Dispositional Mindfulness Facets and Self-insight as Predictors of Subjective Well-being: An Exploratory Analysis

Abstract

The consciousness constructs of dispositional mindfulness and self-insight display theoretical and empirical overlap. Both independently predict eudaimonic and subjective well-being. In addition, self-insight appears to serve as a partial mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and psychological well-being. The current study sought to determine which facets of dispositional mindfulness when combined with self-insight best predict subjective well-being. Predictor variable data were gathered from 182 university students using a self-report instrument that measures four facets of dispositional mindfulness along with one that measures self-insight. The criterion variables for subjective well-being represented by subjective happiness and life satisfaction were also measured using self-report instruments. Regression analyses indicated that self-insight alone best predicts one component of subjective well-being (subjective happiness) whereas a combination of self-insight and the facet of dispositional mindfulness called non-judging of inner experience best predicts the other component (life satisfaction). Factor analyses also revealed the importance of the non-judging facet to subjective well-being. Item themes of recognizing and expressing one's feelings, uncritically accepting one's feelings and thoughts, thinking about one's thoughts, and to a lesser degree understanding one's behaviors were most closely aligned with subjective well-being. Interestingly, the mere act of mindful observing was not directly related to subjective well-being. Applications of these findings to clinical contexts are discussed. Mindfulness is a state of consciousness characterized by attentive focus on present experience in a non-judging and non-reactive manner. Although mindfulness has become a popular foundation for clinical applications, mechanisms of change for clinical purposes are not fully understood, and examination of specific facets of mindfulness are in order to better understand these processes (Sedlmeier, et al., 2012).

Full text

________________________________
Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: Dr. Rick Harrington, The
University of Houston – Victoria,
The School of Arts & Sciences, 3007 N.
Ben Wilson, Victoria, Texas 77901 5731
North American Journal of Psychology, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 3, 469-482.
 NAJP
Dispositional Mindfulness Facets and Self-insight
as Predictors of Subjective Well-being: An
Exploratory Analysis
Rick Harrington
Donald A. Loffredo
Catherine A. Perz
The University of Houston-Victoria
The consciousness constructs of dispositional mindfulness and self-
insight display theoretical and empirical overlap. Both independently
predict eudaimonic and subjective well-being. In addition, self-insight
appears to serve as a partial mediator of the relationship between
mindfulness and psychological well-being. The current study sought to
determine which facets of dispositional mindfulness when combined with
self-insight best predict subjective well-being. Predictor variable data
were gathered from 182 university students using a self-report instrument
that measures four facets of dispositional mindfulness along with one that
measures self-insight. The criterion variables for subjective well-being
represented by subjective happiness and life satisfaction were also
measured using self-report instruments. Regression analyses indicated
that self-insight alone best predicts one component of subjective well-
being (subjective happiness) whereas a combination of self-insight and
the facet of dispositional mindfulness called non-judging of inner
experience best predicts the other component (life satisfaction). Factor
analyses also revealed the importance of the non-judging facet to
subjective well-being. Item themes of recognizing and expressing one’s
feelings, uncritically accepting one’s feelings and thoughts, thinking
about one’s thoughts, and to a lesser degree understanding one’s
behaviors were most closely aligned with subjective well-being.
Interestingly, the mere act of mindful observing was not directly related
to subjective well-being. Applications of these findings to clinical
contexts are discussed.
Mindfulness is a state of consciousness characterized by attentive
focus on present experience in a non-judging and non-reactive manner.
Although mindfulness has become a popular foundation for clinical
applications, mechanisms of change for clinical purposes are not fully
understood, and examination of specific facets of mindfulness are in
order to better understand these processes (Sedlmeier, et al., 2012).

