adaptive functioning. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92 (2), 116–127. doi:10.1080/00223890903425960Google Scholar
Salzberg, S. (2011). Mindfulness and loving-kindness. Contemporary Buddhism, 12 (1), 177–182. doi:10.1080/14639947.2011.56483Google Scholar
Sapolsky, R. M. (2003). Stress and plasticity in the limbic system. Neurochemical Research, 28 (11), 1735–1742. doi:10.1023/A:1026021307833CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2012). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms with positive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65 (5), 467–487. doi:10.1002/jclp.20593Google Scholar
Singer, T., & Lamm, C. (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 81–96. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04418.xGoogle Scholar
Torlak, O., & Koc, U. (2007). Materialistic attitude as an antecedent of organizational citizenship behavior. Management Research News, 30 (8), 581–596. doi:/10.1108/01409170710773715Google Scholar
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1992). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): A framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 296–326. doi:/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296Google Scholar
Waikar, S. V., & Craske, M. G. (1997). Cognitive correlates of anxious and depressive symptomatology: An examination of the helplessness/hopelessness model. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 11 (1), 1–16. doi:10.1016/S0887-6185(96)00031-XGoogle Scholar
Yiend, J. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of attentional processing of emotional information. Cognition and Emotion, 24 (1), 3–47. doi:10.1080/0269993090320569Google Scholar
Zamahani, M., & Rezaei, F. (2014). The impact of managers' self-awareness, positivity and psychological ownership on organizational citizenship behavior. International Review of Management and Business Research, 3 (3), 1355–1368.Google Scholar