Content uploaded by Joey Weber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Joey Weber on Oct 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Current Psychology
A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on
Diverse Psychological Issues
ISSN 1046-1310
Curr Psychol
DOI 10.1007/s12144-018-9969-5
Development and validation of the
Equanimity Barriers Scale [EBS]
Joey Weber & Michelle Lowe
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and
all rights are held exclusively by Springer
Science+Business Media, LLC, part of
Springer Nature. This e-offprint is for personal
use only and shall not be self-archived in
electronic repositories. If you wish to self-
archive your article, please use the accepted
manuscript version for posting on your own
website. You may further deposit the accepted
manuscript version in any repository,
provided it is only made publicly available 12
months after official publication or later and
provided acknowledgement is given to the
original source of publication and a link is
inserted to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.
Development and validation of the Equanimity Barriers Scale [EBS]
Joey Weber
1
&Michelle Lowe
2
#Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
Whilst mindfulness as a practice is now well researched, little is known about the associated concept of equanimity or the barriers
people face in achieving it. Three studies were conducted to develop and validate a self-report measure assessing barriers to
equanimity. Across studies, opportunity samples comprised students and staff members from one British university, and via
online social media platforms. In study 1 (n= 453) principal component analysis revealed five internally consistent factors
measuring the ways in which barriers to equanimity are conceptualised. Study 2, (n= 108) sought to confirm these factors.
Results revealed that a four-factor model best fit the data. Validity statistics were sufficient to support this model. Study 3 (n=
302) tested convergent and discriminant validity of the four-factor Equanimity Barriers Scale (EBS). It was tested utilising the
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (Brown and Ryan 2003), Big Five Inventory-10 (Rammstedt and John 2007), Self
Compassion Scale Short Form (Raes et al. 2011), Difficulty in Emotional Regulation Scale Short Form (Kaufman et al. 2015)and
the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (Gross and John 2003). The usefulness of the EBS for future research into individual
differences in adherence to mindfulness-based interventions are discussed.
Keywords Mindfulness .Equanimity .Wellbeing .Compassion .Self-compassion
In recent years, mindfulness has become a popular practice in
the western world to increase psychological wellbeing. Kabat-
Zinn (2003) introduced mindfulness to the western world and
openly confirms how this practice sits at the heart of Buddhism.
Although western scales of mindfulness have been successfully
developed and implemented, when Buddhism is considered,
equanimity is a crucial aspect of the development of self and
one that seemingly underpins western definitions of mindful-
ness. If we are to consider mindfulness from the Buddhist per-
spective, we need to further explore the concept of equanimity.
The importance of cultivating a state of equanimity can be pro-
posed in view of the connection with acceptance both of self and
others (Hadash et al 2016) as well as having been suggested as
being the most important psychological element in the improve-
ment of wellbeing (Desbordes et al 2015).
The differences between mindfulness and equanimity from a
western perspective are notable when comparing definitions.
BPaying attention to the present moment without judgement^
(Kabat-Zin 2003, p 29) is widely accepted as one of the leading
definitions of mindfulness. Whereas, equanimity is Bthe suspen-
sion of judging experience to be intrinsically good or bad^(Farb
et al. 2012, p 71). Thus, equanimity seemingly refines the con-
cept of judgement and relates to the recognition and absence of
judgement towards one’s discrimination faculties. Weber (2017)
highlights these conceptual differences in further detail. The cur-
rent authors argue contemporary mindfulness measures represent
attention or memory scales and anecdotal suppositions into the
realm of non-judgemental acceptance rather than reflect the more
profound nature of mindfulness practice, which is why under-
standing equanimity and its barriers are important.
In Buddhism, mindfulness is a key part of developing com-
passion in self and others and ultimately part of a much larger
psychological and emotionally regulated process that includes
the development of the four immeasurable qualities: loving
kindness (metta), compassion (karuna), joy (mudita), and
equanimity (upkeep). Equanimity is found in both
Theravada and Mahayana Buddhist traditions. As a
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9969-5) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
*Joey Weber
J.Weber@bolton.ac.uk
1
Faculty of health and wellbeing, University of Bolton, Greater
Manchester BL3 5AB, UK
2
School of Education and Psychology, University of Bolton, Greater
Manchester BL3 5AB, UK
Current Psychology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-9969-5
Author's personal copy
generalized statement, from the Theravada perspective, this
attitude manifests as an internal reaction to one’s own attach-
ment, aversion and indifference, which is the same to say, ‘the
suspension of judgement to be intrinsically good or bad’.
Mahayana Buddhism still incorporates this viewpoint, but
then externalizes this onto friends, enemies and strangers
(Wallace 2010; Zopa 2013). Thus, Farb et al.’s(2012)defini-
tion of equanimity provides a useful synthesis of the
‘internalised equanimity’foundinbothHinayanaand
Mahayana Buddhism whilst remaining pertinent with western
neuroscience.
It is important to note that the concept of equanimity is
gathering pace in neuroscientific research (Farb et al. 2012).
Equanimity comprises a fundamental component of emotional
regulation by reducing ‘automatic affect processing’or the
automatic expansion of initial evaluative reactions (Farb
et al. 2012). These authors further exemplify how parts of
the brain can be engaged constructively in the cultivation of
empathy and compassion. Hence, equanimity goes beyond
momentary ‘acceptance’and ‘non-judgement’associated with
mindfulness as a western practice, to a more holistic and en-
during state of being, guided through the sense of genuine
concern for others. In short, Schonert-Reichl and Roeser
(2016) postulated that equanimity embodies a deeper level
of discernment and the approaching of phenomena from a
more objective perspective than the contemporary conception
of mindfulness practice would suggest, and as such allows the
mindfulness practitioner a greater insight into the construction
of their reality.
Not only does equanimity represent the cultivation of an
even minded response to all experience, but also involves the
practice of maintaining calm in the face of provocative stimuli
(Carmody and Baer 2009). It is here equanimity binds itself to
emotional regulation, which can alter both the quality and
magnitude of responses (Gross and Thompson 2007). Thus,
research into equanimity rather than into mindfulness per se
that is a key factor in establishing adaptive psychological pro-
cesses. It is essential to differentiate that equanimity is not
apathy or indifference Bbut rather of mental imperturbability^
(Thanissaro 1996,p.263).
Within the provinces of health and social psychology the
fostering of equanimity can be seen as underpinning the
mechanisms that encourage social connectedness and self-
continuity (Sedikides et al. 2016). For example, equanimity
could have an active role in goal motivation and achievement
(Spence and Deci 2013), providing a buffer against psycho-
pathology (Trompetter et al. 2017), and being central to lon-
gevity and happiness in life (Johnson and Acabchuk 2017).
Therefore, developing a Bbarriers to equanimity scale^that
highlights which areas within human experience could poten-
tially prevent the development of wellbeing and achievement
of potential, would be a useful tool in both prevention of un-
wellness and dis-connect in many areas of life.
Human nature is intrinsically judgemental, therefore there
is a need to improve non-judgement. However, should one
wish to hone in on the judgemental aspect of mindfulness, a
scale to make this more explicit is necessary. Barriers to med-
itation can include motivational and informational barriers,
which is exemplified by Carlson (2013). Further, Olano
et al. (2015) strengthens this concept by showing how socio-
demographic indicators can affect engagement with medita-
tion. They report that men are half as likely to engage and
those in vulnerable groups with lower health outcomes were
also less likely to engage. Greater education was associated
with mindfulness practice, highlighting the need for tools to
explore barriers to practice. Further, understanding barriers to
practice potentially mitigates against negative outcomes
during meditation. For example, Finucane and Mercer
(2006) report how mindfulness can lead to distress during
meditation. Understanding barriers to practice therefore would
increase the comprehension in which an individual embarks
upon their practice in relation to their own judgmental modes
of being.
Brahm (2016) questioned the legitimacy of mindfulness
without ‘kindfulness’; that is without the goal of the develop-
ment of prosocial qualities such as compassion and altruism.
