Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Mindfulness
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Published online: 2 April 2020
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
ORIGINAL PAPER
Facets of Mindfulness in Stages of Behavior Change Toward Organic
Food Consumption
Nadine Richter
1
&Marcel Hunecke
1
#The Author(s) 2020
Abstract
Objectives The preference of organically grown foods can potentially decrease greenhouse gas emissions, which are related to
climate change. Recent empirical studies suggest associations between dispositional mindfulness and self-reported pro-environ-
mental behavior. In order to identify the potential and mechanisms of mindfulness with regard to pro-environmental behaviors, it
is necessary to consider theories of action.
Methods The present study examines the relationship between five facets of self-attributed mindfulness and organic food
consumption considering a stage model of behavior change that includes different types of intentions and stage-specific predic-
tors adapted from the theory of planned behavior and the norm-activation model. A cross-sectional online study was conducted
with a sample of 560 participants. The mean age of the participants was 30 (SD = 10.5) years, and the sample consisted largely of
females (76%). A minority reported regular meditation practice (8%).
Results The multivariate analyses showed a significant relationship between observing and goal intention (β=.317,p<.000)as
well as the indirect effects of observing on goal intention that is mediated by personal norms and attitude. Further, people in the
postaction stage have higher levels of observing than those in the predecision stage (p=.003,d= .43). Overall, the mindfulness
facets contribute low to the explained variance of the stage model variables.
Conclusion Consistent across the analyses, the mindfulness facet of observing was proved to be a particularly relevant predictor
of organic food consumption-related variables. The investigation of the observing facet could be beneficial to understand
associated mechanisms and starting points to promote pro-environmental behavior through mindfulness.
Keywords Sustainability .Mindfulness .Pro-environmental behavior .Organic food consumption .Structural equations
There is broad scientific consensus on the prevalence of
human-caused climate change (Cook et al. 2016).
Particularly, the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) such
as CO
2
in the atmosphere has been on the rise compared to
pre-industrial times. The consequences are global warming,
rapid extinction of species, periods of drought, and extreme
weather phenomena (Pachauri and Mayer 2015). The mitiga-
tion of GHG is necessary to limit these adverse effects on
nature and humans. One mitigation potential is in the food
sector; the production and consumption of food contribute up
to one-third of the worldwide GHG emissions (Vermeulen
et al. 2012). Besides policies for more sustainable production,
individual behavior changes in food consumption are required
(Reisch et al. 2013). Sustainable forms of nutrition include the
reduction of meat consumption as well as the preference of
regional, seasonal, and organically grown foods (Von
Koerber et al. 2017). In addition to the reduction of GHG
emission, organic agriculture has the potential to enhance bio-
diversity (Bengstsson et al. 2005; Scialabba and Müller-
Lindenlauf 2010).
The concept of mindfulness has been discussed recently in
terms of its potential to contribute to a sustainable lifestyle
(Ericson et al. 2014; Hunecke 2013) and sustainable con-
sumption behavior (Bahl et al. 2016; Fischer et al. 2017;
Rosenberg 2004). Mindfulness is often defined as non-
judgmental awareness, which is characterized by paying
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01351-4 ) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
*Nadine Richter
nadine.richter@fh-dortmund.de
1
Present address: Faculty of Applied Social Sciences, University of
Applied Sciences and Arts Dortmund, Emil-Figge-Str. 44,
44227 Dortmund, Germany
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01351-4
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
attention on purpose and being anchored in the present mo-
ment (Kabat-Zinn 1990). A growing number of empirical
studies found dispositional mindfulness to be correlated with
self-reported pro-environmental behaviors (Amel et al. 2009;
Brown and Kasser 2005; Geiger et al. 2018a; Jacob et al.
2009). Based on a review of 12 correlational empirical studies,
Geiger et al. (2018a) suggested five potential pathways from
mindfulness to ecological consumption: (1) disruption of rou-
tines; (2) congruence of attitude and behavior; (3) pro-
sociality and connectedness to nature and others; (4) [non-
material] values and meaning in life; (5) personal health and
[subjective] well-being. From a theoretical perspective,
Hunecke (2018) derived two further pathways that have not
yet been empirically investigated. The first is the sensitization
through mindfulness for one’s body and sensory perception.
Some studies suggest that mindfulness heightens the enjoy-
ment experienced while eating (Hong et al. 2014) and pre-
vents overconsumption (Arch et al. 2016). Mindfulness can
help people enjoy experiences more intensely and, subse-
quently, lower the frequency and amount of consumption.
The second further possible pathway from mindfulness to a
more sustainable lifestlye is through self-esteem. Mindfulness
is associated with higher self-esteem (Pepping et al. 2013),
and a stable self-esteem can prevent people from compensa-
tory forms of materialistic consumerism (Kasser 2006;
Sivanathan and Pettit 2010).
Previous studies and theoretical considerations suggest that
mindfulness is not a direct but distal predictor of pro-
environmental behavior. Some of the mediators between
mindfulness and pro-environmental behavior that have been
already identified are connectedness to nature (Barbaro and
Pickett 2016;Wangetal.2019), health behavior (Geiger et al.
2018b), social dominance orientation (Panno et al. 2018), and
the construction of meaning (Hunecke and Richter 2019).
Although previous studies show small to moderate positive
relationships between mindfulness and self-reported pro-envi-
ronmental behaviors, an integration of the predictors of action
theories is required, which are used to explain environmental
behavior. First, the consideration of these variables is neces-
sary to explore the predictive value of mindfulness compared
to the established variables. Second, to adequate plan and
evaluate mindfulness-based programs (MBPs) to promote
pro-environmental behaviors, a differentiated examination of
mindfulness and action theory-based variables is required.
An integration of the essential predictors of pro-
environmental behaviors was done by Bamberg et al. (2011)
in the stage model of self-regulated behavior change (SSBC)
which was further developed and empirically validated by
Bamberg (2013a,b). It combines the most important variables
of the theory of planned behavior (TPB) (Ajzen 1991), the
norm-activation model (NAM) (Schwartz 1977), and stages
of action (Gollwitzer 1990). Additional to the variables
adapted from the TPB and NAM, the model consists of four
different stages of action, three different intentions, and the
target behavior. According to the TPB, an intention is the most
central and direct predictor of a behavior. It is influenced by
social norms, the attitude toward the behavior, and the per-
ceived behavior control regarding the behavior. In contrast,
the NAM considers the personal norm as the strongest predic-
tor of behavior. The personal norm refers to a moral obligation
to behave in a certain way, and it is especially driven by per-
ceived responsibility and the awareness of the consequences
of one’sbehavior.
TheSSBCproposesfourstagesofbehavioralactionthat
are adapted from the mindset theory of action phases (MAP)
(Gollwitzer 1990): (1) predecision: people in this stage have
no problem awareness of environmentally harmful behavior
and no intention to change their behavior; (2) preaction: in this
stage, people are aware that a change in their behavior is
needed but have no concrete plans on how to implement this
change; (3) action: people in this stage have planned when and
how to change their current behavior and take the first steps
toward their new behavior; (4) postaction: in this stage, people
have changed their behavior into a new habit. Transition from
one stage to the next is marked by three different types of
intentions. The goal intention marks the behavior change as
a general goal, and it is formed by the evaluation of the neg-
ative consequences associated with the current behavior as
well as the perceived responsibility for reducing these nega-
tive consequences. This evaluation is motivated by personal
and social norms, goal feasibility, perceived feasibility, re-
sponsibility, negative consequences, and emotions. The be-
havior intention relates to the intention to pursue the concrete
behavior and is influenced by the perceived behavior control
and attitude toward the specific behavior. The implementation
intention includes concrete plans to pursue the target behavior
on the next possibility and represents the last step before the
implementation of the new habit. For a strong implementation
intention, competencies such as the ability to pursue the be-
havior despite the perceived barriers (maintenance self-
efficacy) as well as cognitions and action planning are rele-
vant. Once people establish the new habit, the ability to recov-
er from a relapse is important for the maintenance of the new
behavior (recovery self-efficacy). The SSBC has been suc-
cessfully applied to explain car use and create interventions
to reduce car usage (Bamberg 2013a) and meat consumption
(Klöckner 2017). Regarding the consumption of organically
grown food, studies show that social and personal norms,
attitude, perceived behavior control, intention, values, and
ecological concerns are important predictors (Aertsens et al.