470 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Mindfulness is a multifaceted construct. Specific facets of mindfulness
include attending, observing, describing, and uncritically accepting one’s
experiences (Baer, Smith, & Allen, 2004). These facets can be measured
to determine the degree to which individuals exhibit a general tendency
toward experiencing mindful states in everyday life to ascertain what is
known as dispositional mindfulness.
Due to its focus on self-awareness, dispositional mindfulness has
common ground with self-reflection and self-insight that comprise Grant,
Franklin, and Langford’s (2002) private self-consciousness construct.
Self-reflection refers to a tendency to focus on one’s thoughts and
emotions. Self-insight indicates the possession of a general awareness
and understanding of the meaning of one’s self-reflected inner
experiences.
Previous studies report that dispositional mindfulness as well as self-
insight, though generally not self-reflection, are positively predictive of
both eudaimonic and subjective forms of well-being (Baer & Allen,
2006; Harrington & Loffredo, 2011; Hollis-Walker & Colosimo, 2011;
Lyke, 2009;). Eudaimonic well-being is prescriptive in that it specifies
the necessary elements for well-being. For example, Ryff’s (1989)
psychological well-being construct prescribes six elements for well-being
that include environmental mastery, purpose in life, self-acceptance,
positive relations with others, autonomy, and personal growth. Subjective
well-being, the focus of the present paper, is non-prescriptive and is
generally viewed as a combination of subjective self-reports of happiness
and life satisfaction (Kesebir & Diener, 2008).
Harrington, Loffredo, and Perz (2014) presented empirical evidence
that self-insight and dispositional mindfulness share significant variance.
They also reported that self-insight serves to partially mediate the
relationship between dispositional mindfulness and psychological well-
being. Given that self-insight seems to play a role in how mindfulness
relates to at least some forms of eudaimonic well-being, such as
psychological well-being, we sought to explore how elements of
mindfulness combined with the overlapping construct of self-insight may
also play a role in relating to subjective well-being.
This exploratory study sought to shed light on specific aspects of self-
awareness and mindfulness by determining the best predictor variables
for subjective well-being among the two self-consciousness variables of
self-reflection and self-insight paired with the four dispositional
mindfulness facet variables measured by Baer et al.’s (2004) self-report
instrument. Further, we sought to identify through factor analyses the
predominant themes among the predictor variables that best relate to
subjective well-being. Identifying these themes could better assist us in
pinpointing which elements of these consciousness variables relate to

Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz MINDFULNESS FACETS 471
well-being. With this information, future researchers or clinicians may
want to target these elements over others to more fully examine their
potential benefits and causal relationships.
METHOD
Participants
There were 112 female and 72 male university student participants
constituting a sample size of 184. The mean age of the participants was
19.7 (SD = 4.77). The ethnic breakdown of the sample consisted of 86
Hispanic, 56 Non-Hispanic White, 33 African American, 2 Asian
American, and 9 who did not self-identify as being a member of any of
the previously stated groups.
Materials
Study participants completed four self-report Likert-type
questionnaires for this portion of a larger study. Self-consciousness was
measured using Grant et al.’s (2002) 20-item instrument called the Self-
Reflection and Insight Scale that measures two factors labeled self-
reflection and self-insight. The Self-Reflection subscale is best
characterized by the item “I am very interested in examining what I think
about.” This scale represents a need for private self-focus and self-
awareness. Self-Insight subscale items are best characterized by the item
“I usually know why I feel the way I do.” This subscale measures the
characteristic of being aware of one’s feelings, thoughts, and
motivations. Grant et al. (2002) reported a coefficient alpha of .87 for
the Self-Insight subscale and .91 for the Self-Reflection subscale along
with good test-retest reliabilities and convergent validity.
Dispositional mindfulness was determined using Baer et al.’s (2004)
39-item scale called the Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. This
scale measures a general tendency of individuals to be mindful during the
course of daily living. The instrument also measures four established core
facets of mindfulness referred to as observing, describing, acting with
awareness, and non-judging of inner experience. Observing refers to the
act of being attentive to present stimuli, describing to the process of
ascribing cognitive meta-labels to attended stimuli, acting with
awareness to being fully conscious in the moment, and non-judging of
inner experience to being accepting of all internal stimuli including
distressing or unwanted thoughts, feelings, and sensations. Baer et al.
(2004) found good internal validity for the four scales represented by
alphas from .83 to .91, and good convergent validity with a variety of
additional self-report scales.
Subjective well-being was measured using the 4-item Subjective
Happiness Scale (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999) and the 5-item