Aldina (2015) goes onto further suggest mindfulness without
such associations can come across as ‘cold’and ‘dull’.
Barriers to meditation are further significant when taking into
consideration the prosocial qualities associated with mindful-
ness such as the cultivation of compassion. In order to distin-
guish barriers in relation to equanimity, it is important to rec-
ognise barriers in mindfulness practice which could diminsh
the development of such qualities.
In the west, qualities such as compassion are promoted by
healthcare professionals as a key element of mental wellbeing,
echoed in major organisations like the UK National Health
Service as one of its core values (Department of Health
2012) and has global implications for nursing care (Durkin
et al. 2018). Further, there is increasing literature on the need
and therapeutic approach of nurturing greater self-compassion
(Neff et al. 2007). Commentators argue however, that com-
passion can only be achieved and nurtured through non-
judgement and accepting phenomena as transient moments
in time rather than as fixed and ridged reality. Shapiro et al.
(2016) sum up this concept: BWhen we practise judgement
and criticism, we strengthen neuropathways of negativity,
conversely, when we practise equanimity, openness, and ac-
ceptance, we strengthen our capacity to be with whatever
arises in our field of experience, negative or positive^(p.110).
For some individuals the experience of compassion is
discomforting. Condon and Barett (2013)demonstratedhow
experiencing compassion was unpleasant for individuals who
were exposed to another person’s suffering. As compassion is
conceptualised as pleasant, yet may manifest as a difficult
emotion, it is here an equanimous approach towards one’s
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
own sense of ‘unpleasant’that may alleviate this contradic-
tion. A healthy construct, that facilitates compassion, would
counter the potential discomfort that compassion can mani-
fest. This is further evidence to support the need for analysing
judgements and harbouring equanimity: by suggesting equa-
nimity could enable individuals to cope with the aversive na-
ture of compassion by cultivating even-mindedness.
The complexity of the mindfulness concept was confirmed
by Baer et al. (2006) whom found that mindfulness is a multi-
faceted construct comprising non-reactivity, observing, aware-
ness, describing and non-judging. Since, the origins of mind-
fulness are in the Buddhist philosophy (Kabat-Zinn 1990)itis
apt to return to Buddhism and to explore the construct of equa-
nimity. It is clear that mindfulness and equanimity theoretically
overlap, especially around the areas of non-judgement and ac-
ceptance. These theoretical differences are encapsulated via the
recent upsurge into ‘contemporary mindfulness’and traditional
‘Buddhist mindfulness’. Van Gordon et al. (2015) identify this
as ‘first generation’and ‘second generation’mindfulness based
programmes, reflecting the original Mindfulness Based Stress
Reduction programmes developed in 1970’s and its subsequent
derivatives, in contrast to the more traditional Buddhist theory
encapsulated within an ethical framework. Consequently, re-
search has turned to empirical investigation between ‘first gen-
eration’and ‘second generation’programmes, which is why a
construct that measures barriers to equanimity is significant in
aiding empirical investigation into this narrative.
This is evident in the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS;
Lau et al. 2006) which includes two factors of de-centring
and curiosity (including items mentioning openness and ac-
ceptance), but does not explicitly measure loving kindness,
equanimity, compassion, or joy. Another example is the
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown
and Ryan 2003) which does not mention non-judgement or
acceptance and focusses solely on attentional and awareness
capacities. Equally, scales such as the Difficulties in
Emotional Regulation Strategies (DERS; Kaufman et al.
2015) and the Emotional Regulation Scale (ERQ; Gross and
John 2003) that capture emotional regulation and barriers to
emotional regulation do not measure mindfulness. Another
measure has directly attempted to capture compassion with
the Self-Compassion Scale (SCS; Neff 2003); however, this
solely focusses on the self. Further, Zeng et al. (2016)high-
light that the SCS was not validated in a Buddhist sample and
is theoretically different from the ideas of Buddhism.
The only scale currently looking at the four
immeasurables’aimed such as compassion and loving kind-
ness is the ‘Self-Others Four Immeasurables’(SOFI) devel-
oped by Kraus and Sears (2009). This was designed in order to
measure loving kindness, compassion, joy and acceptance to-
ward both self and others. Interestingly, compassion for one-
self has been shown to mediate improved emotion regulation
processes that support compassion towards others (Holzel
et al. 2011). Although, the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory
(FMI) was influenced by the mindfulness practice found in
Buddhism, this still includes the modern understanding of
mindfulness, rather than reflecting the core of Buddhist phi-
losophy (Walach et al. 2006). This is substantiated up by Zeng
et al. (2013) whom analysed nine current mindfulness scales
and proposed the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS)
as the only scale suitable for measuring awareness and
equanimity. However, Zeng et al. (2014) further studied this
scale and discovered this was confusing from the Goenka
Vipassana meditation perspective. Therefore, the authors cre-
ated a revised 10-item scale in order to address the distinction
between awareness and equanimity.
Pertinently, Charters (2013) draws on similarities between
therapeutic interventions of mindfulness, psychotherapy and
Buddhist psychology. Gergen (2001) highlights the potential
loosely overlapping theories of dependent origination and so-
cial constructivism, in order to highlight the way in which
Buddhist psychology and mindfulness integrate. Moreover,
as a species we are dependent on Bcultural conditioning, fam-
ily upbringing, personal experience, and the basic biological
predisposition toward making distinctions and measuring re-
cent experience and future hopes and fears against a neuronal
warehouse of memories^(Swanson and Rinpoche 2010,p.
265). Therefore, the end goals of Buddhism, modern psychol-
ogy and mindfulness are similar, Beliminating mental habits
associated with psychological and emotional suffering and
increasing those habits associated with happiness and
compassion^(Chambers et al. 2009, p265). Therefore, if the
cultivation of compassion is a goal to be realised from a ther-
apeutic or intervention perspective, a scale that measures bar-
riers to equanimity is particularly relevant when also consid-
ering scales that measure compassion.
Greenberg and Turksma (2015) postulate how compas-
sion can be cultivated and nurtured. However, Verplanken
(2012) discovered linkages between past nostalgia, depres-
sion and anxiety. Thus, it was hypothesised a person with
low mindfulness is likely to be unaware of their sense of self
or caught up in experience and therefore face greater bar-
riers to equanimity than those with high mindfulness.
Afshar et al. (2015), highlights the relationship between
stress and personality traits. The authors found traits such
as conscientiousness could predict adaptive coping
strategies, whereas traits like neuroticism were negatively
related to avoidance coping. Further, Bartley and Roesch
(2011) highlight how conscientiousness acts as a protective
factor in stress through its influence on coping strategy se-
lection. Moreover, Buss and Pomins, (1984) have highlight-
ed how temperament manifests difficulties in emotional ex-
pression and behaviors’such as being overly aggressive and
easily manipulated. Thus, should compassion be practiced,
investigating personality traits, emotional regulation, and
mindfulness appears central.
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
Aims and Rationale
The current research builds on the work of Desbordes
et al. (2015) by developing and validating a scale to
assess barriers to equanimity. Desbordes et al. (2015)ad-
vocated equanimity as the most significant psychological
element in the improvement of wellbeing. If we want to
cultivate a state of equanimity, we foremost need to un-
derstand the barriers to its achievement. Since there is no
current scale that measures barriers to equanimity it is
important to consider existing mindfulness scales due to
the overlapping theoretical content. Several reviews of
mindfulness measurement have been conducted (Baer
2011; Bergomi et al. 2013;Parketal.2013; Sauer et al.
2013). Whilst there are items that investigate ‘non-judge-
ment’and ‘acceptance’in the majority of the contempo-
rary mindfulness scales there is no explicit measurement
of equanimity barriers. An individual or person centred
therapist would able to identify barriers and explore these
with more contextual relevance, consequently facilitating
improved wellbeing. Further, when considering the mal-
adaptive effects of meditation, identifying barriers acts as
a preventative measure. The current research aims to val-
idate a scale to measure barriers to equanimity to bridge
this gap in the literature.