2009; Scalco et al. 2017).
The main elements of mindfulness can be summarized as
follows. The first element is the self-regulation of attention,
which includes the ability to sustain and switch attentional
focus. Further, while being mindful, all emerging experiences
are perceived with an open and accepting attitude (Bishop
1355
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
2004). A distinction can be made between mindfulness as a
dispositional trait, often measured through self-reports, and
the practice of mindfulness, which includes sitting meditation
or body-orientated meditation forms such as mindful walking.
While some studies have found an increase in dispositional
mindfulness through MBPs (Kiken et al. 2015), a meta-
analysis found that not all MBPs enhance self-reported dispo-
sitional mindfulness, highlighting the difficulties in assessing
the experiences of mindfulness practices with self-reports
(Visted et al. 2015). One widely used instrument to assess
mindfulness by self-report is the Five Facet Mindfulness
Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Baer et al. 2008). The FFMQ in-
cludes five dimensions: (1) observing, which is described as
the awareness of the experience of inner and outer stimuli such
as sensations, cognitions, emotions, sights, sounds, and
smells, (2) nonreactivity, which is defined as the ability to
allow thoughts and feelings to come and go without getting
caught up in them, (3) acting with awareness, which is defined
as conscious attention and awareness toward one’s actions and
is often described as “leaving the automatic pilot,”(4) non-
judging, which implies a non-judgmental attitude toward
thoughts and feelings, and lastly, (5) describing, which in-
cludes the ability to label internal experiences with words
(Baer et al. 2008). The validity of the FFMQ has been tested
among samples with and without meditation experience (de
Bruin et al. 2012).
With the explicit goal to promote pro-environmental be-
haviors, MBPs are, with a few exceptions, seldom applied
and examined (Barrett et al. 2016;Geigeretal.2019). Also,
some successful trainings were developed to foster healthy
eating behavior, indicating connections between mindfulness
and changes in food consumption behavior (Kristeller et al.
2014). Previous studies have suggested that different disposi-
tional mindfulness aspects vary in their relationship with self-
reported pro-environmental behavior (Amel et al. 2009;
Barbaro and Pickett 2016; Geiger et al. 2018b; Hunecke and
Richter 2019).
The mindfulness aspect of observing is one of the most
essential aspects of mindfulness (Lilja et al. 2013).
Observing has been consistently found to be moderately
correlated with pro-environmental behaviors (r=.20)
(Geiger et al. 2018a). Observing is a central mechanism
of perception and awareness, and it provides a basis for
further reflective processes and building up intentions or
behavioral actions. Owing to this basic perceptive function
of observing, relationships of observing with stage-specific
variables, different types of intentions, and organic food
consumption are conceivable. Consequently, higher scores
of observing can be expected in members of the postaction
stage compared to members of all other stages.
Several studies have found the aspect of acting with aware-
ness to be correlated with self-reported pro-environmental be-
havior (Amel et al. 2009;BarbaroandPickett2016;Brown
and Kasser 2005; Panno et al. 2018). The bivariate correla-
tions vary from weak to moderate effect sizes. However, other
studies have not found such a relationship (Barbaro and
Pickett 2016;Geigeretal.2018b). Acting with awareness is
the aspect of dispositional mindfulness that is closest to actual
behavior, as it refers to heighted attention toward one’sac-
tions. With regard to food consumption, acting with awareness
might support carrying out the intended behavior, instead of
habitual acting. Moreover, situational awareness might be
linked to a subjective feeling of control over one’s behavior.
Therefore, a positive relationship between acting with aware-
ness and perceived behavior control and organic food con-
sumption is possible. Consequently, higher means of acting
with arwareness can be expected in members of the postaction
stage in comparison to those in preaction stages.
Some studies have found weak but statistically significant
correlations between nonreactivity and pro-environmental be-
havior (Barbaro and Pickett 2016;Geigeretal.2018b). A high
level of nonreactivity might help to resist temptations and
allow cognitions and emotions to roll past. This mechanism
is discussed in terms of the prevention of impulsive buying
(Park and Dhandra 2017) and impulsive eating behaviors
(Papies et al. 2012). Hence, people with high nonreactivity
may be able to regulate sucessfully the impulses that distract
the implementation processes and maintenance of a certain
behavior. The feeling of control over one’s behavior might
complement the ability of self-regulation. Therefore,
nonreactivity might be connected to perceived behavior con-
trol, the implementation intention, and organic food consump-
tion behavior. In line with this, members of the action and
postaction stages may score higher on nonreactivity than those
in the predecision and preaction stages.
The dimension of describing pertains to the ability to put
experiences into words. Some studies that included this di-
mension found weak significant correlations between describ-
ing and pro-environmental behaviors (Barbaro and Pickett
2016; Geiger et al. 2018b; Hunecke and Richter 2019). The
abilitytodescribeone’s experiences is crucial for constructive
reflection on one’s goals in life. Therefore, describing might
be relevant in the preactional stages and therefore related to
the associated intentions, particularly goal intention and be-
havior intention as well as the stage-specific predictors per-
sonal norms, attitude, and perceived behavior control. People
in the stages of action and postaction may have a higher level
of describing than those in the other stages, as they have al-
ready successfully created a behavior intention and passed the
stages of predecision and preaction.
Lastly, the aspect of non-judging, which comprises main-
taining a non-evaluative stance toward one’s thoughts and
feelings (Baer et al. 2006), has shown no significant correla-
tion with pro-environmental behavior in previous studies. Not
to judge experiences is sometimes considered as a mechanism
that further goes along with a non-striving accepting stance
1356 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
toward emerging thoughts and feelings (Shapiro et al. 2006).
It is not conceivable that a non-judging stance is positively
related to any intention or intentional behaviors, as it is hard to
engage in reflective processes or develop intentions when not
evaluating cognitions and feelings.
To examine the identified potential correlations between
the different mindfulness dimensions and organic food con-
sumption, we suggested a theoretical model based on the
SSBC (see Fig. 1) and addressed the following research ques-
tions: Q1: Which mindfulness dimensions show a relationship
with the intentions (goal-, behavior-, and implementation in-
tention) and self-reported organic food consumption? Q1.1:
Do these relationships remain when stage-specific variables
(social norms, personal norms, attitude, and perceived behav-
ior control) are included? Q2: Are there relationships between
the mindfulness dimensions and the stage-specific variables?
Q2.1: Are there significant indirect effects of the mindfulness
dimensions on the intentions and behavior, mediated by stage-
specific variables? Q3: Are there differences between people
in the stages of behavior change regarding the mindfulness
dimensions of the FFMQ?
Method
Participants
Out of 610 largely completed surveys, 567 participants cor-
rectly passed the two quality-check items. Since structural
equation modeling ideally requires complete data, we exclud-
ed seven cases that had missing values on relevant measures.
Finally, 560 cases remained for the analyses. An a priori pow-
er analysis, using G*Power (Faul et al. 2007), suggested that a
sample size of at least 492 is required to reveal a medium size
effect regarding the mean differences between the stages (f
2
=
0.15, α=0.05,1-β=0.80).