472 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al. 1985). The former is a good
measure of subjective well-being’s hedonic component and the latter of
its life satisfaction aspect. The Subjective Happiness Scale measures self-
report of happiness along a 7-point Likert scale from least happy to most
happy. Lyubomirsky and Lepper (1999) reported fair to good reliability.
For example, they noted a test-retest reliability of .72, which is adequate
for a construct with state or mood characteristics. The Satisfaction with
Life Scale measures subjective judgment about contentment and
gratification about one’s life as a whole. A good representation of the
Satisfaction with Life Scale is found in the item “In most ways my life is
close to ideal.” Diener et al. (1985) reported an alpha of .87 and a similar
though slightly lower 2-month test-retest reliability. Pavot and Diener
(1993) concluded in their review of studies using this instrument that
there is a convergence of support for its construct validity.
Procedure
Researchers obtained permission from the university’s Institutional
Review Board along with that of its consenting instructors to visit a
number of undergraduate classes where students were invited to
participate in the study. Upon providing informed consent, student
participants completed the self-report instruments in class. All
participants were treated in accordance with the American Psychological
Association’s ethical standards and guidelines.
RESULTS
Table 1 displays the correlations between the self-consciousness
factors and the subjective well-being variables. Self-insight showed
significant and positive correlations with subjective happiness of r (176)
= .42, p < .01 and satisfaction with life of r = .44 (178), p < .01, whereas
self-reflection was only weakly and non-significantly correlated with
these two subjective well-being variables. Table 2 shows that
mindfulness, like self-insight, also demonstrated a significant and
positive correlation with subjective happiness of r (177) = .30, p < .01
and satisfaction with life of r (179) = .32, p < .01 though to a lesser
degree than did self-insight. Facet correlations displayed in Table 2 show
that the facet called non-judging of inner experience and the facet called
describing were the facets most strongly correlated with both measures
of subjective well-being.
Two step-wise multiple regression analyses were run to test the
predictive models of best fit for the criterion variable of subjective
happiness as well as for satisfaction with life. In both analyses, self-
reflection and self-insight along with the four mindfulness facets
constituted the six predictor variables. Self-insight alone was the

Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz MINDFULNESS FACETS 473
predictor model variable of best fit for subjective happiness (β = .41, p <
.001) [F (1, 168) = 34.3, p < .001; 17% of R
2
and 16.5% of adjusted R
2
].
TABLE 2 Correlations of Mindfulness Total & Facets with Subjective
Happiness (SH) & Satisfaction with Life (SWL).
Mindfulness
(total)
Observe Act
Aware
Describe Non-
judge
SH .30** .03 .15* .28** .29**
SWL .32** .00 .16* .31** .35**
*p<.05 **p<.01
Self-insight (β= .34, p < .001) coupled with the mindfulness facet of
non-judging of inner experiences (β = .18, p < .05) were the predictor
model variables of best fit for satisfaction with life [F (2, 169) = 32.1, p <
.001; 21.5% of R
2
and 20.5% of adjusted R
2
].
Given possible multicollinearity of the four mindfulness facet
variables, a commonality analysis was conducted to provide additional
insight into the multiple regression results, including examination of
possible specious results due to multicollinearity (Kraha, Turner, Nimon,
Zientek, & Henson, 2012). The two primary predictor variables of self-
insight paired with non-judging of inner experiences accounted for the
majority of the unique, common, and total variance for both the
subjective happiness and satisfaction with life criterion variables. Self-
insight contributed the highest level of variance for all three categories.
Examination of the subjective happiness variable revealed that the total
variance for self-insight combined with non-judging of inner experiences
was 25.7% compared to only 11.1% for the combination of the remaining
four variables. Similarly, the satisfaction with life variable showed that
self-insight combined with non-judging of inner experiences accounted
for 31.7% of the variance compared to only 13% for the other four
variables combined. Therefore, multicollinearity of the predictor
variables was ruled out as a possible specious cause of the multiple
regression results. In addition, the results confirmed the importance of
self-insight paired with the facet of non-judging of inner experiences as
TABLE 1 Correlations of Self-insight & Self-reflectiveness (SR) with
Subjective Happiness & Satisfaction with Life.
Subjective Happiness Satisfaction with Life
Insight .42** .44**
SR .10 .11
*p<.05 **p<.01