Development of the Item Pool
Through a review of the extant literature on both the
western concept of mindfulness and its measurement
(seeBergomietal.2013;Parketal.2013; Sauer, et al.
2013 for reviews) and Buddhist psychology, four broad
domains germane to equanimity barriers were highlighted
and an initial pool of 60 items generated. The innate do-
main was based on a literature review of Buddhist psy-
chology (Wallace 2006,2010; Zopa 2013). This was
conceputalised as the ‘innate’domain. The authors
reviewed the current mindfulness measures and
conceptualised the ‘interactive’and ‘reflective’domains.
Finally, the authors discussed the overlap between
Buddhist and Social psychology and conceptualised the
‘social’domain. Two domains encompass barriers to
achieving mindfulness from a westernised perspective,
and two from a broader stance, based on Buddhist philos-
ophy. Each domain is individually considered next.
The interactive domain is based on western definitions
of mindfulness (Kabat-Zinn 1994; Jha, Krompinger &
Baine 2007), and items within this domain area adapted
from existing measures, namely: The Kentucky Inventory
of Mindfulness Skills [KIMS] (Baer et al. 2004), Toronto
Mindfulness Scale [TMS] (Lau et al. 2006) and the Five
Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire [FFMQ] (Baer et al.
2006), Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory [FMI] (Walach
et al. 2006) and the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale
[PHLMS] (Cardaciotto et al. 2008). An example is
BHow I behave with others is influenced by my sense of
physical wellbeing^. The reflective domain was also
based on existing measures adapted from the Cognitive
Affective Mindfulness Scale [CAMS] (Feldman et al.
2007). An example is BMy memories influence how I
act with others.^
The innate domain was based on a literature review of
Buddhist psychology (Wallace 2006,2010,Zopa2013).
An example is BIamwhatIfeel^.Thisdomainisnot
currently explored in western mindfulness scales and is
based on pre-dispositional tendencies and emotional reg-
ulation. Finally, the social domain is based on Buddhist
psychology and social psychological aspects of the self
and social conditioning (Swanson and Rinpoche 2010).
Examples of this domain are BSocial expectations influ-
ence the way I perceive others^,andBI feel like the media
influences the way I feel about others^.This further goes
beyond western views of mindfulness scales.
Collectively, domains reflected identification with self-
concept (innate), mindful awareness and attention (interac-
tive), memory (reflective) and social (social internal and ex-
ternal). The term Bequanimity^was not stated to avoid prim-
ing effects. Instead judgements and feelings of ‘like’,‘dislike’
and ‘neutrality’were used. The purpose of this was to obtain
information of how individuals naturally assume judgements
arise so that scale items would be relevant and understood by
the ‘typical’person. This was crucial as equanimity is a con-
cept largely undiscussed in western psychology, and is largely
an unfamiliar topic for the general population. Items were
worded so that they represented the way in which feelings
may or may not influence our behaviour and or emotions.
Responses were on a Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 = B
Strongly disagree^,7=StronglyAgree^.
Overview of Studies
In study 1, Principal Components Analysis (PCA) were
utilised on the 60 items, and an initial five factor solution
comprising 25 items were isolated and explored further in
study 2. These 25 items were subjected to Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA), and a satisfactory model comprising
15 items, henceforth known as the Equanimity Barriers Scale
(EBS) was attained. Study 3 tested convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of the EBS. The entire research protocol was
approved by the University Ethics Review Committee of the
authors’institution and complied with the ethical guidelines of
the British Psychological Society. The methods and results of
each study are now outlined.
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
Study 1: Principal Components Analysis
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants in study 1 (n= 400) were recruited via opportuni-
ty sampling and comprised students and staff from the
Universities health and psychology courses. A further 53 par-
ticipants were recruited via online social media platforms.
Combined therefore, the sample comprised 453 participants;
91 males (20.2%) and 357 females (79.1%) and 3 participants
did not report their gender (0.7%). Participants ranged in age
from 18 to 71 years old (M=30.55;SD = 11.26). Upon pro-
viding consent, participants completed demographic ques-
tions about age, gender, profession and highest qualification,
as well as the 60 item questionnaire.
Results
Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS version 23.
Responses were subjected to Principal Axis Factoring with
oblique rotation and Kaiser normalisation. To identify whether
a factor analysis was an appropriate method to analyse the
items, the KMO statistic and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were
inspected. The KMO value for the data was .91, indicating
that the items correlated. The Bartlett test of sphericity was
also significant (χ
2
= 10,945,533 df =1770,p< .001). The ini-
tial analysis yielded 15 factors with eigenvalues greater than
1.0. Inspection of the pattern matrix revealed that only 5 fac-
tors had 4 or more items with loadings over 0.4. Therefore, a
5-factor solution was examined. An example is ‘Irecognize
my habits are linked to my feelings’.
The derived factors supported the five domains assumed in
the formulation of the EBS. PCA with varimax rotation was
performed in order to reduce the data and determine the stron-
gest features. Factor loadings were inspected. Following the
recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell (2012), any factor
loadings of .45 or higher were retained, with 20% overlapping
variance. These are shown in Table 1. These 25 items were
selected for the revised domains to be considered in study 2.
In line with the theorised domains it was identified that
factor 1 measured the interactive sphere of judgment [5 items],
control factor 2 measured the levels of reflective judgment [5
items], factor 3 reflected the participants external social judg-
ment [5 items], factor 4 was the internal domain of judgment
[5 items] and factor 5 demonstrated the participant’sinnate
level of judgment [5 items]. A good level of reliability was
shown for each of the factors; interactive (α= .73), reflective
(α= .80), participant’s external social judgment (α= .79), in-
ternal judgment (α= .80) and innate judgments (α=.75).
Discussion
The PCA identified five factors from the original 60-item
pool. The study confirms the multiplicity of barriers to equa-
nimity. The factors have been conceptualized as the innate,
internal social, external social, interactive and reflective do-
mains. Study 2 aimed to validate the 25 item five factor struc-
ture identified in the previous PCA using the cross-validation
sample described earlier.
Study 2: CFA and Model Fit Analysis
Method
Participants and Procedure
Data for Study 2 were collected from 108 participants; 35
males (32.4%), 70 females (64.8%), and three with unreported
gender (2.8%). Age ranged from 18 to 54 years (M=28.79;
SD = 10.58). Participants were all undergraduate students
from the University, recruited via opportunity sampling from
health courses. Participants provided consent, demographic
questions about age, gender, profession and highest qualifica-
tions as well as the 25 items isolated in study 1.
Results
Analyses were conducted on 25 items (see Table 1) using
IBSM SPSS Amos 23, utilizing Confirmatory Factor
Analysis (CFA). Model fit was measured through inspection
of the comparative fit index (CFI), Chi-Squared statistic (χ
2
),
the Tucker Lewis index (TLI) and Root Mean Square of Error
(RMSEA). Ideally, the χ
2
should be non-significant; however,
this value is very sensitive to large sample sizes and is often
significant, even for well-fitting models (Bentler and Bonnet
1980). Hu and Bentler (1999) proposed several additional
criteria to establish a good fitting model, which were adopted
in this study. More specifically, adequate fit required a CFI
value higher than .95, a TLI value greater than .95 and a
RMSEA value of less than .08 (Hu and Bentler 1999).
Inspection of inter-item bivariate correlations revealed that
four items did not correlate with the questionnaire above 0.75
(r=−.126 to 0.75) and were subsequently excluded from fur-
ther analyses (Tabachnick and Fidell 2012). No items were
highly correlated with one another (>.80) suggesting that the
items were parsimonious, with a low risk of multi-collinearity.
This left a total of 21 items for further inspection. These items
showed five factors with each item loading on one factor only.
Overall, a total of three models (see Table 2) for best model fit.