The mean age of the participants was 30 (SD = 10.5). The
educational degree was high, and most of the participants
worked in a full-time (29.5%) or half-time (16.5%) occupa-
tion. About one-third of the participants were undergraduate
students (36.1%). Most (55%) lived in a city with a population
of over 100,000 people. The proportion of people with vegan
(6.4%) and vegetarian (16.1%) diets was high compared to the
German population, but the majority reported an omnivore
diet (72.4%). Few participants reported a diet with fish but
without meat (3.2%). Almost half participants (43.6%) had
no experience with meditation (e.g., vipassana) or meditative
bodywork (e.g., yoga). The other half reported experience but
no regular meditation practice (48.4%), while a minority stat-
ed that they practiced at least once a week (8%) (see
demographic characteristics in Table 1).
Procedure
Data collection was done through an online survey using the
software Qualtrics. The survey invitation was spread in differ-
ent online communities with and without relation to the topics
of food to ensure enough participants in every stage of action.
As compensation, the participants were offered to participate
in a lottery of 25 × 20 Euro Amazon and 50 × 10 Euro drug-
store vouchers.
Measures
Mindfulness Mindfulness was assessed through a shortened
version of the German version of the FFMQ (Michalak et al.
2016). The shortened version contained four items for each
dimension, and their psychometric properties had been
proofed in a previous study (Hunecke and Richter 2019).
Stage Model To adapt the model to the purpose of our study,
we modified the SSBC by Bamberg (2013b) at two points.
Fig. 1 Theoretical model
1357
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
First, we only included the most important predictors for or-
ganic food consumption. Second, we considered attitude as a
predictor of the goal intention, instead of the behavior inten-
tion. Previous applications of the stage model distinguished
between a general goal (e.g., reduce car use) and the different
behavior strategies to achieve this goal (e.g., take the bus or
the bicycle). As the focus of the present study is on one single
behavior strategy and the general goal the preference of or-
ganic food, we considered the attitude as a preliminary pre-
dictor of the goal intention. In the following, the term “stage
variables”denotes all psychological constructs in the stage
model, including the different types of intentions and their
predictors as well as behavior. The term “stage-specific vari-
ables”refers to predictors of the intentions and the behavior,
namely the social and personal norms, attitude, perceived be-
havior control, and self-efficacy variables. “Stage”refers to
the action phases wherein people can be categorized.
Figure 1shows the theoretical model applied in this study.
The items of the variables of the stage model were formulated
based on Bamberg (2013b) and Klöckner (2017) and adjusted
to organic food consumption. The different intentions (goal
intention, behavior intention, and implementation intention)
were assessed with two items each (5-point scale from 1 “does
not apply”to 5 “fully applies”). As predictors of the different
intentions, the following variables were included with each
two items (5-point scale from 1 “very easy”to 5 “very diffi-
cult”): personal and social norms, attitude, maintenance self-
efficacy, recovery self-efficacy, and perceived behavior con-
trol. To ensure consistency, the items for maintenance and
recovery self-efficacy were not presented to the participants
who stated having no behavior intention.
A categorical instrument with four statements was used to
identify stage membership: (1) Currently, I mostly buy conven-
tionally produced food and do not intend to change this in the
future. (2) Currently, I am thinking about buying organically
produced food more frequently instead of conventionally pro-
duced food, but I am not yet sure how I can realize it. (3) I
intend to buy organically produced food more frequently, and I
have already informed myself about how I can realize it. (4) I
already prefer buying organically produced food as often as
Table 1 Demographic
characteristics of the sample (N=
560)
M(SD) Categories n%
Age (years) 30 (10.5)
Not specified 2
Monthly net income
per person (Euro)
1182.20 (719.23)
Not specified 266 47.5
Gender/sex
Female 423 75.5
Male 132 23.6
Other 5 0.9
Education
No degree (or not yet) 3 0.5
Elementary school 1 0.2
Main school 13 2.3
Middle school 63 11.3
Higher education entrance qualification 241 43.0
University degree 239 42.7
Occupation
Pupil 11 2.0
Vocational training 32 5.7
Undergraduate student 202 36.0
Full-time employee 165 29.5
Part-time employee 92 16.4
Unemployed 43 7.7
Other 14 2.5
Not specified 1 0.2
Place of birth
Germany 502 89.6
Other 56 10.0
Not specified 2 0.4
1358 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
possible instead of conventionally produced food, and I intend
to maintain this in the future. (5) For me, none of the statements
applies, as in my household I am not responsible for buying
food. In the original instrument by Bamberg (2013a), the first
stage is assesed by two statements, and their selection lead to
the classification into the predecision stage. As both statements
lead to the same classification, we summarized them and pres-
ent only one statement, which covers the stage of predecision,
where people have no intention to change their behavior.
Participants who reported no responsibility for buying food in
their household (statement five) were excluded from the rest of
the survey.
Organic food consumption was measured through seven
questions covering different types of food (e.g., vegetables
and fruits, dairy products, meat and fish, drinks, sweets, and
staple foods). The participants were asked how often they buy
these products in organic quality (5-point scale from 1 “never,”
to 5 “always”).
Data Analysis
The analysis of the data was done in R version 3.4.3. The
means of all stage variables were compared across the differ-
ent stage groups using ANOVA and post hoc tests with
Bonferroni correction to test the plausibility of the stage mod-
el. Variance homogeneity was tested in advance using a
Levene test. The fit of the basic stage model (model 1, see
Fig. 2) was tested through a structural equation model (SEM)
using the R package lavaan. The multivariate normal distribu-
tion was tested with the package MVN. A confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was done to proof the factor structure of the
mindfulness dimensions. The model fit for the CFA and SEM
was evaluated by looking at the comparative fit index (CFI),
Tucker–Lewis index, root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA), and the standardized root mean square residual
(SRMR). CFI and TLI of ≥.95, an RMSEA, and an SRMR
of ≤.08 indicated an acceptable fit (Hu and Bentler 1999). As
the data were not multivariate normal distributed, the maxi-
mum likelihood estimation was applied with the Satorra–
Bentler correction for the test statistics. The significance of
the indirect effects was tested with bootstrapping (N=5.000)
and the estimation of 95% bias-adjusted percentile
(asymmetric) confidence intervals.
Addressing Q1 and Q2, the relationships between the five
mindfulness dimensions, intentions, organic food consump-
tion, and stage-specific variables were explored with SEM by
the following steps: First, a reduced stage model only with the
three intentions, organic food consumption behavior and with
the mindfulness facets as predictors of those (model 2, see
figure in supplementary materials). Second, an extended stage
model with the mindfulness facets as predictors for intention
and behavior to test whether the relationships between mind-
fulness, itentions, and behavior remain stable when the com-
plete basic stagemodel is included (model 3, see Fig. 3). Third,
an extended stage model with the mindfulness facets as pre-
dictors of the stage-specific variables (model 4, see Fig. 4).
Addressing Q3, the mindfulness mean differences of the mem-
bers of the stages groups were examined using an ANOVA.
Results
Plausibility of the Stage Model
Overall, the means of the stage variables were as expected: the
higher the stage, the higher the means (see Table 2). Only
perceived behavior control differed slightly from this pattern.
As the items on the self-efficacy scales were only presented to
Fig. 2 Model 1: basic stage model. Note. Completely standardized coefficients. *p<.05; **p<.01;***p< .001; N= 560; model fit (Satorra-Bentler
correction): χ
2
(77) = 185.907, p< .000; CFI = .979, TLI = .971, RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .039
1359
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
participants who stated at least a low intention to prefer organ-
ic foods, missing values occurred on those scales, especially in
members of the preaction stage. This is consistent with the
assumption that members of the preaction stage have no or a
very low intention and, consequently, no or very low self-
efficacy toward the behavior change. Therefore, the variables
Fig. 3 Model 3: extended stage model with mindfulness facets as
predictors of intentions and behavior. Note. Completely standardized
coefficients. Dashed arrows = relationship was expected to be non-
significant; continuous arrows = relationship was expected to be
significant; bold lines = significant relationships; *p< .05; **p< .01;
***p<.001;N= 560; model fit (Satorra-Bentler correction): χ
2
(502) =
969.028, p< .000; CFI = .952, TLI = .944, RMSEA = .043,
SRMR = .051
Fig. 4 Model 4: mindfulness and stage-specific variables. Note.