474 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
the variable pair that contributed the dominant share of variance to
subjective well-being.
A Varimax rotation factor analysis was conducted using the self-
report items for mindfulness, self-insight, and subjective happiness as
well as one for mindfulness, self-insight, and satisfaction with life to
gather a more fine-grained inspection of the data. The results of both
factor analyses revealed two factors, with Factor 1 representing all of the
subjective well-being items and Factor 2 representing all of the
mindfulness observation facet items. Examination of the factor analysis
results that used the subjective happiness items (see Table 3) revealed
that Factor 1 accounted for 17.1% of the variance and Factor 2 accounted
TABLE 3 Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation Using
Items from the SRIS (Insight Scale), KIM, & SHS
Item Factor 1 Factor 2
SRIS3 .324 .214
SRIS4 .667 .103
SRIS6 .482 .240
SRIS9 .491 .165
SRIS11 .596 -.083
SRIS14 .613 .138
SRIS17 .603 .096
SRIS20 .503 .324
KIM1(O) -.077 .367
KIM2(D) .406 .510
KIM3(A) .448 -.028
KIM4(NJ) .673 -.226
KIM5(O) .063 .463
KIM6(D) -.359 -.441
KIM7(A) .035 .322
KIM8(NJ) .169 -.492
KIM9(O) -.059 .501
KIM10(D) .371 .585
KIM11(A) .255 -.001
KIM12(NJ) .608 -.208
KIM13(O) -.136 .468
KIM14(D) .582 .164
KIM15(A) .184 .217
KIM16(NJ) .625 -155
KIM17(O) -.158 .548
KIM18(D) .649 .146
KIM19(A) -.321 .238
KIM20(NJ) .399 -.427
KIM21(O) .116 .529
KIM22(D) .559 .119

Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz MINDFULNESS FACETS 475
KIM23(A) .590 .080
KIM24(NJ) .442 -.244
KIM25(O) -.101 .383
KIM26(D) .457 .414
KIM27(A) .330 -.096
KIM28(NJ) .640 -.319
KIM29(O) .137 .484
KIM30(O) .024 .552
KIM31(A) .095 -.196
KIM32(NJ) .644 -.237
KIM33(O) .073 .424
KIM34(D) .329 .450
KIM35(A) .358 -.048
KIM36(NJ) .465 -.235
KIM37(O) -.027 .668
KIM38(A) .005 .426
KIM39(O) .168 .510
SHS1 .404 .146
SHS2 .348 .088
SHS3 .406 .158
SHS4 .388 -.007
Note: KIM = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness; the digit following represents the item
number; the symbol in parentheses represents the facet scale with O = Observe, D =
Describe, A = Awareness (Act with Awareness), and NJ = Non-judging (Accept without
Judgment). SRIS = Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (Insight scale items only); the digit
following represents the item number. SHS = Subjective Happiness Scale; the digit
following represents the item number. Bold numbers indicate which items load on that
factor.
TABLE 4 Principal components analysis with Varimax rotation using
items from the SRIS (Insight Scale), KIM, and SWLS
Item Factor 1 Factor 2
SRIS3 .313 .217
SRIS4 .667 .131
SRIS6 .468 .263
SRIS9 .497 .193
SRIS11 .613 -.053
SRIS14 .608 .165
SRIS17 .595 .124
SRIS20 .500 .348
KIM1(O) -.107 .368
KIM2(D) .393 .518
KIM3(A) .438 -.003
KIM4(NJ) .685 -.207
KIM5(O) .028 .471
KIM6(D) -.355 -.460
KIM7(A) .019 .328
KIM8(NJ) .167 -.490