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
The suitability of each model was assessed by inspection of
goodness of fit indices. The CFI, χ
2
, TLI and RMSEA were
used to assess model fit (see Table 3). The first model
consisted of five factors onto which all 21 items were loaded.
This revealed an inadequate fit (χ
2
=, 440.698) = 1.633,
p<.001,p< .001, CFI = .829, TLI = .807, RMSEA = .079).
Following this, the second model contained four factors to
reflect the strength of the factors of the PCA. It was decided
that the external and internal factors could be amalgamated to
provide one overarching social factor as the items strongly
correlated as the two factors both explore societal influences
upon an individual. Upon inspection of the second model, it
Table 1 Items and factor loadings
in study 1 Factor
loading
Factor 1 (Interactive) (5 items)
My feelings can undermine how I wish to behave in certain circumstances .45
When I know I should be feeling positive but actually feel negative, I feel a sense of
frustration
.69
I sometimes wish I could control my feelings rather than be controlled by them .81
When someone says something I disagree with, I notice a sense of tension inside me .44
If I could change the way I felt about things I would .57
Eigenvalue 14.13
% variance explained 23.55
Factor 2 (External social) (5 items)
I feel that my feelings towards others are influenced by my culture? .65
I feel that the media influences my feelings towards others? .66
My gender influences my feelings towards others? .73
My age influences how I feel towards others? .65
Organisations or institutions influence the way I perceive others? .72
Eigenvalue 3.41
% variance explained 5.68
Factor 3 (Reflective) (5 items)
My memories are strongly linked with my feelings .83
My memories influence how I interact with others .83
My emotions are governed by how I feel .80
When I communicate with others do I notice how I feel? .93
How I behave with others is influenced by my sense of physical wellbeing .88
Eigenvalue 2.70
% variance explained 4.51
Factor 4 (Internal social) (5 items)
My feelings are influenced by external social factors .98
My sense of self feels threatened by ‘socially desirable’norms and expectations? 1.05
The social world changes the feelings that I came into the world with .33
Societal expectations influence the way I perceive my feelings? 1.01
My feelings are influenced by internal social factors .94
Eigenvalue 2.46
% variance explained 4.10
Factor 5 (Innate) (6 items)
If my feelings change then I will change .35
I am what I feel .36
My emotions are governed by how I feel .80
All my actions are governed by emotions .64
My emotions are governed by how I feel .80
Eigenvalue 1.90
% variance explained 3.17
**Items in bold included in final model
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
Table 2 CFA. Model fit of each
ofthemodelstestedinthe
confirmatory factor analysis
No.
of
items
χ
2
df CFI TLI RMSEA 90% CI
Lower Upper
Model 1: Principal
Components Factor
Analysis Model
5 subscales; Interactive
judgements, Innate
Judgements, External
Social judgements,
Internal Social
judgements, Reflective
Judgements
21 notadmissable*** .83 .81 .078 .065 .091
Model 2: Thematic
4 subscales; Interactive
judgements, Innate
Judgements, Combined
external and internal
Social judgements,
Reflective Judgements
16 130.10
***
98 .95 .93 .055 .026 .079
Model 3: Thematic
4 subscales; Interactive
judgements, Innate
Judgements, Combined
external and internal
Social judgements,
Reflective Judgements
15 103.592
***
84 .97 .98 .047 .000 .074
CFI, comparative fit index; RMSEA, root mean square of error; TLI, Tucker Lewis index
*** = p< .001
Table 3 Factor loadings for each
subscale of the final model of the
EBS
Factor
loading
Innate (2 items)
I am what I feel .66
If my feelings change then I will change .75
Social (5 items)
I feel like my feeling towards others are influenced by my culture .79
I feel like the media influences the way I feel about others .70
Organizations or institutions influence the way I perceive others .78
My sense of self feels threatened by ‘socially desirable’norms and expectations .62
Social expectations influence the way I perceive my feelings .85
Interactive (6 items)
How I behave with others is influenced by my sense of physical wellbeing .51
When I know I should be feeling positive but actually feel negative I notice a sense of
frustration
.45
I sometimes wish I could control my feelings rather than be controlled by them .47
When someone says something I disagree with I notice a sense of tension within me .49
My behavior with others is dependent on how I feel .61
All my actions are governed by emotions .65
Reflective (2 items)
My memories are strongly linked with my feelings .72
My memories influence how I interact with others .76
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
was thought that responses regarding innate judgements and
reflective judgement may affect the quality of the model. A
number of weakly loaded items were excluded from the anal-
ysis. The second model consisted of four factors onto which
16 items were loaded. This was improved from model one, but
the fit was inadequate (χ
2
130.104 =, 1.328 p< 001,
CFI = .945., TLI = .933, RMSEA = .055).
This revealed that 6 items were loading on to multiple
factors and those items were removed from the model to en-
sure that each of item clearly loaded on to one distinct factor
(Matsunaga 2010). Similarly, items that loaded onto the same
factor, and were theoretically justifiable, were co-varied
(Brown and Moore 2014; Jöreskog and Long 1993). If these
were not theoretically justifiable, they were not allowed to co-
vary. A further item was excluded from the model. Following
this, the third model revealed an acceptable fit (χ
2
103.592 =
84, p< .001, CFI = .964, TLI = .955, RMSEA = .047). Model
three was therefore selected as the final model for the experi-
ences of equanimity barriers, as it demonstrated acceptable χ
2
,
CFI, TLI and RMSEA statistics. The factor loadings of each
item in the final model are shown in Table 3.
The reliability and validity statistics for the final model
were additionally examined (See Table 4). In order to assess
the convergent and discriminant validity, Average Variance
Explained (AVE) was tested, which highlights the degree to
which the distinct items on the questionnaire represent the
overall subscale. Hair et al. (2011) denotes how these values
should ideally exceed .50. Moreover, construct reliability was
examined with values preferably surpassing .70 (Hair et al.
2011) therefore demonstrating both the internal consistency
and reliability of the subscale. A high level of reliability and
validity for the EBS is demonstrated in Table 4,astheAVE
and construct reliability statistics for the definitive 15-item
model surpassed their desired values. CFA was tested again
and it confirmed the aforementioned factors.
Discussion
The CFA has refined the 5-factors identified in study 1 to
reveal a more sophisticated 4-factor model. The internal and
external social domains have been integrated to establish a
more robust domain. This refined model encompasses four
distinct features of barriers to equanimity, namely: innate, so-
cial, interactive and reflective. Study 3 aimed to test conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the EBS.
Study 3: Convergent and Discriminant
Validity of the EBS
Results of study 2 suggest that the EBS measures a variety of
challenges an individual may face in cultivating equanimity. It
was also necessary to determine how this particular construct
is correlated with mindfulness, non-judgemental acceptance
and emotional regulation by testing convergent and discrimi-
nant validity. It was predicted that the EBS would be correlat-
ed the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale [MAAS]
(Brown and Ryan 2003), Big Five Inventory-10 [BFI-10]
(Rammstedt and John 2007), Self Compassion Scale Short
Form [SCS-SF] (Raes et al. 2011), Difficulty in Emotional
Regulation Scale Short Form [DERS-SF] (Kaufman et al.
2015) and the Emotional Regulation Questionnaire [ERQ]
(Gross and John 2003).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were recruited via opportunity sampling, com-
prising 302 undergraduate students from a university in
North west England, studying health and psychology course
(64 males [21.2%], 235 females [77.8%], 3 gender fluid
[1%]).Age ranged from 18 to 58 years old (M=30.24;SD =
9.52). Questionnaires were distributed during the beginning of
lectures. Upon providing consent, participants completed de-
mographic questions about age, gender, ethnicity, profession
and highest qualification, as well as the 74-item questionnaire
encompassing all scales described next.