Completely standardized coefficients. Dashed arrows= relationship was
expected to be non-significant; continuous arrows = relationship was ex-
pected to be significant; bold lines = significant relationships; *p<.05;
**p< .01; ***p< .001; p<.100; N= 560; model fit (Satorra-Bentler
correction): χ
2
(517) = 963.833, p< .000; CFI = .954, TLI = .948,
RMSEA = .041, SRMR = .046
Ϯ
1360 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
of maintenance and recovery self-efficacy were not included
in the following SEM. The internal consistencies of all the
measures ranged from satisfactory to good (see Table 3).
The SEM of the basic stage model (Fig. 2) showed a good
fit (χ
2
(77) = 185.907, p< .000; CFI = .979, TLI = .971,
RMSEA = .053, SRMR = .039), which indicates a plausible
model. The CFAwith mindfulness revealed a broadly accept-
able fit (χ
2
(160) = 444.654, p< .000; CFI = .935, TLI = .922,
RMSEA = .060, SRMR = .053). To maintain comparability,
and due to the lack of substantially theoretical reasons, we
refrained from modifying the model. An ANOVA including
the participants who provided information about their income
(N= 289) revealed no significant differences in the per capita
income of the members of different stages (F(3,292) = 0.65,
p=.584).
Mindfulness, Intentions, and Organic Food
Consumption
The model 2, which included intentions and behaviors as de-
pendent variables and the five mindfulness dimensions as pre-
dictors, revealed significant relationships between observing
and goal intention (β= .317, p< .000), between describing
and goal intention (β=−.119, p= .024) and between
nonreactivity and implementation intention (β= .102,
p= .049). The model showed overall an acceptable fit (χ
2
(292) = 668.218, p< .000; CFI = .948, TLI = .938,
RMSEA = .051, SRMR = .046). No significant relationships
between the mindfulness dimensions and intentions remained
in the model 3, where the stage-specific variables were
included. This indicated that the relationships found in the
previous model do not remain stable when the other stage
variables are added (Q2.1). The overall fit of model 3 was
broadly acceptable (χ
2
(502) = 969.028, p< .000;
CFI = .952, TLI = .944, RMSEA = .043, SRMR = .051). The
changes in the explained variance in the different models are
summarized in Tables 4.Inmodel3(seeFig.3), compared to
the basic stage model, a small positive change in explained
variance through the inclusion of mindfulness occurred in the
goal intention (ΔR
2
= .012) and the implementation intention
(ΔR
2
=.012).
Mindfulness and Stage-Specific Predictors
Model 4 tested the mindfulness dimensions as predictors of
the stage-specific variables (see Fig. 4). It revealed positive
relations between observing and social norms (β= .157,
p= .046), personal norms (β= .301, p< .000), and attitude
(β=.283, p< .000). Further, a weak relationship between the
non-judging facet and attitude (β=.165,p= .024) was found.
The model fit remained overall acceptable (χ
2
(517) =
963.833, p< .000; CFI = .954, TLI = .948, RMSEA = .041,
SRMR = .046). Onthe basis of model 4, the following indirect
effects were tested: (1) the indirect effect of observing on
personal norms, mediated by social norms, (2) the indirect
effect of observing on goal intention, mediated by personal
norms, (3) the indirect effect of observing on goal intention,
mediated by attitude, and (4) the indirect effect of non-judging
on goal intention, meditated by attitude. All of the tested in-
direct effects were significant, noticeable through a
Table 2 Mean differences of the stage variables in different stages
Stage variable Predecision Preaction Action Postaction ANOVA
N= 104 (18.6%) N= 157 (28%) N=128 (22.9%) N= 171 (30.5%)
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) F
Goal intention
1
1.82 (0.82) 3.32 (0.81) 3.65 (0.68) 4.30 (0.64) 236.37***
Behavior intention 1.58 (0.81) 2.74 (0.92) 3.34 (0.87) 4.10 (0.76) 207.7***
Implementation intention
1
1.43 (0.83) 2.07 (1.03) 3.06 (1.09) 3.36 (1.31) 98.00***
Organic food consumption (OFC)
1
1.96 (0.89) 2.47 (0.67) 2.73 (0.54) 3.41 (0.72) 84.48***
Social norm 2.08 (0.97) 2.68 (1.01) 2.82 (1.01) 3.16 (0.97) 26.27***
Personal norm 1.71 (0.83) 3.14 (1.01) 3.61 (0.97) 4.10 (0.91) 146.7***
Attitude
1
2.90 (1.09) 3.96 (0.75) 4.23 (0.66) 4.57 (0.59) 76.66***
PBC 3.07 (0.96) 2.81 (0.78) 3.31 (0.77) 3.81 (0.84) 41.97***
N=36 N=131 N=120 N=169
Maintenance self-efficacy 3.03 (0.84) 3.02 (0.72) 3.50 (0.78) 3.87 (0.77) 35.21***
N=36 N=131 N=120 N=168
Recovery self-efficacy
1
2.71 (0.87) 3.76 (0.79) 4.08 (0.70) 4.45 (0.65) 54.00***
1
A significant Levene test indicated the violation of variance homogeneity; therefore, the F value and significance of the welch test are reported
Note. Items for maintenance and recovery self-efficacy were not presented to participants that stated no behavior intention. Therefore, especially in the
lower stages, missings occurred
***p< .001
1361
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Table 3 Descriptive data, reliability, and zero-order correlations of the final scales
N=560 MSDα123456789101112131415
1 Goal intention 3.41 1.12 .93 1
2 Behavior intention 3.10 1.22 .93 .80*** 1
3 Implementation intention 2.57 1.33 .82 .56*** .65*** 1
4 Organic food consumption 2.72 0.87 .84 .61*** .65*** .52*** 1
5 Social norm 2.74 1.05 .80 .42*** .38*** .30*** .38*** 1
6 Personal norm 3.27 1.25 .90 .76*** .70*** .53*** .50*** .42*** 1
7 Attitude 4.00 0.96 .76 .69*** .59*** .43*** .42*** .33*** .65*** 1
8 PBC 3.27 0.92 .77 .26*** .34*** .30*** .32*** .19*** .24*** .19*** 1
9 Maintenance self-efficacy
1
3.46 0.84 .73 .30*** .53*** .45*** .45*** .17*** .27*** .33*** 52***
10 Recovery self-efficacy
2
4.01 0.86 .88 .60*** .56*** .42*** .38*** .22*** .59*** .55*** .30*** .39*** 1
11 Acting with awareness 3.31 0.85 .87 −.02 .01 .05 .02 −.02 −.03 −.02 .05 .04 .01 1
12 Observing
3
3.49 0.76 .72 .22*** .23*** .22*** .19*** .05 .24*** .14*** .08* .12* .13** .16*** 1
13 Describing
3
3.58 0.86 .88 −.02 .03 .10* .06 −.01 .01 .00 .07 .12** .06 .38*** .26*** 1
14 Non-judging
3
3.39 0.88 .80 .01 .05 .07 .03 .03 .03 .06 .11* .10* .02 .48*** .06 .33*** 1
15 Nonreactivity
3
3.98 0.76 .81 .05 .11* .16*** .07 .04 .04 −.06 .13** .10* −.10 .36*** .21*** .25*** .37*** 1
16 FFMQ
3
3.35 0.54 –.07 .12** .17*** .11* .03 .09* .04 .13** .15** .07 .74*** .49*** .69*** .70*** .65***
Note.PBC, perceived behavior control; FFMQ, five facet mindfulness questionnaire
* < .05; ** < .01; *** < .001
1
N= 456
2
N= 455
3
Shortened version of the FFMQ; for a full-item list, see supplementary materials
1362 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
confidence interval above zero (see Table 5). Compared to the
basic stage model (model 1, see Fig. 2), the inclusion of the
mindfulness facets caused a considerable increase in the ex-
plained variance in the personal norm (ΔR
2
= .108, see
Tab le 4).