476 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
KIM9(O) -.069 .499
KIM10(D) .367 .597
KIM11(A) .260 .020
KIM12(NJ) .606 -.186
KIM13(O) -.143 .469
KIM14(D) .547 .185
KIM15(A) .190 .239
KIM16(NJ) .627 -.118
KIM17(O) -.155 .551
KIM18(D) .629 .155
KIM19(A) -.329 .232
KIM20(NJ) .424 -.384
KIM21(O) .107 .544
KIM22(D) .558 .146
KIM23(A) .598 .112
KIM24(NJ) .450 -.207
KIM25(O) -.113 .389
KIM26(D) .436 .412
KIM27(A) .332 -.082
KIM28(NJ) .645 -.295
KIM29(O) .131 .494
KIM30(O) .008 .555
KIM31(A) .123 -.165
KIM32(NJ) .661 -.191
KIM33(O) .053 .440
KIM34(D) .313 .466
KIM35(A) .362 -.011
KIM36(NJ) .476 -.228
KIM37(O) -.055 .666
KIM38(A) -.006 .430
KIM39(O) .145 .508
SWLS1 .428 .093
SWLS2 .416 -.034
SWLS3 .417 -.027
SWLS4 .378 .010
SWLS5 .369 -.047
Note: KIM = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness; the digit following represents the item
number; the symbol in parentheses represents the facet scale with O = Observe, D =
Describe, A = Awareness (Act with Awareness), and NJ = Non-judging (Accept without
judgment). SRIS = Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (Insight scale items only); the digit
following represents the item number. SWLS = Satisfaction with Life Scale; the digit
following represents the item number. Bold numbers indicate which items load on that
factor.
for 11.1% of the total variance of 28.2%. The factor analysis results that
used the satisfaction with life items (see Table 4) showed that Factor 1
accounted for 16.8% of the variance and Factor 2 accounted for 11.2% of
the total of 28% of the variance.

Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz MINDFULNESS FACETS 477
Next, items on Factor 1 (the subjective well-being factor) with factor
loadings of .60 or better were examined to reveal that 5 items were
represented by the non-judging of inner experiences mindfulness facet, 3
items were represented by self-insight, and 1 item was represented by the
TABLE 5 Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation
Factor 1 Loadings Greater Than .60 Using Items from the
SRIS (Insight Scale), KIM, & SHS
Loading & Item Item
.673 KIM4 (NJ) I criticize myself for having irrational or
inappropriate emotions.
.667 SRIS4 I’m often confused about the way I
really feel about things.
.649 KIM18 (D) I have trouble thinking of the right
words to express how I feel about
things.
.644 KIM32 (NJ) I think some of my emotions are bad or
inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them.
.640 KIM28 (NJ) I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking
the way I’m thinking.
.625 KIM 16 (NJ) I believe some of my thoughts are
abnormal or bad and I shouldn’t think
that way.
.613 SRIS14 Thinking about my thoughts makes me
more confused.
.606 KIM12 (NJ) I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the
way I’m feeling.
.603 SRIS17 Often I find it difficult to make sense of
the way I feel about things.
Note: KIM = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness; the digit following represents the item
number; the symbol in parentheses represents the facet scale with D = Describe, NJ =
Non-judging (Accept without Judgment). SRIS = Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (Insight
scale items only; the digit following represents the item number. SHS = Subjective
Happiness Scale.
mindfulness description facet (see Tables 5 & 6). Item themes for
subjective well-being included recognizing and expressing one’s
feelings, uncritically accepting one’s feelings and thoughts, thinking
about one’s thoughts, and for the factor analysis that included satisfaction
with life items only, understanding one’s behaviors.
DISCUSSION
It appears that self-insight is the best predictor for subjective
happiness among the consciousness and mindfulness variables tested.
Self-reflection was not significantly predictive. These findings dovetail
nicely with those of Harrington et al. (2014) who found that self-insight