Measures
In addition to the 15 items finalized in study 2 the following
measures were administered. The 14 item MAAS (Brown and
Ryan 2003). Globally, this scale is the one of the most com-
monly used measure of mindfulness attention and awareness
and has demonstrated significant reliability and validity in a
multitude of studies. The scale has also been validated in a
wide variety of populations and countries (Abdi et al. 2015;
Jose Ruiz et al. 2016; Phang et al. 2016). Measuring the EBS
with the MAAS was important as equanimity is proposed to
be related to mindfulness. This scale was chosen as it focuses
solely on awareness and attention as opposed to non-judge-
ment. It was therefore expected that there would be a signifi-
cant negative correlation between the EBS interactive and
reflective subscales and the MAAS.
Table 4 CFA reliability and validity statistics for the four subscales of
EBS
Subscale Construct reliability AVE
1. Innate .66 .93
2. Social .86 1.04
3. Interactive .70 .82
4. Reflective .71 .85
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
The BFI-10 (Rammstedt and John 2007). The Short form
has five subscales of extraversion, agreeableness, conscien-
tiousness, neuroticism and openness. The BFI is a globally
recognised scale with proven reliability and validity which
has been validated in different countries (Alansari 2016;
Fossati et al. 2011). The results of the BFI-10 indicate the
subscales retain significant levels of reliability and validity
(Rammstedt and John 2007). The BFI-10 was chosen in order
to examine personality traits of agreeableness, conscientious-
ness and neuroticism in relation to equanimity. It was expected
that these personality traits would indicate negative relation-
ships between the social, interactive and reflective subscales
of the EBS.
The SCS-SF (Raes et al. 2011) was chosen to relate the
EBS to the different subscales of compassion. The short form
has six subscales namely; self kindness, self judgement, com-
mon humanity, isolation, mindfulness and over identified. The
SCS has sufficient evidence of reliability and validity and
strong internal reliability across a wide variety of populations
(Neff 2016). It has also been validated in different languages
(Azizi et al. 2013;Eirinietal.2017). The SCS–SF confirmed
adequate internal consistency and an almost perfect correla-
tion with the long form SCS (Raes et al. 2011) and was chosen
as the final measure. It was expected that the self kindness
subscale would correlate positively with the social subscale
of the EBS. It was also expected that the self-judgement, iso-
lation and over identified subscales were expected to correlate
positively with all the subscales of the EBS. Further, the com-
mon humanity subscale was expected to correlate positively
with the social and interactive subscale of the EBS. Finally, it
was assumed that the mindfulness subscale would correlate
negatively with the interactive and reflective subscales of the
EBS.
The DERS-SF (Kaufman et al. 2015). The Difficulties in
Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) is a well validated and
widely used self-report measure for assessing emotion regula-
tion problems (Gratz and Roemer 2004) The scale has been
validated in different countries (Yamada and Suige 2012)and
subsequently a more accessible short form has been produced.
The short form has six subscales including strategies, non-
acceptance, impulse, goals, awareness and clarity. The
Difficulty in Emotional Regulation Short Form [DERS-SF]
was expected to demonstrate significant convergent validity
due to the similarity of the overall construct. This scale how-
ever, is not related to mindfulness and does not distinguish
mindfulness awareness, therefore does not identify equanim-
ity as a construct. Whereas the DER-SF hones in on an indi-
vidual’s emotional regulation, the EBS identifies wider chal-
lenges incorporating mindfulness awareness. It was expected
that the subscales of strategies, impulse, goals and clarity
would positively correlate with each of the EBS subscales. It
was also expected that non-acceptance would positively cor-
relate with the social, interactive and reflective subscales of
the EBS. Finally, it was anticipated that the awareness sub-
scale would positively correlate with the innate and social
subscales.
The ERQ (Gross and John 2003). Again, this is a well-used
and widely accepted psychometric measure that has been val-
idated in different countries (Enebrink et al. 2013). The ERQ
has been designed to highlight the habitual use of reappraisal
and suppression strategies, thus supporting the hypothesis that
a person who has little equanimity will have difficulty in reg-
ulating emotion. The scale has two subscales of experience
and expression. The ERQ was chosen as it was expected that
an individual who finds it difficult to regulate emotion would
face barriers to equanimity. It was expected that the ERQ
would correlate positively with the EBS Innate subscale.
Results and Discussion
The purpose of study 3 was to assess how the EBS would be
related to theoretically overlapping constructs of mindfulness,
non-judgemental acceptance and emotional regulation by test-
ing convergent and discriminant validity. Overall, the findings
in this study were in accordance with predictions. The reliabil-
ity for each of the measures and subscales is reported in
Tab le 5. The correlations matrix and convergent and discrim-
inant validity are reported in Table 6.
Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale [MAAS]
There was a very strong negative relationship, as expected,
between the MAAS and both the EBS interactive and reflec-
tive subscales. This negative correlation suggests a person
with low mindfulness is likely to be unaware of their feelings,
sense of physical well-being during the present moment, or
likely to be caught up with past experiences or nostalgia.
Big Five Inventory-10 [BFI-10]
As predicted, The BFI-10 Agreeableness and
Conscientiousness subscales, correlates strong negative rela-
tionships with the Social, Interactive and Reflective subscales
of the EBS. Furthermore, the BFI neuroticism scale reports a
strong negative relationship with the Interactive subscale.
The negative correlations with the above subscales can be
explained via awareness of social construction and conformi-
ty. Further, if a person is uncomfortable or distracted in the
present moment they may blame this on others or use past
experiences to infiltrate how they perceive others. In terms
of neuroticism, this would suggest a lack of positive coping
strategies when dealing with stress or lack of awareness to
feelings in the present moment. In relation to conscientious-
ness, the relationships suggests a person is either driven to
conformity or likely to drift into apathy. At the interactive
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
subscale, a person with lower mindful awareness will likely
have a negative sense of conscientiousness. In terms of the
reflective subscale, an individual weighed down with nostal-
gia or memories are likely to face significant barriers to
productivity.
The Difficulties in Emotional Regulation Scale Short
Form [DERS-SF]
The EBS subscales were all expected to be closely related to
DERS-SF subscales. The DERS-SF subscales, Strategies,
Goals and Impulse reported strong positive relationships with
each of the EBS subscales. Non-Acceptance and Clarity re-
ported strong positive relationships with the Social, Interactive
and Reflective subscales. Additionally, the Awareness sub-
scale reported positive relationships with the innate and social
subscales. These relationships were expected.
These positive correlations indicate individuals who face
barriers to equanimity are less able to develop positive coping
strategies, more likely to drift into non-acceptance and less
able to develop resilience when dealing with difficult situa-
tions. The results further suggest that the further from equa-
nimity a person may be, the more impulsive they become and
lack in self-awareness and clarity.
Emotional Regulation Questionnaire [ERQ]
As expected, The ERQ subscale Expression, reported a positive
relationship with the Innate subscale of the EBS. The positive
correlation indicates individuals who are aware of, and strongly
identify with their emotions are able to express themselves.
Self-Compassion Scale Short Form [SCS-SF]
As anticipated, The SCS-SF self-kindness subscale correlates
positively with the social subscale of the EBS. Additionally,
the self-judgement, isolation and over-identified subscales al-
so reported strong positive relationships with the EBS sub-
scales. Further, Common Humanity reported strong positive
relationships to the social and interactive subscales. Finally,
the Mindfulness subscale reported strong negative relation-
ships with both the interactive and reflective subscales.
The positive correlations with the SCS-SF confirm how
this affects an individual’srelationshipwithself-compassion.
Similarly, the negative correlation with mindfulness indicates
low mindfulness results in low self-compassion. The higher
the barriers a person faces, the less likely they are to be kind to
themselves and more likely they are to judge themselves as
inferior. Individuals who report high levels of self-judgement
strongly believe in the negative emotions they experience.
Table 5 Scale Reliability Table 5
Alpha
Mindfulness attention awareness scale [MAAS] (Brown and Ryan 2003).850
Difficulties in emotional regulation scale [DERS] (Kaufman et al. 2015)
Strategies: 10,15,18 .803
Non-acceptance: 7,12,16 .708
Impulse: 9,14,17 .875
Goals: 8,11,13 .855
Awareness: 1,4,6 .700
Clarity: 2,3,5 .779
Emotional regulation scale [ERS] (Gross and John 2003)
Emotional experience 1, 3, 5, 7, 8,10 .875
Emotional expression 2, 4, 6, 9 .735
Equanimity barriers Scale [EBS]
Innate domain 1,2 .607
Social domain 3,4,5,6,7 .874
Interactive domain 8,9,10,11,12,13 .716
Reflective domain 14,15 .715
Self compassion scale [SCS short form] ** (Raes et al. 2011)
Self-kindness items: 2, 6 .456
Self-judgment items: 11, 12 .625
Common humanity items: 5, 10 .382
Isolation items: 4, 8 .592
Mindfulness items: 3, 7 .612
Over-identified items: 1, 9 .609
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
Those who lack self-compassion and equanimity are more
likely to face feelings of isolation and inadequacy. The less
mindful of emotions and thoughts, the more likely they are to
blame themselves or others rather than view experiences as
transitory moments in time. Further, individuals with lower
levels of self-compassion have less equanimity given their
Table 6 Scale correlations the
EBS Equanimity
barriers scale
innate (EBSI)
Equanimity
barriers scale
social (EBSS)
Equanimity barriers
scale interactive
(EBSINT)
Equanimity barriers
scale reflective
(EBSR)
Mindfulness
attention
awareness scale
[MAAS]
.034
.553
−.064
.267
−174**
.002
−.166**
.004
Big five
inventory-10 [BFI]
Extraversion .012
.830
−.048
.409
−.071
.221
−.104
.070
Agreeabl eness −.076
.190
−.166**
.004
−.249**
<.001
−.227**
<.001
Conscientiousness −.061
.291
−.201**
<.001
−.300**
<.001
−.172**
.003
Neuroticism .003
.955
.071
.218
.210**
<.001
.143*
0.13
Openness .006
.912
−.060
.297
.028
.628
.093
.108
Difficulties in
emotional regulation
scale (DERS)
Strategies .184**
<.001
.252**
<.001
.398**
<.001
.283**
<.001
Non-acce ptance .121
.036
.238**
<.001
.389**
<.001
.279**
<.001
Impulse .213**
<.001
.319**
<.001
.446**
<.001
.331**
<.001
Goals .250**
<.001
.172**
<.001
.370**
<.001
.246**
<.001
Awa renes s .1 44 *
.012
.117*
.042
.050
.388.
.015
.800
Clarity .032
.580
.219**
<.001
.292**
<.001
.162**
.005
Emotional regulation
scale [ERS]
Experience .129*
.025
.055
.340
−.038
.507
.060
.295
Expression .112
.051
.013
.825
.051
.374
.068
.238
Self compassion scale
short form
[SCS –short form]
Self-kindness −.064
.271
.147*
.011
−.065
.261
−.089
.122
Self-judgement .241**
<.001
.201**
<.001
.428**
<.001
.319**
<.001
Common
humanity
.094
.102
.188**
.001
.122*
.034
.101
.080
Isolation .224**
<.001
.152**
.008
.354**
<.001
.248**
<.001
Mindfulness −.176
.190
−.080
.163
−.221**
<.001
−.127*
.028
Over-identified .272**
<.001
.249**
<.001
.373**
<.001
.260**
<.001
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
unforgiving self-judgement, over identification with negative
thoughts and feelings and sense of isolation. Equally, those
high in self-compassion have more equanimity given their
kinder treatment of themselves and mindful-awareness that
inadequacies are part of the wider human condition. This link-
age with common humanity is possibly due to a lessening of
rigid boundaries between ‘self’and ‘others’and a deeper rec-
ognition that we are one human family.
General Discussion
The aim of this research was to develop and provide initial
validation of a scale that measures barriers to equanimity.
Little research attention thus far has focused upon barriers
toward the non-judgmental, acceptance aspects of mindful-
ness and the concept of equanimity is rarely considered
(Desbordes et al. 2015). The development of a scale to mea-
sure these constructs is therefore timely.
Considered together, results from studies 1 and 2 provide
evidence for the construct validity of the EBS. The CFA con-
firmed the expected factors which subsequently encompass
Innate, Social, Interactive and Reflective subscales. This high-
lights the layers of complexity upon individuals’ability to
abide in equanimity (Wallace 2010; Zopa 2013). To judge
based upon our own experience of likes, dislikes and feelings
of neutrality is to reaffirm pre-existing and learned traits and
behaviours. It is particularly significant to address maladap-
tive schemas that may have detrimental effects on wellbeing.
BTo set up what you like against whatyou dislike isthe disease
of the mind^(Seng ts’an, Cited in Putkonen, p7 Putkonen
1974, p 7). The EBS can play a key role in understanding
therapeutically why we may think and behave the way we
do and subsequently support healthier counterintuitive
change. Thus, the EBS aids the identification of the myriad
reasons why individuals may experience little or no equanim-
ity in certain contextual scenarios.
Recent research has turned towards the question of
how and why mindfulness results in pro-social change
(Chiesa et al. 2014;Guetal.2015;Holzeletal.2011).
Future use of the EBS within literature on mindfulness
experience and practice would enable the exploration into
why some individuals face barriers to equanimity and
would foster research into the causal factors that facilitate
wellbeing. Should an individual strive for equanimity then
it is vital that one is able to dissect the ways in which they
may judge phenomena. The EBS to an extent may also
help bring out unconscious bias once an individual has
addressed the ways in which they formulate judgements
(Baer 2011). Further, this research could build on Condon
and Barett (2013) in understanding why individuals expe-
rience differing levels of compassion and also may help in
understanding the reason why some people may
experience a fear of compassion (Gilbert et al. 2011).
From a therapeutic point of view, through the discovery
of specific barriers to equanimity, an individual is able to
reflect and explore these isolated matters in greater depth.
Moreover, a person centred therapist is better able to fa-
cilitate this process via the identification of such barriers.
In this way, work on compassion and other prosocial be-
haviours has more contextual relevance.
Such is the complexity of individual layers of judgement;
the ways in which we judge needs to be carefully and meth-
odologically assessed should one hope to develop positive
qualities such as compassion and so forth. Therefore, the
EBS is helpful in distinguishing these barriers in practice.
Self-awareness is measured within mindfulness yet little at-
tention has been given solely to what judgements mean for an
individual and how they might influence a persons’ability to
cultivate equanimity. In order for an individual to reach equa-
nimity, first and foremost an individual must deconstruct their
own barriers in practice.
Assessing barriers to practice is also significant when tak-
ing into consideration the potential negative consequences of
mindfulness practice. For example, Finucane and Mercer
(2006) reported that someparticipants becamemore distressed
during meditation due to extreme negative past experience.
Preventative work on reasons why an individual thinks and
behaves the way they do may enable mindfulness teachers to
facilitate sensitive discussions prior and post meditation.
Again, this suggests the EBS may play a therapeutic role in
person centred development by facilitating discussion around
barriers to practice.
The confirmed model of the EBS has resulted in a mea-
sure of barriers to equanimity that is; 1) developed from
current mindfulness scales and 2) does not focus on one
specific domain of judgement. Using this scale complimen-
tary to current mindfulness scales, especially those that fo-
cus on attention and awareness will have the ability to pro-
vide a deeper level of context about individuals’experience.
More significantly, individualswillbeabletounderstand
the current ways in which they formulate feeling tones and
could act as a therapeutic tool in psychological develop-
ment. In order to promote wellbeing and self-development,
overcoming barriers to equanimity presents one part of a
healthy therapeutic process. This is significant to explore
further as current scales predominantly focus on gathering
data on attention or combine attention with non-judgement
in one scale, and no scales measure the relative barriers to
practice. As the EBS measures individuals’judgements
using differing subscales, the behaviour can be viewed in
comparison, with subscales for attention, awareness or lov-
ing kindness. This would allow the contribution of each of
these factors to be explored within both mindfulness and
equanimity concepts. This allows a richer exploration of
this construct and opens new doors in research.
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
Future Research
Although the EBS consisted of four factors, the relationship
between innate, social, interactive and reflective demonstrate
multiple correlating relationships. The EBS does not identify
the strength of an individual’s cultivation of equanimity and so
separate scales will need to be developed for this. Future re-
search should more closely identify questions relating to an
individual’s likes, dislikes and feelings of neutrality. Further, a
significant outcome of the study concerns the lack of informa-
tion gathered by innate and reflective judgment exemplified
by the small number of items in the final model. This subse-
quently may deliver questionable reliability. Future research
should endeavour to revise these subscales.
Limitations
The present studies were conducted using relatively large
sample sizes,however further opportunity samples in different
demographics would be beneficial. Future research is sug-
gested to examine whether the results represent distinct factors
in more diverse samples. Similarly, although the results sug-
gest an overarching theme of barriers to equanimity, the scale
needs external validation. Moreover, the empirical work did
not capture test-retest reliability.
Conclusion
In conclusion, being able to measurably assess barriers to mind-
fulness practice via the multifaceted construct of equanimity
has the potential for future research to investigate how individ-
uals might best achieve a calm state of non-judgment and com-
passion. In addition, for those already engaged in mindfulness
meditative practice, understanding specific barriers to equanim-
ity may allow mindfulness teachers to facilitate sensitive dis-
cussions prior and post meditation. This suggests the EBS may
play a diagnostic and therefore a therapeutic role in person
centred therapy and personal development (Desbordes et al.
2015;Hadashetal.2016; García-Campayo et al. 2016).
Future research needs to consider the complexity of equanimity
judgments further by investigating it in longitudinal studies as
well as more diverse demographics. This supports further re-
search built on differentiating ‘non-judgemental acceptance’
within current mindfulness understanding and proposes equa-
nimity as a separate entity for future studies.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-
tional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki
declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare there were no conflict of interest
in these studies.
References
Abdi, S., Ghabeli, F., Abbasiasl, Z., & Shakernagad, S. (2015). Mindful
attention awareness scale (MAAS): Reliability and validity of
Persian version. Journal of Applied Environmental Biology, 4(5S),
43–47.
Afshar, H., Roohafza, H. R., Keshteli, A. H., Mazaheri, M., Feizi, A., &
Adibi, P. (2015). The association of personality traits and coping
styles according to stress level. Journal of Research in Medical
Sciences, 20(4), 353–358.
Alansari, B. (2016). The big five inventory (BFI): Reliability and validity
of its Arabic translation in non-clinical sample. European
Psychiatry, 2010, 2019.
Aldina, S. (2015). It’s not mindfulness without kindness, [online]
Available at http://ww.mindful.org, Accessed 05/06/17.
Azizi, A., Mohammadkhani, P., Foroughi, A. A., Lotfi, S., &
Bahramkhani, M. (2013) The validity and reliability of the iranian
version of the self-compassion scale. Journal of Practice in Clinical
Psychology, 1(3), 149–155.
Baer, R. (2011). Measuring mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 12,241–261.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mind-
fulness by self-report: The Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness
Skills. Assessment, 11,191–206.
Baer, R., Smith, G., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006).
Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindful-
ness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
Bartley, C. E., & Roesch, S. C. (2011). Coping with daily stress: The role
of conscientiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(1),
79–83.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of
fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin,
88,588–606.
Bergomi, C., Tsacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). The assessment of mind-
fulness with self-report measures: Existing scales and open issues.
Mindfulness, 4,191–202.
Brahm, A. (2016). Kindfulness. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
Brown, T. A., & Moore, M. T. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis. In R.
H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of Structural Equation Modelling.
London: Guildford Publications.
Brown, K., & Ryan, M. (2003). The benefits of being present:
Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84,822–848.
Buss, A. H., & Plomin, R. (1984). Temperament: Early Developing
Personality Traits. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V.
(2008). The assessment of present moment awareness and accep-
tance: The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204–
223.
Carlson, E. (2013). Overcoming the barriers to self knowledge:
Mindfulness as a path to seeing yourself as you really are.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8,173–186.
Carmody, J., & Baer, R. A. (2009). How long does a mindfulness-based
stress reduction program need to be? A review of class contact hours
and effect sizes for psychological distress. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 65,627–638.
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. (2009). Mindful emotion regula-
tion: An integrative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(6),
560–572.
Charters, W. (2013). The Essence and Mechanisms of Mindfulness In
Therapeutic Context, Canadian Journal of Counselling and
Psychotherapy, 47, Retrieved from: https://cjcrcc.ucalgary.ca/cjc/
index.php/rcc/article/view/2670.
Chiesa, A., Anselmi, R., & Serretti, A. (2014). Psychological mecha-
nisms of mindfulness-based interventions: What do we know?
Holistic Nursing Practice, 28,1–148.
Condon, P., & Barett, L. (2013). Conceptualizing and experiencing com-
passion. Emotion, 13(5), 817–821.
Department of Health (2012) NHS Constitution for England [online]
available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-
nhs-constitution-for-england, [Accessed 07/06/1986].
Desbordes, G., Gard, T., Hoge, E., Hölzel, B., Kerr, C., Lazar, S., & Vago,
D. (2015). Moving beyond mindfulness: Defining equanimity as an
outcome measure in meditation and contemplative research.
Mindfulness, 6(2), 356–372.
Durkin, M., Gurbutt, R., & Carson, J. (2018). Qualities, teaching, and
measurement of compassion in nursing: A systematic review. Nurse
Education Today, 63,50–58.
Eirini, K., Christos, P., Michael, G., & Anastasios, S. (2017). Validity,
reliability and factorial structure of the self compassion scale in the
Greek population. Journal of Psychology and Psychotherapy, 7,313.
Enebrink, E., Bjornsdottor, A. and Ghaderi, A. (2013). The Emotion
Regulation Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties and Norms for
Swedish Parents of Children Aged 10-13 Years, Research Reports,
9, Retrieved from: https://ejop.psychopen.eu/article/view/535/html,
[Accessed 12/07/2018].
Farb, N. A. S., Anderson, A. K., & Segal, Z. V. (2012). The Mindful
Brain and Emotion Regulation in Mood Disorders. The Canadian
JournalofPsychiatry,57(2), 70–77.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Freedom, J., & Laurenceau, J. P.
(2007). Mindfulness and Emotion Regulation: The Development
and Initial Validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness
Scale - Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and
Assessment, 29,177.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8.
Finucane, A., & Mercer, S. W. (2006). An exploratory mixed methods
study of the acceptability and effectiveness of mindfulness -based
cognitive therapy for patients with active depression and anxiety in
primary care. BMC Psychiatry, 6,14.
Fossati, A., Borroni, S., Marchione, D., & Maffei, C. (2011). The Big
Five Inventory (BFI) Reliability and Validity of its Italian
Translation in Three Independent Nonclinical Samples. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27,50–58.
García-Campayo, J., Navarro-Gil, M., & Demarzo, M. (2016).
Attachment-based compassion therapy. Mindfulness and
Compassion, 1(2), 68–74.
Gergen, K. J. (2001). Psychological science in a postmodern context.
American Psychologist, 56(10), 803–813.
Gilbert, P., McEwan, K., Matos, M., & Rivis, A. (2011). Fears of com-
passion: Development of three self-report measures. Psychology
and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 84,2
39–255.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emo-
tion regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and
initial validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale.
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural Assessment, 26,41–54.
Greenberg, M., & Christa Turksma, C. (2015). Understanding and
Watering the Seeds of Compassion. Research in Human
Development, 12(3-4), 280–287.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,348–362.
Gross, J. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual
foundations. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation.
New York: GuilfordGross.
Gu,J.,Strauss,C.,Bond,R.,&Cavanagh,K.(2015).Howdo
mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and mindfulness-based stress
reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic re-
view and meta-analysis of mediation studies. Clinical Psychology
Review, 37,1–12.
Hadash, Y., Segev, N., Tanay, G., Goldstein, P., & Bernstein, A. (2016).
The decoupling model of equanimity: Theory, measurement, and
test in a mindfulness intervention. Mindfulness, 7(5), 1214–1226.
Hair,J.F.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,&Anderson,R.E.(2011).
Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Beijing: China Machine Press.
Holzel, B. K., Carmody, J., Vangel, M., et al. (2011). Mindfulness prac-
tice leads to increases in regional brain gray matter density.
Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 191,36–43.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covari-
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,1–55.
Jha, A. P., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training
modifies subsystems of attention. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience, 7,109–119.
Johnson, B. T., & Acabchuk, R. L. (2017). What are the keys to a longer,
happier life? Answers from five decades of health psychology re-
search. Social Science & Medicine, 196,218–226.
Jöreskog, K., & Long, J. S. (1993). Introduction. In K. A. Bollenn & J. S.
Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park:
Sage.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophy living. New York: Delta Trade
Paperbacks.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are. New York:
Hyperion.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past,
present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,
10(2), 144–156.
Kaufman, E. A., Xia, M., Fosco, G., Yaptangco, M., Skidmore, C. R., &
Crowell, S. E. (2015). The difficulties in emotion regulation scale
short form (DERS-SF): Validation and replication in adolescent and
adult samples. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioural
Assessment, 38,443.
Kraus, S., & Sears, S. (2009). Measuring the Immeasurables:
Development and initial validation of the self-other four
Immeasurables (SOFI) scale based on Buddhist teachings on loving
kindness, compassion, joy, and Equanimity. Social Indicators
Research, 92,169–181.
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D.,
Carlson, L., Shapiro, S., Carmody, J., Abbey, S., & Devins, G.
(2006). The Toronto mindfulness scale: Development and valida-
tion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62,1445–1467.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s,
don’ts and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological
Research, 3,97–110.
Neff, K. (2003). The development and validation of a scale to measure
self-compassion. Self and Identity, 2,223–250.
Neff, K., Kirkpatrick, K., & Rude, S. (2007). Self-compassion and adap-
tive psychological functioning. Journal of Research in Personality,
41,139–154.
Neff, K. (2016). The Self-Compassion Scale is a valid and theoretically
coherent measure of selfcompassion. Mindfulness, 7(1), 264–274.
Olano, A., Kachan, D., Tannenbaum, L., Mehta, A., Annane, D., &
David, L. (2015). Engagement in mindfulness practices by U.S
adults: Sociodemographic barriers. The Journal of Alternative and
Complementary Medicine., 21,137–149.
Park, T., Reilly-Spong, M., & Gross, C. R. (2013). Mindfulness: A sys-
tematic review of instruments to measure an emergent patient-
reported outcome (PRO). Quality of Life Research, 22,2639–2659.
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
Phang, C.-K., Mukhtar, F., Ibrahim, N., & Mohd. Sidik, S. (2016).
Mindful attention awareness scale (MAAS): Factorial validity and
psychometric properties in a sample of medical students in
Malaysia. The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and
Practice, 11(5), 305–316.
Putkonen,E.(1974).Hsin Hsin Ming: Verses on the faith mind.
Minneapolis: Awaken to Life.
Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction
and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18,250–255.
Rammstedt, B., & John, O. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute
or less: A 10-item short version of the big five inventory in English
and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41,203–212.
Ruiz, F. J., Suárez-Falcón, J. C., & Riano-Hernández, D. (2016).
Psychometric properties of the mindful attention awareness scale
in Colombian undergraduates. Suma Psicológica, 23,18–24.
Sauer, S., Lynch, S., Walach, H., & Kohls, N. (2011). Dialectics of mind-
fulness: Implications for western medicine. Philosophy, Ethics, and
Humanities in Medicine, 6,10.
Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing,
A., & Kohls, N. (2013). Assessment of mindfulness: Review on
state of the art. Mindfulness, 4,3–17.
Schonert-Reichl, K., & Roeser, R. (2016). Handbook of mindfulness in
education: Integrating theory and research into practice - mindful-
ness in behavioral health. Switzerland: Springer.
Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., Cheung, W. Y., Routledge, C., Hepper, E.
G., Arndt, J., Vail, K., Zhou, X., Brackstone, K., & Vingerhoets, A.
J. (2016). Nostalgia fosters self-continuity: Uncovering the mecha-
nism (social connectedness) and consequence (eudaimonic well-be-
ing). Emotion, 16(4), 524–539.
Shapiro, S., De Sousa, S., & Jazaieri, H. (2016). Mindfulness, mental
health, and positive psychology. In I. Ivtzan (Ed.), Mindfulness in
positive psychology: The science of meditation and wellbeing.
London: Routledge.
Soeng, M. (2013). Trust in Mind: The Rebellion of Chinese Zen.
Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
Spence, G. B., & Deci, E. L. (2013). Self-determination with coaching
contexts: Supporting motives and goals that promote optimal func-
tioning and well-being. In S. David, D. Clutterbuck, &
D.Megginson (Eds.), Beyond goals: Effective strategies for
coaching and mentoring (pp. 85–108). Padstow: Gower.
Swanson, E., & Rinpoche, M. (2010). The joy of living: Unlocking the
secret and science of happiness. London: Bantam Books.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2012). Using multivariate statistics
(6th ed.). London: Pearson Education.
Thanissaro, B. (1996). Wings to awakening: An anthology from the Pali
Canon. Barre: Dhamma Dana Publications.
Trompetter, H. R., de Kleine, E., & Bohlmeijer, E. T. (2017). Why does
positive mental health buffer against psychopathology? An explor-
atory study on self-compassion as a resilience mechanism and adap-
tive emotion regulation strategy. Cognitive Therapy and Research,
41(3), 459–468.
Van Gordon, W., Shonin, E., Griffiths, M. D., et al. (2015). There is only
one mindfulness: Why science and Buddhism need to work togeth-
er. Mindfulness, 6,49–56.
Verplanken, B. (2012). When bittersweet turns sour: Adverse effects of
nostalgia on habitual worriers. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 42,285–289.
Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmuller, V., Kleinknecht, N., & Schmidt,
S. (2006). Measuring mindfulness–the Freiburg mindfulness inven-
tory (FMI). Personality and Individual Differences, 40(8), 1543–
1555.
Wallace, A. (2006). The Attention Revolution: Unlocking the Power of
Focussing the Mind. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.
Wallace, A. (2010). The four Immeasurables: Practices to open the heart.
Ithaca: Snow Lion.
Weber, J. (2017). Mindfulness is not enough: Why equanimity holds the
key to compassion. Mindfulness and Compassion, 2,149–158.
Yamada, K., & Suige, M. (2012). Development and validation of
Japanese version of difficulties in emotion regulation scale (J-
DERS). Journal of Japanese Research on Emotions, 20(3), 86–95.
Zeng, X., Oei, S., Ye, Y, & Liu, X (2015). A critical analysis of the
concepts and measurement of awareness and equanimity in
Goenka’s Vipassana meditation. Journal of Religion and Health,
2,399–412.
Zeng, X, Li, M, Zhang, B & Liu, X (2015) Revision of the Philadelphia
mindfulness scale for measuring awareness and equanimity in
Goenka’s Vipassana meditation with Chinese Buddhists. Journal
of Religion and Health,2,623–637.
Zeng, X., Wei, J., Oei, T. P., & Liu, X. (2016). The Self-Compassion
Scale is Not Validated in a Buddhist Sample. Journal of Religion
and Health, 55(6), 1996–2009.
Zopa, T. (2013). Transforming problems into happiness. Somerville:
Wisdom Publications.
Curr Psychol
Author's personal copy
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Current Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