Mindfulness Differences Between Stage Members
The comparison of the different stage groups in terms of the
mindfulness dimensions yielded an overall significant differ-
ence in the dimension observing (F(3, 556) = 4.61, p=.003),
with a small main effect for stage membership (η
2
=.02,95%
CI [.004; .053], f= .16). The post hoc test revealed a signifi-
cant medium-sized mean difference (p=.002,d
cohen
=.43)of
observing between the stage of predecision (M= 3.29) and
postaction (M= 3.64). Further, in the post hoc tests, non-
judging was significantly different (p=.034, d
cohen
=.32) in
the preaction (M=3.31)andpostaction(M= 3.51) stages (see
Tab le 6).
Discussion
The present study successfully applied a stage model on
organic food consumption behavior, integrated the facets
of dispositional mindfulness, and systematically tested the
relationships between mindfulness and stage variables. The
empirical analysis suggests twomainfindings.First,con-
sistent across all analyses, the mindfulness facet of observ-
ing was found to be particularly relevant. Second, mindful-
ness does not function as a direct predictor of intentions
and organic food consumption behavior when directly
compared to the stage-specific predictors in the models 2
and 3. However, as an indirect predictor, mindfulness and
specifically the facet of observing has an indirect connec-
tion with the goal intention toward organic food consump-
tion in model 4. Overall, the results confirm mindfulness as
a distal predictor for pro-environmental behavior. To inves-
tigate the associated mechanisms and starting points for
promoting pro-environmental behavior through mindful-
ness, a further investigation of the observing facet would
be beneficial.
Table 4 Comparison of the
explained variance in dependent
variables in the different models
Dependent variable Model 1: basic
stage model
Model 3 Change in R
2
Model 4 Change in R
2
R
2
R
2
ΔR
2
R
2
ΔR
2
Goal intention .762 .770 .012 .762 .000
Behavior intention .764 .768 .004 .767 .003
Implementation intention .713 .725 .012 .715 .002
Organic food consumption .481 .480 .001 .482 .001
Personal norm .233 .241 .008 .321 .108
Social norm .019 –
Attitude .081 –
Perceived behavior control .036 –
Note. ΔR
2
, difference in the explained variance compared to model 1 (basic stage model)
Table 5 Bootstrap confidence
intervals of the indirect effects in
model 4
Indirect effects Boot estimate Boot SE 95% CI
Boot LL Boot UL
1. Observing ➔personal norm ➔goal intention .286 .074 .141 .430
Total effect .336 .084 .172 .500
2. Observing ➔social norm ➔personal norm .204 .058 .090 .318
Total effect .814 .155 .511 1.117
3. Observing ➔attitude ➔goal intention .202 .058 .090 .315
Total effect .253 .085 .087 .419
4. Non-judging ➔attitude ➔goal intention .082 .038 .007 .158
Total effect .063 .050 −.034 .161
Note. Unstandardized estimates. 95% CI, bias-adjusted confidence interval with lower and upper limit; SE,
standard error; Boot, bootstrap; N= 5.000; LL, lower limit; UL, upper limit
1363
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Relationships Between Mindfulness Facets,
Intentions, and Organic Food Consumption
The test of the relationship between mindfulness, intentions,
and organic food consumption in the reduced stage model
(model 2) shows a direct connection between observing and
goal intention. Even though this relationsship is not stable,
when the complete stage model is included, it might indicate
that observing is connected with the development of a general
goal intention toward organic food consumption. A greater
sensitivity toward one’s experiences through mindful obser-
vation may constitute a greater basis for reflection and value
clarification (Shapiro et al. 2006) as well as meaning in life
(Garland et al. 2015). This in turn can be seen as a basis to
develop a goal intention that is consistent with one’sgeneral
life goals. Second, the items of observing include aspects of
perception of the natural environment (i.e., “I pay attention to
sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face.”).
This could point to the relevance of the direct awareness of
natural environments to engage in pro-environmental behav-
iors, specifically food consumption. Future studies should
consider variables such as connectedness to nature that are
directly related to the natural environment and, at the same
time, predictors of pro-environmental behaviors (Barbaro and
Pickett 2016; Mayer and Frantz 2004). Since nature connect-
edness is also a source of happiness (Zelenski and Nisbet
2014), research on this pathway is promising. Further, in the
reduced stage model (model 2), nonreactivity showed a posi-
tive but weak connection with the implementation intention.
Nonreactivity is a central dimension of mindfulness that is
relevant for emotion regulation strategies (Desrosiers et al.
2014), and helps to control impulsive acting toward food con-
sumption (Keesman et al. 2017; Park and Dhandra 2017). The
relationship between nonreactivity and the implementation
intention suggests that nonreactivity might go along with a
planned implementation process. Further experimental studies
could focus on the role of nonreactivity in breaking habits
with regard to pro-environmental behavior. Aweak significant
negative relationship between describing and the goal inten-
tion occurred unexpectedly in model 2. At this point, no post
hoc explanation seems plausible, and, thus, we refrain from
drawing conclusions with respect to our hypotheses. It should
also be noted that the describing facet is not usually seen as a
core element of the tradistional concept of mindfulness in
Buddhisn and that the assessment of the ability to describe
feelings with words in the context of mindfulness might be
especially difficult (Grossman and van Dam 2011). Further,
the relationships between the mindfulness facets and the in-
tentions (model 2) do not remain significant when the stage-
specific variables are included (model 3). This highlights the
limitations of mindfulness as a direct predictor of intentions
and organic food consumption behavior when directly com-
pared to the predictive value of personal and social norms,
attitudes, and perceived behavior control. A comparison of
the model 3 with the basic stage model shows that the mind-
fulness aspects contribute no substantial explained variances
in intentions or behaviors. This is in line with the assumption
that mindfulness is a distal predictor of pro-environmental
behavior.
Relationships Between Mindfulness
and Stage-Specific Variables
The analysis of mindfulness aspects and the stage-specific
variables revealed relationships of observing with the social
and personal norms as well as with attitude. At this point,
indirect effects of observing on goal intention and personal
norm were identified. First, personal norms mediated the con-
nection between observing and goal intention. This may indi-
cate that observing in this context might be related to reflective
processes, which in return result in a personal obligation to-
ward the preference of organic food or a sustainable lifestyle
in general. With regard to personal norms, meaning in life and
different sources of meaning (Schnell 2011; Steger et al.
2006), life goals, and values (Unanue et al. 2016) could po-
tentially explain the mechanism of this relationship and should
Table 6 Mean differences between the stages on the mindfulness dimensions
Mindfulness dimension Predecision Preaction Action Postaction ANOVA
N= 104 (18.6%) N= 157 (28%) N= 128 (22.9%) N= 171 (30.5%)
M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) M(SD) F
Acting with awareness 3.33 (0.92) 3.24 (0.86) 3.35 (0.78) 3.34 (0.86) 0.54
Observing 3.31 (0.80) 3.44 (0.74) 3.53 (0.78) 3.64 (0.72) 4.61**
Describing
1
3.69 (0.79) 3.44 (0.95) 3.55 (0.84) 3.67 (0.82) 2.24
Non-judging 3.42 (0.91) 3.24 (0.90) 3.41 (0.89) 3.51 (0.85) 2.64
Nonreactivity 2.93 (0.81) 2.97 (0.75) 3.04 (0.79) 3.00 (0.72) 0.53
Note. * < .05; ** < .01; < .100
1
A significant Levene test indicated the violation of variance homogeneity; therefore, the Fvalue and significance of the welch test are reported for
describing
Ϯ
Ϯ
Ϯ
1364 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
be addressed in future studies. Second, a positive attitude to-
ward the preference of organic food mediated the relationship
between observing and goal intention. According to the TPB,
a positive attitude toward a behavior is developed through the
evaluation of perceived benefits or disadvantages as well as
the outcome expectations of certain behaviors (Ajzen 1991).
With regard to organic food consumption, especially beliefs
about health benefits, better taste and environmental concerns
are strong predictors for a positive attitude toward organically
grown foods (Aertsens et al. 2009; Michaelidou and Hassan
2008). Moreover, a heightened mindful awareness toward in-
ternal and external stimuli goes along with health orientation
and health behavior in general (Geiger et al. 2018b). Further,
due to the sensitization of one’s senses through mindful observ-
ing (Hong et al. 2014), high observing might also go along with
a higher demand for good taste and enjoyment of food.
Therefore, a positive attitude toward organic food seems more
likely, as people tend to expect the taste of organic food to be
superior compared to conventional food (Hughner et al. 2007).
Overall, to investigate the role of observing for attitude and goal
intention at a deeper level, health orientations as well as beliefs
about the taste of organic food could be valuable. Third, an
indirect effect of observing on personal norm, mediated by so-
cial norm, was identified. Since a higher ability to observe in-
ternal and external stimuli may also be connected to the salience
of social norms, a positive relationship between observing and
social norms is plausible. At this point, in further studies, a
distinction between descriptive and injunctive social norms or
global and local social norms could be valuable in understanding
the mechanism (Kormos et al. 2015; Vesely and Klöckner
2018). Fourth, an indirect effect of non-judging on goal inten-
tion, mediated by attitude, occurred unexpectedly. As non-
judging involves a non-evaluative stance toward thoughts and
feelings, a direct connection to any intention does not seem
plausible. According to the present results, people who judge
their thoughts less have higher goal intention toward organic
food consumption. One explanation could be that those not
distracted by negative thoughts or rumination develop a goal
intention more easily than those who do not. In fact, a decrease
in rumination is considered one of the central mechanisms of
mindfulness (Svendsen et al. 2017). A closer look at the sug-
gested paradoxes of mindfulness as well as mechanisms such as
reperceiving could be valuable to understand this relationship
(Shapiro et al. 2006;Shapiroetal.2018).
In model 4, the gain in the explained variance through
mindfulness is quite low. This indicates a limited value of
mindfulness to explain the factors that influence the purchase
of organic foods and should be noted with regard to the inter-
pretation of the present results. One exception is that the ex-
plained variance in personal norms grew substantial when
mindfulness was included. This might demonstrate the poten-
tial of mindfulness to go along with a moral obligation toward
organic food consumption. With reference to the different
suggested pathways from mindfulness to sustainable con-
sumption (Geiger et al. 2018a; Hunecke and Richter 2019),
this result suggets the role of mindfulness to go along with
personal values that are connected to organic food
consumption.
Differences in Mindfulness Aspects in Stages
of Organic Food Consumption
As expected, the mindfulness aspect of observing was signif-
icantly higher in members of the postaction stage than in those
of other stages. This may indicate that observing, or the degree
to which people notice internal and external experiences, can
be relevant in successfully passing the stages toward acquiring
the new behavior of organic food consumption. This is in line
with the theoretical assumptions of the stages and intervention
recommendations of the SSBC. While in the stage of
predecision, the enhancement of awareness and self-focus is
central (Bamberg et al. 2011), and people in the stage of
postaction have already processed through these steps and
have higher levels of observing as a consequence. A signifi-
cant mean difference was unexpectedly found in the dimen-
sion of non-judging between people in the preaction and
postaction stages, indicating that those in the preaction stage
were more judgmental toward their thoughts and feelings. A
post hoc interpretation may be that this is due to the reflective
and uncertain nature of the preaction stage, in which people
want to change their behavior but are not yet sure how to
achieve this goal.
Limitations and Future Research
The cross-sectional design of the study does not allow causal
conclusions regarding the impact of mindfulness on organic
food consumption intentions and behavior. The design also
limits the reliability of the mediation analyses, and this can
lead to biased estimates in single cross-sectional studies
(Maxwell and Cole 2007). Future studies can collect data from
(quasi-) experimental designs to address questions of causal
mechanisms between mindfulness and pro-environmental be-
haviors. While data were collected conscientiously in selected
communities to reach a broad spectrum of people with regard
to the assumed stages of action, it is not representative but a
convenience sample, which limits the generalizability of the
results.
We successfully applied a modified version of the SSBC to
organic food consumption and tested the plausibility of the
theoretical model analyzing mean differences and using
SEM. However, the high intercorrelations between the inten-
tions indicated similarity of the different intentions even
though the indicators for multicollinearity (variance inflation
factor) and the fit indices were within the common limits.
Although we included central stage-specific predictors and
1365
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
the most important variables with regard to organic food con-
sumption, not all the predictors suggested in the original mod-
el were controlled. This could have led to different results in
relation to the mindfulness aspects. Further, the assessment of
pro-environmental behaviors using self-reports is an adequate
and commonly used approach, but it can still involve validity
problems with regard to actual behavior (Kormos and Gifford
2014). The stage model has a focus on the process of behavior
change that is marked by four different stages. We used the
categorization in the stages to examine the differences be-
tween the participants in terms of to mindfulness to gain ad-
ditional information beyond the stage variables. However, in
terms of the assumed stages, it was not possible to proof the
stability of the stage or stage progression over time due to the
cross-sectional study design. For this purpose, longitudinal
studies are required, and the stage model approach would be
useful to track the changes in specific behaviors from one
stage to another.
The focus of the present study was on the preference of
organic food consumption, because it is a central part of a
sustainable lifestyle in terms of ecological impact.
However, there are further potential motivators that we
have not directly considered in our model, such as beliefs
about health benefits and better taste of organically grown
foods (Aertsens et al. 2009). Furthermore, other ecologi-
cally relevant fields of action such as mobility, energy con-
servation have to be investigated to fully estimate the po-
tential of mindfulness to foster a sustainable lifestyle. The
identification of the relevant mindfulness aspects in rela-
tion to stage-specific variables is helpful for planning fu-
ture (quasi-) experimental studies. In the present study,
observing showed the strongest relationships with social
and personal norms and attitude. To further investigate this
relationship, a look at conceptual close psychological con-
structs such as self-awareness (Vago and Silbersweig
2012) could be useful. Further, the aspect of observing
can be distinguished in inner and outer awareness
(Bergomi et al. 2015). Since mindfulness is often used as
an umbrella term for various concepts and meditation prac-
tices, a consistent definition or measurement is not identi-
fiable in the present research literature (Van Dam et al.
2018). It should be noted that we assessed self-attributed
mindfulness with a questionnaire in a sample with mostly
non-meditators in this study. It is very likely that self-
reported mindfulness has limited similarity with the expe-
rience of mindfulness practice, and the interpretation of the
items varies in meditator and non-meditator samples
(Grossman and van Dam 2011). For instance, in a study
by Baer et al. (2008) using the FFMQ, the observing facet
varied in its connection with psychological symptoms in
meditator and non-meditator student samples. Therefore,
the results of the present study may be different in a med-
itator sample. Moreover, the study does not allow
conclusions regarding the potential of mindfulness medita-
tion to promote pro-environmental behavior. The results of
the present study can only be interpreted in terms of the
specific measurement used. Although the shortened ver-
sion of the FFMQ used was largely proofed regarding its
construct validity in a previous study (Hunecke and
Richter 2019), a short version can limit the comparability.
While the use of a multidimensional instrument prevents
the derivation of an extremely simplified understanding of
mindfulness, some aspects of mindfulness are still missing,
especially paradoxes of mindfulness and its practice, such
as acceptance vs. change and effort vs. non-striving
(Shapiro et al. 2018), and they are not adequately assessed
with the common instruments. The focus on the five dif-
ferent aspects of mindfulness is beneficial to understand
the relevant aspects of mindfulness for organic food con-
sumption and the stage-specific variables. The present
study, therefore, offers useful recommendations for future
studies. However, when it comes to the practice of mind-
fulness, the complete separation of these aspects is not
beneficial, owing to the interactions between the different
mindfulness dimensions (Desrosiers et al. 2014). To ensure
the benefits for emotion regulation of mindfulness medita-
tion, the aspect of observing should not be trained in iso-
lation but always along with a non-judging stance (Baer
et al. 2008;Ianietal.2019).
Data Availability Statement Data and supplementary materials are avail-
able at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/gfb5q).
Author Contributions NR: Designed the study, collected data, analyzed
data, and wrote the manuscript.
MH: Contributed ideas regarding the theoretical approach, the study
design and supported in revision of the manuscript.
Funding Information Open Access funding provided by Projekt DEAL.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
Ethical Approval All procedures performed in studies involving human
participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institu-
tional research committee of the Ruhr-University Bochum (Faculty of
Psychology, Case No. 392) 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.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if
changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
1366 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the
article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Aertsens, J., Verbeke, W., Mondelaers, K., & van Huylenbroeck, G.
(2009). Personal determinants of organic food consumption: A re-
view. British Food Journal, 111(10), 1140–1167. https://doi.org/10.
1108/00070700910992961 .
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T .
Amel, E. L., Manning, C. M., & Scott, B. A. (2009). Mindfulness and
sustainable behavior: Pondering attention and awareness as means
for increasing green behavior. Ecopsychology, 1(1), 14–25. https://
doi.org/10.1089/eco.2008.0005 .
Arch, J. J., Brown, K. W., Goodman, R. J., Della Porta, M. D., Kiken, L.
G., & Tillman, S. (2016). Enjoying food without caloric cost: The
impact of brief mindfulness on laboratory eating outcomes.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 79,23–34. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.brat.2016.02.002 .
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.
(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of
mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1073191105283504 .
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer,
S., Walsh, E., Duggan, D., & Williams, J. M. G. (2008). Construct
validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating and
nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15(3), 329–342. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1073191107313003 .
Bahl, S., Milne, G. R., Ross, S. M., Mick,D. G., Grier, S. A., Chugani, S.
K., Chan, S. S., Gould, S., Cho, Y.-N., Dorsey, J. D., Schindler, R.
M., Murdock, M. R., & Boesen-Mariani, S. (2016). Mindfulness: Its
transformative potential for consumer, societal, and environmental
well-being. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 35(2), 198–210.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.15.139 .
Bamberg, S. (2013a). Applying the stage model of self-regulated behav-
ioral change in a car use reduction intervention. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 33,68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2012.10.001 .
Bamberg, S. (2013b). Changing environmentally harmful behaviors: A
stage model of self-regulated behavioral change. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 34,151–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2013.01.002 .
Bamberg, S., Fujii, S., Friman, M., & Gärling, T. (2011). Behaviour
theory and soft transport policy measures. Transport Policy, 1 8(1),
228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.08.006 .
Barbaro, N., & Pickett, S. M. (2016). Mindfully green: Examining the
effect of connectedness to nature on the relationship between mind-
fulness and engagement in pro-environmental behavior. Personality
and Individual Differences, 93,137
–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
paid.2015.05.026 .
Barrett, B., Grabow, M., Middlecamp, C., Mooney, M., Checovich, M.
M., Converse, A. K., Gillespie, B. & Yates, J. (2016). Mindful
climate action: Health and environmental co-benefits from mindful-
ness-based behavioral training. Sustainability, 8(10). https://doi.org/
10.3390/su8101040.
Bengstsson, J., Ahntström, J., & Weibull, A.-C. (2005). The effects of
organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 42(2), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x .
Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2015). Meditation practice
and self-reported mindfulness: A cross-sectional investigation of
meditators and non-meditators using the comprehensive inventory
of mindfulness experiences (CHIME). Mindfulness, 6(6), 1411–
1421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0415-6 .
Bishop, S. R. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition.
Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–241.
https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bph077 .
Brown, K. W., & Kasser, T. (2005). Are psychological and ecological
well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and life-
style. Social Indicators Research, 74(2), 349–368. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8 .
Cook, J., Oreskes, N., Doran, P. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., Verheggen, B.,
Maibach, E. W., Carlton, J. S., Lewandowsky, S., Skuce, A. G.,
Green, S. A., Nuccitelli, D., Jacobs, P., Richardson, M., Winkler,
B., Painting, R., & Rice, K. (2016). Consensus on consensus: A
synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming.
Environmental Research Letters, 11(4), 48002. https://doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002 .
de Bruin, E. I., Topper, M., Muskens, J. G. A. M., Bögels, S. M., &
Kamphuis, J. H. (2012). Psychometric properties of the five facets
mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ) in a meditating and a non-
meditating sample. Assessment, 19(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1073191112446654 .
Desrosiers, A., Vine, V., Curtiss, J., & Klemanski, D. H. (2014).
Observing nonreactively: A conditional process model linking
mindfulness facets, cognitive emotion regulation strategies, and de-
pression and anxiety symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders, 165,
31–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.04.024 .
Ericson, T., Kjønstad, B. G., & Barstad, A. (2014). Mindfulness and
sustainability. Ecological Economics, 104,73–79. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.007 .
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A
flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral,
and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–
191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 .
Fischer, D., Stanszus, L., Geiger, S., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2017).
Mindfulness and sustainable consumption: A systematic literature
review of research approaches and findings. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 162, 544–558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
06.007 .
Garland, E. L., Farb, N. A., Goldin, P., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2015).
Mindfulness broadens awareness and builds eudaimonic meaning:
A process model of mindful positive emotion regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 26(4), 293–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1047840X.2015.1064294 .
Geiger, S., Fischer, D., Schrader, U. & Grossman, P. (2019). Meditating
for the planet: Effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on sus-
tainable consumption behaviors. Environment and Behavior,
001391651988089. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916519880897.
Geiger, S., Grossman, P., & Schrader, U. (2018a). Mindfulness and sus-
tainability: Correlation or causation? Current Opinion in
Psychology, 28,23–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.09.
010 .
Geiger, S., Otto, S., & Schrader, U. (2018b). Mindfully green and healthy:
An indirect path from mindfulness to ecological behavior. Frontiers
in Psychology, 8, 2306. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02306 .
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1990). Action phases and mind-sets. In R. M.
Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and
cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 53–92). Guilford
Press.
1367
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Grossman, P., & van Dam, N. T. (2011). Mindfulness, by any other
name…: Trials and tribulations of sati in western psychology and
science. Contemporary Buddhism, 12(1), 219–239. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14639947.2011.564841 .
Hong, P. Y., Lishner, D. A., & Han, K. H. (2014). Mindfulness and eating:
An experiment examining the effect of mindful raisin eating on the
enjoyment of sampled food. Mindfulness, 5(1), 80–87. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12671-012-0154-x .
Hu, L.‐t. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covari-
ance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alterna-
tives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hughner, R. S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz, C. J., & Stanton, J.
(2007). Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and re-
view of why people purchase organic food. JournalofConsumer
Behaviour, 6(2–3), 94–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.210.
Hunecke, M. (2013). Psychological resources for sustainable lifestyles. A
report from Denkwerk Zukunft - Foundation for cultural renewal.
Bonn: Denkwerk Zukunft. https://www.denkwerkzukunft.de/
downloads/reportpsychologicalresources.
Hunecke, M. (2018). Psychology of sustainability - Psychological re-
sources for sustainable lifestyles. In O. Parodi & K. Tamm (Eds.),
Routledge studies in sustainability. Personal sustainability:
Exploring the far side of sustainable development (pp. 33–50).
Routledge.
Hunecke, M., & Richter, N. (2019). Mindfulness, construction of mean-
ing and sustainable food consumption. Mindfulness, 10(3). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0986-0 .
Iani, L., Lauriola, M., Chiesa, A., & Cafaro, V. (2019). Associations
between mindfulness and emotion regulation: The key role of de-
scribing and nonreactivity. Mindfulness, 10(2), 366–375. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12671-018-0981-5 .
Jacob, J., Jovic, E., & Brinkerhoff, M. B. (2009). Personal and planetary
well-being: Mindfulness meditation, pro-environmental behavior
and personal quality of life in a survey from the social justice and
ecological sustainability movement. Social Indicators Research,
93(2), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9308-6 .
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living: Using the wisdom of your
body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. Bantam Books.
Kasser, T. (2006). The high price of materialism. MIT Press.
Keesman, M., Aarts, H., Häfner, M., & Papies,E. K. (2017). Mindfulness
reduces reactivity to food cues: Underlying mechanisms and appli-
cations in daily life. Current Addiction Reports, 4(2), 151–157.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40429-017-0134-2 .
Kiken, L. G., Garland, E. L., Bluth, K., Palsson, O. S., & Gaylord, S. A.
(2015). From a state to a trait: Trajectories of state mindfulness in
meditation during intervention predict changes in trait mindfulness.
Personality and Individual Differences, 81,41–46. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.044 .
Klöckner, C. A. (2017). A stage model as an analysis framework for
studying voluntary change in food choices. The case of beef con-
sumption reduction in Norway. Appetite, 108,434–449. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.002 .
Kormos, C., & Gifford, R. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of
proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 40,359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2014.09.003 .
Kormos, C., Gifford, R., & Brown, E. (2015). The influence of descrip-
tive social norm information on sustainable transportation behavior.
Environment and Behavior, 47(5), 479–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916513520416 .
Kristeller, J., Wolever, R. Q. & Sheets, V. (2014). Mindfulness-Based
Eating Awareness Training (MB-EAT) for binge eating: A random-
ized clinical trial. Mindfulness, 5(3), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12671-012-0179-1.
Lilja, J. L., Lundh, L.-G., Josefsson, T., & Falkenström, F. (2013).
Observing as an essential facet of mindfulness: A comparison of
FFMQ patterns in meditating and non-meditating individuals.
Mindfulness, 4(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-
0111-8 .
Maxwell, S. E., & Cole, D. A. (2007). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of
longitudinal mediation. Psychological Methods, 12(1), 23–44.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.1.23 .
Mayer, F. S., & Frantz, C. M. (2004). The connectedness to nature scale:
A measure of individuals’feeling in community with nature.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24(4), 503–515. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.10.001 .
Michaelidou, N., & Hassan, L. M. (2008). The role of health conscious-
ness, food safety concern and ethical identity on attitudes and inten-
tions towards organic food. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 32(2), 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2007.
00619.x .
Michalak, J., Zarbock, G., Drews, M., Otto, D., Mertens, D., Ströhle, G.,
Schwinger, M., Dahme, B., & Heidenreich, T. (2016). Erfassung
von Achtsamkeit mit der deutschen Version des Five Facet
Mindfulness Questionnaires (FFMQ-D). Zeitschrift Für
Gesundheitspsychologie, 24(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1026/
0943-8149/a000149 .
Pachauri, R. K., & Mayer, L. (Eds.). (2015). Climate change 2014:
Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
Panno, A., Giacomantonio, M., Carrus, G., Maricchiolo, F., Pirchio, S., &
Mannetti, L. (2018). Mindfulness, pro-environmental behavior, and
belief in climate change: The mediating role of social dominance.
Environment and Behavior, 50(8), 864–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916517718887 .
Papies, E. K., Barsalou, L. W., & Custers, R. (2012). Mindful
attention prevents mindless impulses. Social Psychological
and Personality Science, 3(3), 291–299. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1948550611419031 .
Park, H. J., & Dhandra, T. K. (2017). Relation between dispositional
mindfulness and impulsive buying tendency: Role of trait emotional
intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 105,208–212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.061 .
Pepping, C. A., O’Donovan, A., & Davis, P. J. (2013). The positive
effects of mindfulness on self-esteem. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 8(5), 376–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.
2013.807353 .
Reisch, L., Eberle, U., & Lorek, S. (2013). Sustainable food consump-
tion: An overview of contemporary issues and policies.
Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 9(2), 7–25. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2013.11908111 .
Rosenberg, E. L. (2004). Mindfulness and consumerism. In T. Kasser &
A. D. Kanner (Eds.), Psychology and consumer culture: The strug-
gle for a good life in a materialistic world (pp. 107–126). American
Psychological Association.
Scalco, A., Noventa, S., Sartori, R., & Ceschi, A. (2017). Predicting
organic food consumption: A meta-analytic structural equation
model based on the theory of planned behavior. Appetite, 112,
235–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2017.02.007 .
Schnell, T. (2011). Individual differences in meaning-making:
Considering the variety of sources of meaning, their density and
diversity. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 667–673.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.06.006 .
Schwartz, S. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism.Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 10(1), 221–279.https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5 .
Scialabba, N. E.-H., & Müller-Lindenlauf, M. (2010). Organic agriculture
and climate change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems,
25(02), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170510000116 .
1368 Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Shapiro, S., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006).
Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
62(3), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237 .
Shapiro, S., Siegel, R., & Neff, K. D. (2018). Paradoxes of mindfulness.
Mindfulness, 9(6), 1693–1701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-
0957-5 .
Sivanathan, N., & Pettit, N. C. (2010). Protecting the self through con-
sumption: Status goods as affirmational commodities. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 46(3), 564–570. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jesp.2010.01.006 .
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., & Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in
life questionnaire: Assessing the presence of and search for meaning
in life. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 80–93. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80 .
Svendsen, J. L., Kvernenes, K. V., Wiker, A. S., & Dundas, I. (2017).
Mechanisms of mindfulness: Rumination and self-compassion.
Nordic Psychology, 69(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19012276.2016.1171730 .
Unanue, W., Vignoles, V. L., Dittmar, H., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2016).
Life goals predict environmental behavior: Cross-cultural and lon-
gitudinal evidence. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 46,10–
22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.02.001 .
Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regula-
tion, and self-transcendence (S-ART): A framework for understand-
ing the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in
Human Neuroscience, 6,296.https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.
00296 .
Van Dam, N. T., van Vugt, M. K., Vago, D. R., Schmalzl, L., Saron, C. D.,
Olendzki, A., Meissner, T., Lazar, S. W., Kerr, C. E., Gorchov, J.,
Fox, K. C. R., Field, B. A., Britton, W. B., Brefczynski-Lewis,J. A.,
& Meyer, D. E. (2018). Mind the hype: A critical evaluation and
prescriptive agenda for research on mindfulness and meditation.
Perspectives on Psychological Science : A Journal of the
Association for Psychological Science, 13(1), 36–61. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1745691617709589 .
Vermeulen, S. J., Campbell, B. M. & Ingram, J. S. (2012). Climate change
and food systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,
37(1), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-
130608.
Vesely, S., & Klöckner, C. A. (2018). Global social norms and environ-
mental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 50(3), 247–272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517702190 .
Visted, E., Vøllestad, J., Nielsen, M. B., & Nielsen, G. H. (2015). The
impact of group-based mindfulness training on self-reported mind-
fulness: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 6(3),
501–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0283-5 .
Von Koerber, K., Bader, N., & Leitzmann, C. (2017). Wholesome nutri-
tion: An example for a sustainable diet. The Proceedings of the
Nutrition Society, 76(1), 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0029665116000616 .
Wang, J., Geng, L., Schultz, P. W., & Zhou, K. (2019). Mindfulness
increases the belief in climate change: The mediating role of con-
nectedness with nature. Environment and Behavior, 51(1), 3–23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517738036 .
Zelenski, J. M., & Nisbet, E. K. (2014). Happiness and feeling connected.
Environment and Behavior, 46(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013916512451901 .
Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
1369
Mindfulness (2020) 11:1354–1369
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