478 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
and not self-reflection was strongly related to the eudaimonic form of
well-being called psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989). Stein and Grant
(2014) determined that self-reflection only positively relates to subjective
TABLE 6 Principal Components Analysis with Varimax Rotation Factor
1 Loadings Greater Than .60 Using Items from the SRIS
(Insight Scale), KIM, & SWLS
Loading & Item Item
.685 KIM4 (NJ) I criticize myself for having irrational or
inappropriate emotions.
.667 SRIS4 I’m often confused about the way I
really feel about things.
.661 KIM32 (NJ) I think some of my emotions are bad or
inappropriate and I shouldn’t feel them.
.645 KIM28 (NJ) I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking
the way I’m thinking.
.629 KIM18 (D) I have trouble thinking of the right
words to express how I feel about things.
.627 KIM16 (NJ) I believe some of my thoughts are
abnormal or bad and I shouldn’t think
that way.
.613 SRIS11 My behavior often puzzles me.
.608 SRIS14 Thinking about my thoughts makes me
more confused.
.606 KIM12 (NJ) I tell myself I shouldn’t be feeling the
way I’m feeling.
Note: KIM = Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness; the digit following represents the item
number; the symbol in parentheses represents the facet scale with D = Describe, NJ = Non-
judging (Accept without Judgment). SRIS = Self-Reflection and Insight Scale (Insight scale
items only; the digit following represents the item number. SWLS = Satisfaction with Life
Scale.
well-being when it leads to self-insight. If a person’s core self-
evaluations are negative, then dysfunctional attitudes are likely to
suppress the relationship between self-reflection and self-insight.
Therefore, as demonstrated in the present study, self-insight is likely to
be associated with subjective well-being, but self-reflection is at best
inconsistently related.
Not surprisingly, at least one component of subjective well-being, life
satisfaction, was positively related to not only self-insight but also to the
mindfulness facet of non-judging of inner experiences. Hollis-Walker
and Colosimo (2011) determined that self-compassion, a construct that
conceptually overlaps with mindful non-judgmental acceptance of inner
experiences (Neff, 2003), was an important mediator in the linkage

Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz MINDFULNESS FACETS 479
between mindfulness and psychological well-being. Self-compassion
relates in part to a focus on a positive core self-evaluation. Stein and
Grant (2014) found that positive core self-evaluations serve a mediational
function in the pathway from self-insight to subjective well-being. Thus,
our results indicate that both self-insight and mindful non-self judging
serve as complementary components of consciousness linked to
subjective well-being outcomes. This is an original finding in our
exploratory analysis and is supportive of approaches to therapy that focus
on the combination of mindfulness and acceptance such as acceptance
and commitment therapy (ACT; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999).
Factor analytic results of the present study support the notion that
engaging in a process of self-awareness involving thinking about one’s
thoughts and feelings in a way that enables self-insight to develop is
associated with subjective well-being. In order for this self-insight
oriented process to unfold, these thoughts and feelings must be identified
and uncritically accepted by the observing self which is also a key aspect
of ACT. Merely engaging in mindful observing or self-reflection without
uncritical acceptance of one’s inner observations and reflections does not
appear to lead to greater subjective well-being. Our results suggest that
individuals who possess higher levels of dispositional mindfulness seem
to be particularly gifted in their ability to suspend judgment while
observing their thoughts and feelings. This seems to be the key to
achieving mindfulness linked self-insight and subjective well-being.
This study has implications for clinical applications. In addition to
the support it provides for the ACT perspective, it also supports the use
of loving-kindness, or metta, meditation to increase positive and reduce
negative affect (Hoffmann, Grossman, & Hinton, 2011). Loving-
kindness meditation, used to increase compassion for the self and others,
has been examined with regard to a variety of problems including self-
criticism (Shahar et al., 2015), depression (Graser, Hofling, Wesslau,
Mendes, & Stranier, 2016), and to enhance performance in students and
therapists (Galante, Galante, Bekkers, & Gallachar, 2014). The nature of
the effects of this type of meditation training may also be a useful area of
study, as it may elucidate the relationship between self-insight, self-
compassion, and subjective well-being.
The present study’s findings are limited in that they used a student
sample in a correlational design. Therefore, generalizability is limited
and causal linkages cannot be established between key variables. Future
researchers may want to use a general population sample. Although some
key variables would be difficult to manipulate in an experimental design,
aspects of mindfulness such as non-judging of inner experiences could be
a focus in an experimental group compared to a control group. This
would help to strengthen potential causal inferences in the explored

480 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
relationships. In closing, the present study though limited by some
methodological issues, nevertheless highlights the importance of self-
insight paired with non-judging mindfulness as variables that illustrate
how subjective well-being may unfold in individuals who are disposed
toward utilizing these self-awareness processes. These results also have
applied implications in their support of the use of ACT or loving
kindness meditation to potentially enhance subjective well-being.
REFERENCES
Baer, R.A., Smith, G.T., & Allen, K.B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by
self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11,
191-206.
Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S (1985). The Satisfaction
with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
Galante, J., Galante, I, Bekkers, M-J, & Gallacher, J. (2014) Effect of kindness-
based meditation on health and well-being: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82 (6), 1101-1114.
Grant, A.M., Franklin, J., & Langford, P. (2002). The Self-Reflection and Insight
Scale: A new measure of private self-consciousness. Social Behavior and
Personality, 30, 821-836.
Graser, J., Hofling, V., Wesslau, C., Mendes, A., & Stangier, U. (2016). Effects
of a 12-week mindfulness, compassion, and loving kindness program on
chronic depression: A pilot within-subjects wait-list controlled trial. Journal
of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 30(1), 35-49.
Harrington, R., & Loffredo, D.A. (2011). Insight, rumination, and self-reflection
as predictors of well-being. The Journal of Psychology, 145, 39-57.
Harrington, R., Loffredo, D.A., & Perz, C.A. (2014). Dispositional mindfulness
as a positive predictor of psychological well-being and the role of the private
self-consciousness insight factor. Personality and Individual Differences, 71,
15-18.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment
therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Hoffman, S. G., Grossman, P., & Hinton, D. E. (2011). Loving-kindness and
compassion meditation: Potential for psychological interventions. Clinical
Psychology Review, 31, 1126-1132.
Hollis-Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011). Mindfulness, self-compassion, and
happiness in non-meditators: A theoretical and empirical examination.
Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 222-227.
Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to
philosophical questions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 117-125.
Kraha, A., Turner, H., Nimon, K., Zientek, L. R., & Henson, R. (2012). Tools to
support interpreting multiple regression in the face of multicollinearity.
Frontiers in Psychology. 3(44). Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC3303138/.
Lyke, J.A. (2009). Insight, but not self-reflection, is related to subjective well-
being. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 66-70.

Harrington, Loffredo, & Perz MINDFULNESS FACETS 481
Lyubomirsky, S., & Lepper, H.S. (1999). A measure of subjective happiness:
Preliminary reliability and construct validation. Social Indicators Research,
46, 137-155.
Neff, K. D. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure self-
compassion. Self and Identity, 2, 223-250.
Pavot, W., & Deiner, E. (1993). Review of the Satisfaction with Life Scale.
Psychological Assessment,5, 164-172.
Ryff, C.D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning
of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 1069-1081.
Sedlmeier, P., Eberth, J., Schwarz, M., Zimmermann, D., Haarig, F., Jaeger, S.,
& Kunze, S. (2012). The psychological effects of meditation: A meta-
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1139-1171.
Shahar, B., Szsepsenwol, O., Zilcha-Mano, S., Haim, N., Zamir, O., Levi-
Yeshuvi, S., & Levit-Binnun, M. (2015). A wait-list randomized controlled
trial of loving-kindness meditation programme for self-criticism. Clinical
Psychology & Psychotherapy, 22(4), 346-356.
Stein, D., & Grant, A.M. (2014). Disentangling the relationships among self-
reflection, insight, and subjective well-being: The role of dysfunctional
attitudes and core self-evaluations. The Journal of Psychology, 148, 505-522.

482 NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY