A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 1

Copyright 2025 Guilford

Chapter to appear in K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of

mindfulness (2nd ed.): Theory, research, and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

How a Process-Based Idionomic Approach Changes our Understanding of

Mindfulness as a Method and Process

Steven C. Hayes

University of Nevada, Reno, USA

Baljinder Sahdra

Australian Catholic University, Australia

Joseph Ciarrochi

Australian Catholic University, Australia

Stefan G. Hofmann

Philipps University Marburg, Germany

Brandon T. Sanford

Medical University of South Carolina

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 2

Mindfulness as a concept has a broad range of contemporary uses in psychology and

behavioral science, and a rich background in human culture more generally. In behavioral

science and practice it is “treated sometimes as a technique, sometimes as a more general method

or collection of techniques, sometimes as a psychological process that can produce outcomes,

and sometimes as an outcome in and of itself” (Hayes & Wilson, 2003, p. 161). In a cultural

context it has a deep spiritual and religious history over literally thousands of years.

Contemplative practice methods are arguably part of all our major wisdom and religious

traditions, beginning with one of the oldest religious traditions, Hinduism (Kurien, 2006) but

including especially Buddhism (Shonin, van Gordon, & Singh, 2015), and in some ways the

major Abrahamic religions as well (Trammel, 2017).

In the first edition of this book, the senior author (SCH) and his students addressed the

role of mindfulness in the so-called “third wave” of cognitive behavioral therapy (Szabo, Long,

Villatte, & Hayes, 2015). Virtually all of “third wave” methods relied on mindfulness methods to

a degree (Hayes, 2004) and as the empirical analysis of these methods has exploded, mindfulness

methods have become a routine part of psychological interventions more generally. That is true

of popular culture as well. An examination of the frequency of usage of the term in written

English using Google N-gram shows that it has increased 15-fold over the last three decades. But

that very explosion suggests that it is time to step back and consider how best to advance

mindfulness work in the future.

Our major spiritual and wisdom traditions do not need to be anointed by scientific

psychologists to establish their cultural legitimacy, any more than great novelists, musicians,

artists, or movie producers require such validation. For “mindfulness” to serve a role as a

progressive part of scientific psychology, however, it not only has to be viewed as a set of
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 3

specifiable and measurable methods and change processes, analyzed in a scientifically sound

way, but it also needs to be analyzed in ways that correspond to its intended use. That is the

purpose of the present chapter: to examine whether there are progressive new ways to study

mindfulness as a set of methods and processes of change, and to empower the lives of

individuals who are touched by the science and practice of psychological intervention.

Mindfulness research is also facing a counter-reaction, another sign that it is time to

reconsider its direction. Over the last several years articles have argued that mindfulness as a

scientific concept has no value above and beyond the literature on “Big 5” personality types

(Altgassen, Geiger, & Wilhelm, 2023), or that the deployment of mindfulness methods in

therapy raises serious ethical concerns when it is cut loose of “right action”, compassion toward

others, or a variety of additional core elements commonly included in wisdom traditions

(Harrington & Dunne, 2015). Capitalistic interests in mindfulness methods have received

especially strong criticism (Hyland, 2015) as an era of “McMindfulness” seems to enter modern

culture. One must only open a health app on their smartphones to see the issue. One is almost

certain to see “mindful minutes” on the list of "health categories," along with heart function,

physical activity, nutrition, and medication use. Given that degree of cultural penetration,

pausing to step back and focus on how to foster further progress seems timely.

Before we begin, it seems important to state our initial biases and assumptions. The

present chapter takes the view that “mindfulness” refers to a somewhat loose but broadly

definable set of skills -- attentional, cognitive, and affective -- that are designed to foster the

ability of individuals to live more empowered lives. While recognizing the important work done

in defining and measuring “mindfulness” (e.g., Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney,

2006; Brown & Ryan, 2003), as researchers we view all scientific concepts as just ways of
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 4

speaking that help the scientist interact with the world in an effective way that fits their analytic

purposes. For that reason, we are skeptical that there will ever be the one true analysis of

mindfulness any more than there is today a single acceptable definition of emotion, cognition,

consciousness, self, or any of the other many major concepts that bear on mindfulness. A more

attainable and scientifically helpful goal is to generate progress in the ways that various

mindfulness skills such as attentional flexibility, non-judgment, self-kindness, or emotional

openness are assessed and analyzed so that scientific data can begin to narrow the range of uses

of the term as assessed against the possible practical or scientific purposes of its analysis. It is

our view that such a research program will foster greater progress in the long run than adopting

an a priori definition of mindfulness phenomena based on theory. We will return to implications

of this “empirical skill set” approach later in this chapter.

The empirical pathway to conceptual utility is not an easy one, however, for reasons we

will soon describe. In this chapter, we argue that some of the methods we used to study

mindfulness skills might have interfered with progress toward the "use case" most practitioners

or applied scientists are interested in, namely, how to help individuals develop, retain, and use

mindfulness skills to improve their lives.

A powerful way to focus on this issue is to start at the end – namely, the accomplishment

of better outcomes due to the use of a particular process – and then work backwards and to

consider the methods that move these processes. By referring to mainstream empirical methods,

we can begin by documenting what has been shown to be helpful, so we can examine component

processes involved, their role in successful psychological interventions, and the methodological

and strategic limitations that we believe must be overcome to create further progress.

Mindfulness Skills as Sources of Change

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 5

A wealth of studies has demonstrated that mindfulness-based interventions can improve

mental health (Hofmann, Sawyer, Witt, & Oh, 2010; Khoury et al., 2013). However, mindfulness

is a complex construct with many different aspects that could explain its therapeutic effect (Baer,

Smith, & Allen, 2004; Baer et al., 2006; Dimidjian & Linehan, 2003). For example, mindfulness

skills are widely agreed to include both the extent to which one directs attention toward the

present, as well as the manner in which one orients toward the present (Bishop et al., 2004;

Shapiro, Carlson, Astin, & Freedman, 2006). This comprehensive and widely used way to

conceptualize and measure mindfulness is with the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

(FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006), which was built as a kind of

superset of self-report items in this domain at the time. The facets of the FFMQ include the

propensity to observe internal and external experiences (Observe), describe internal experiences

with words (Describe), act with awareness of the present (Act with Awareness), take a

nonjudgmental stance toward one’s inner experiences (Nonjudge), and let one’s thoughts and

feelings go without focusing or elaborating on them (Nonreactivity).

A recent meta-analysis examined the relationship between mindfulness, as measured by

the FFMQ, and negative affective symptoms (Carpenter et al., 2019). The study consisted of a

comprehensive search yielding 148 eligible studies, comprising 157 distinct samples and 44,075

participants. The weighted mean correlation for affective symptoms and overall trait mindfulness

was r = -0.53, showing a large negative relationship between affective symptoms and overall

mindfulness as measured by the FFMQ. Nonjudge (r = -0.48) and Act with Awareness (r = -0.47)

demonstrated the largest correlations, followed by Nonreact (r = -0.33) and Describe (r = -0.29).

Observe was not significantly correlated with affective symptoms. No significant differences in

the strength of correlations were found between these self-reported mindfulness skills and
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 6

anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, though symptoms of

generalized anxiety disorder exhibited a weaker negative relationship with the Describe facet

compared to PTSD symptoms. Describe also showed a stronger relationship with affective

symptoms in Eastern samples compared to Western samples, whereas Western samples had a

stronger relationship with Nonjudge. These results showed that the propensity toward

mindlessness (e.g., reacting judgmentally, running on ‘autopilot’) was associated with higher

levels of negative affective symptoms. However, these associations do not alone allow for

conclusions about the processes of change. For this, we need to examine the mediation literature.

Mindfulness as a Mediator of Change

We recently summarized the entire world’s literature on successful mediators of

psychological interventions (Hayes, Ciarrochi, Hofmann, Chin, & Sahdra, 2022). Using

PsychInfo, Web of Science, Medline, and ProQuest databases, our team examined every existing

randomized controlled trial of a psychosocial intervention targeting a mental health related

outcome, that compared intervention to a no-treatment or treatment-as-usual condition and

identified a statistically significant mediator of outcomes. We used the following search terms:

“process of change”, “mechanism”, “mediat*”, and “change mechanism”; at least one word from

the title of every known therapy, based on the Wikipedia “list of psychotherapies”; and the terms

“RCT”, “clinical trial”, “randomi?ed control trial”, “interven*”, “treatment condition”, “control

group”, “treatment group”, “random”, and “random assignment.” That yielded 54,633 studies for

examination. Each abstract was scored by two trained raters to ensure that studies met the

inclusion criteria. Two trained raters then conducted full text screening of the 1,353 studies that

appeared to be eligible and a total of 1,050 mediational findings were identified across 624

studies, while 729 studies were excluded based on the entire article (e.g., because the mediational
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 7

analysis itself was flawed; or only medications were examined, not psychosocial methods, and so

on). Because there was evidence that mediators were often an afterthought and unusual

combinations of items or measures were used to obtain successful mediational results (that is,

there was some evidence of “p hacking”) only the 71 mediational measures that had been

successfully replicated at least once were cataloged in the final report. Together they constituted

281 findings – representing the core of the entire world’s literature on processes of change.

Of these 281 findings, a large number (56% or 157 of the findings) focused on processes

that have routinely been identified as part of mindfulness writ large. These included emotion

focused processes such as acceptance, self-kindness, low levels of anxiety sensitivity, the ability

to describe emotion, or self-compassion; cognitive processes such as non-judgment, defusion,

decentering, or observation of thought; flexible, fluid, and voluntary attentional processes such

as focusing on the now, present moment awareness, or attentional control; self-oriented

processes such as self-as-context, perspective taking, or non-duality; and more integrative

processes that include these elements along with values and right action, such as psychological

flexibility. Some emotion regulation, coping, or self-regulation measures also included such

concepts.

Thus, in summary, we know that self-reported mindfulness skills are key to clinical

outcomes across the entire intervention science literature focused on processes of change as

assessed through traditional mediational analysis. This is before we note that many other known

mediators are ameliorated by mindfulness methods and processes, such as rumination or worry,

entanglement with dysfunctional thoughts, the facilitation of healthy cognitive reappraisal,

fostering parental functioning, or establishment of healthy coping skills, just to name a few (see
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 8

Hayes et al., 2022 for more details). In almost all known processes of change, mindfulness and

psychological flexibility are likely to play a significant role.

Advancing the Study of Mindfulness as a Process of Change

The success story that has just been told comes with a warning label. Processes of change

cannot be fully understood and applied to particular people who may need them using only our

mainstream statistical approaches because the underlying mathematical assumptions needed to

do that simply cannot be met. We will explain this unsettling claim in the present chapter.

Processes of change unfold within the lifetime of individuals (or of larger specified units

such as couples, families, or communities). To this point, processes of change are very largely

studied as normative analytic abstractions, in which measures are developed based on between

person consistencies relative to between person variability (that is, via traditional psychometric

criteria) and are tested in models that treat the central tendencies of a collective as the “true

score” and individuals as a source of error in the measurement of latent constructs. For example,

a common traditional mediational analysis considers the cross product of the coefficients of the

differential intervention impact on a mediator (the “a” path), and the mediator’s relation to

outcome controlling for treatment assignment (the “b” path). These comparisons and their

components are viewed as “significant” relevant to the degree of variability between participants.

When the findings are applied to a person, however, researchers and practitioners alike

expect (at least probabilistically) that if the effective treatment is applied to a particular person,

the mediator is likely to change, and the outcome in turn is likely to change. That extension is not

scientifically valid (Hofmann, Curtiss, & Hayes, 2020) and for a reason that extends to a much

wider set of data analytic circumstances (Hayes et al., 2019; Molenaar, 2013). Normative

concepts developed and measured at the level of a collective apply to the prediction of individual
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 9

trajectories measured over time if and only if the phenomena are ergodic (Molenaar, 2013).

Ergodicity is not a new concept – it is nearly 150 years old in the physical sciences (Boltzman,

1884; see Ashley, 2015) and has been accepted science there ever since it was mathematically

proven in the early 1930’s (Birkhoff, 1931; von Neumann, 1932). In essence, ergodicity is a far

more restrictive form of the “homogeneity assumption” that everyone learns about in their early

statistical training. It turns out that normative biostatistical methods need to assume ergodicity

and homogeneity in order to apply results to individuals, but unlike homogeneity, the ergodicity

assumption is rarely if ever met in psychology (Molenaar, 2004). Distilled to a single sentence,

ergodicity requires that 1) processes be stationary and that 2) the same dynamical model apply to

all. Concretely, this would mean that, at any given time point, the phenomenon being modeled

would have the same mean and standard deviation, and assessed across time each individual

would display that same mean and standard deviation of the measured process as well.

Experience suggests that these requirements are novel enough for behavioral science

students and professionals that it is better to start with a commonsense metaphor than to jump

immediately into how to avoid the need to assume ergodicity. Suppose an applied scientist

wanted to learn more about how people can navigate a large open field with trees, rocks of all

sizes, coves, and muddy bogs. The scientists decides that a mediational analysis will best reveal

the functionally important pathways of change. A group of 100 people are broken into two

groups. One group is told to start anywhere on one side of the field try to get anywhere on the

other side. A second group is told to attend to their own body and to be very efficient while

traversing the field. That instruction leads to better outcomes (they traverse the field more

quickly) so the issues turn to “why did this happen?”.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 10

Each person has a video camera on their head taking pictures every step and, data from

the video camera shows that at step 500 (the mid-point) of their approximately 1,000 step

journey. The “attend and be efficient” group is not yet significantly faster than the control

condition. They are making fewer big jumps, however, and this fact mediates the ultimate

differences in ultimate outcomes.

Should the analyst now suggest to other individuals to avoid big jumps in order to

traverse the field more quickly? The answer is “yes” if and only if there were no trends in

jumping or related processes over time, and all people showed the same mean and standard

deviation of these processes (in other words, jumping and related variables were ergodic).

Otherwise, the answer is “no.”

Suppose the lack of jumping at the mid-point of the journey mediated outcomes because

people who were attending to their body and their efficiency were more likely early on to

discover that they could make good progress by making big jumps a lot but some of these

eventually became exhausted and slowed down, and stopped jumping by the mid-point -- but

later on avoided swamps due to that exhaustion, much to their advantage. Others did not jump

much early on and arrived at the midpoint fresh but at an average speed, but some in this

subgroup realized that they could make much better progress by picking a route that required big

jumps. These trends and differential features (who became exhausted quickly and who did not)

could cancel each other out and still yield a statistically significant mediational variable. A bell

curve of outcomes (or mid-point progress with a mediational variable) can be interpreted by

probability theory (as in traditional mediational analyses) but it does so by assuming only chance

is otherwise operating, and systematic trends, systematic idiosyncratic responses, or their

combinations, are not “chance.” Using statistical models that require such implausible
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 11

assumptions in order to apply the obtained results to individuals is especially unwise in applied

psychology where applying results reliably to individuals is often part of the very purpose of

scientific analysis.

There is a statistically legitimate alternative: Model each idiographic journey from the

recorded camera one pathway at a time, and then combine these into nomothetic subgroups if

and only if it helps model most of these idiographic journeys (what is called in Hayes et al., 2022

an “idionomic approach”). Knowing who displayed various patterns could help explain key

outcomes when knowledge of how individuals traversed the field is related to the time it took to

cross it, the effort spent to do so, and the impact of exhaustion or injuries that happened along the

way. The scientist could then use that knowledge to help people cross the field safely, efficiently,

and effectively.

As we will show in this chapter, if you model how much of the information about

pathways is person-specific the resulting values are so large as to question the meaningfulness of

calculating central tendencies as a means of understanding processes of change. Most human

data have trends and all “processes of change” do, by definition. Very, very few of our statistical

tools are designed to avoid making an implausible ergodic assumption.

If you are a practitioner, this is the take home message: psychology and behavioral

science generally has unintentionally been feeding you false and misleading information that is

inadequate for you to do your job. This could be a major reason why psychological intervention

specialists have had such a hard time improving our methods based on our science: our science

has been giving us empirical information that violates its own empirical assumptions.

When mindfulness and its elements are no longer assessed as normative analytic

abstractions but instead are examined as dynamic unfolding processes that apply to particular
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 12

people, we find what our wisdom traditions have always known: Mindfulness is a multi-element

skill that you exemplify in context over time. It is the entire set of interrelated skills that matters,

and the context in which they are applied.

In the next section we will explore the rapidly developing but still very young science of

idionomic analysis and how modern empirical methods are validating ancient wisdom. Most

especially, we believe these methods provide a pathway forward to expand the science and

practice of mindfulness methods for the good of all.

Why Idionomic Analysis Matters: The Example of Self-Compassion

Many scholars consider self-compassion to be the natural result of mindfulness skills

(Germer, 2009) and vice versa (e.g., Neff & Dahm, 2015), and research confirms that these skill

sets are highly interrelated (e.g., Hollis-Walker, & Colosimo, 2011; Voci, Veneziani, & Fuochi,

2019). In our research team we have begun studying self-compassion as a dynamic unfolding

process. What we have found is profoundly worrisome. Despite the overwhelming reports that

compassion towards oneself is conducive to psychological well-being (e.g., Marsh, Chan, &

MacBeth, 2018; Phillips & Hine, 2021; Sirois, Kitner, & Hirsch, 2015; Zessin Dickhäuser, &

Garbade, 2015), an idionomic analytical perspective requires that we remain open to the

possibility that the experience of compassion for some individuals may substantially deviate

from the nomothetic effect. The psychological impact of self-compassion may differ across

person, context, and time (Ferrari, Ciarrochi, Yap, Sahdra, & Hayes, 2022). For instance,

compassion towards the self can be experienced as incompatible with compassion towards others

in the daily lives of some people. Such low self-other harmony in compassion may impact the

wellbeing of the individuals differently than the overall nomothetic positive effects of self- and

other-directed compassion on wellbeing reported in the literature.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 13

In a recent experience sampling study of transdiagnostic patients, the researchers

examined the extent to which moment-to-moment self-compassion was associated with

compassion towards others, life-satisfaction, and mood (Sahdra et al., 2023). Consistent with

prior research, the researchers found that the moment-to-moment experiences of self-compassion

and compassion towards others were generally in harmony for most participants in the sample,

though there was substantial heterogeneity in these within-person positive associations. When

the two forms of compassion were in disharmony, the well-documented positive link between

compassion and wellbeing disappeared. That is, compassion was conducive for wellbeing in

moment-to-moment experiences of individuals, but only among those who also exhibited self-

other harmony in their moment-to-moment experiences of compassion.

We suspect that violations of ergodicity will be discovered in many studies as the field

becomes more comfortable at focusing more on the heterogeneity of the “fixed effects” rather

than treating the normative finding as the headline of any research study (e.g., see Sahdra,

Ciarrochi, Klimczak, et al., 2023, for systematic demonstration of violations of ergodicity and a

review of idionomic methods). Compassion is universally considered a virtue in almost all

traditions around the world, and self-compassion appears to be a common route to compassion

itself (Neff & Pommier, 2013). Yet, when examined under an idionomic microscope, the

dynamics of the moment-to-moment experiences of individuals tell us otherwise.

The heterogeneity of the mindfulness construct

We have already mentioned that in a spiritual context mindfulness skills are trained as

part of an overall ethical program that avoids selfishness and promotes prosociality. For instance,

various traditions of Buddhism have for millennia emphasized ethical conduct, including

prosocial behavior, as a crucial part of practicing mindfulness (e.g., Dalai Lama & Ekman,
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 14

2008). Buddhist mindfulness practices are meant to foster harmonious social relationships while

dampening the impact of “afflictive” states, such as selfishness, which are thought to be harmful

for the individual experiencing them and others related to them (Goleman, 2003). The ancient

practices of mindfulness were designed to minimize suppression of unwanted thoughts and

anxious clinging and highlight the importance of giving and receiving love (Sahdra & Shaver,

2013).

In modern secular contexts in the West, mindfulness interventions have proliferated in

diverse ways, forming an industry worth more than a billion dollars (Wieczner, 2016). Some

interventions focus almost exclusively on the mindfulness skills of focused attention, curiosity,

non-judgmental awareness, and acceptance of the present-moment experience, while other

interventions teach these skills in conjunction with the cultivation of prosocial skills such as

empathy, warmheartedness, kindness towards others, and acting with compassion to relieve the

suffering of others (e.g., see Galante et al., 2014 for a review).

As the interest in mindfulness interventions in the West has grown exponentially,

especially over the past decade, there have been a plethora of theories of how mindfulness

benefits the person and their social world. These theories come from a growing number of

studies in behavioral, cognitive, and neuroscientific literatures, and we provide only a small

sample here. The proposed mechanism by which mindfulness skills bring about wellbeing and

prosociality benefits include:

• sustained focused attentional capacity (MacLean et al., 2010) and sustained

capacity of response inhibition promoting adaptive personal and inter-personal

functioning (Sahdra et al., 2011);

• greater response flexibility and contextual awareness (Hayes, 2019);

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 15

• greater awareness of bodily sensations (e.g., Vago & Silbersweigh, 2021), as

evident by increased activity in the insula, a brain region implicated in

interoceptive awareness (Farb et al., 2007) and processing others’ emotional

experiences (Singer, Critchley & Precuschoff, 2009);

• greater capacity to regulate one’s own emotional states such that personal distress

related to others’ suffering has a less inhibiting effect on compassionate behavior

(Berry & Brown, 2017; Condon, 2017);

• greater capacity to act in accordance with one’s values and more autonomous

forms of motivation (Donald et al., 2019; Hayes, 2019; Ryan, Donald &

Bradshaw, 2021);

• greater capacity to experience prosocial emotions such as gratitude and

lovingkindness, and fewer negative emotions such as anger that interfere with

harmonious social relationships (e.g., Fredrickson, et al., 2008), an argument that

is supported by studies showing that meditators, relative to non-meditators, are

more likely to show the activation of brain networks linked with prosocial

emotions (Lutz et al., 2008);

• greater capacity of nonattachment, letting go of unhelpful clinging to rigid

fixations about the self and others (Sahdra, Ciarochi, & Parker, 2016), which is

linked with observable prosocial behavior (Sahdra, Ciarrochi, Parker, Marshall, &

Heaven, 2015);

• increased tendency to support deontic retribution for third-party injustice (Kay,

Masters-Waage, Reb & Vlachos, 2023); and

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 16

• reduced intergroup bias and internalized bias, and increased anti-bias towards

outgroups (Chang, Donald, Whitney, Miao, & Sahdra, 2023).

The diversity of potential pathways from mindfulness to prosocial behavior discussed

above implies that no pathway may be universally significant for linking mindfulness to

prosociality for all people in all situations. For instance, a meta-analysis shows that there is an

overall positive pooled effect of mindfulness linked to prosocial behavior but there is substantial

heterogeneity associated with that pooled effect (Donald, Sahdra, Van Zanden, Duineveld,

Atkins, et al., 2019). Similarly, a recent meta-analysis of mindfulness linked with improved

intergroup bias revealed a moderate level of between-study heterogeneity (Chang et al., 2023).

But the variation of the overall effect across studies may be only a tip of the iceberg of the

psychological heterogeneity of the nomothetic effect. Different potential mechanisms of

mindfulness likely function differently in the dynamics of the everyday lives of different people.

Despite that awareness there is often an implicit assumption lurking that any given

pathway from mindfulness to a mechanism (e.g., nonattachment) to outcomes such as wellbeing

and compassionate behavior would function in the same direction for everyone, even if the

strength of those connections (effect size) differs for different people. As far as we are aware, no

large empirical study has explicitly tested this psychological-homogeneity assumption by

examining mindfulness within persons over time in a nexus of relevant variables that are

hypothesized to play a ‘causal’ role in bringing about the personal and interpersonal benefits of

mindfulness. Many of these variables could be co-occurring and some could be more essential or

invariant than others, but that very issue needs to be examined in a way that allows the

idiosyncratic interactions to be modelled. Intensive within-person data are needed to examine the

functional links between mindfulness, potential mechanisms, wellbeing, and compassionate

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 17

action in an idionomic fashion. In this chapter we will examine some early attempts to move in

that direction.

People can be mindful in different ways. One way in which researchers have tried to

examine such differences is by using mixture modeling/mixed modeling or latent profile analysis

of the different aspects of mindfulness. Although profile analysis falls under nomothetic

approaches, it is regarded as more of a person-centered method relative to other nomothetic

approaches, which are variable-centered. Strictly speaking, however, the distinction between

variable-centered and person-centered approaches does not make latent profile analysis an

idionomic approach. Profile analysis is not a bottom-up approach of arriving at the group-level

insights only if it improves the understanding of specific individuals. Rather, profile analysis

aims to identify clusters of individuals whose response patterns are similar on a given set of

variables (hence the method remains nomothetic). Still, mixture modeling begins to open us to

the idea that an overall single nomothetic effect (e.g., scoring high on all aspects of mindfulness

is linked to high wellbeing), however ‘robust’ in statistical models, can be a misleading

representation of reality, which often consists of diversity of experiences.

Examining such diversity in people’s experiences of mindfulness, one study attempted to

disentangle the quantity and quality of mindfulness in latent profiles and tested their links with

mental health and life effectiveness (Sahdra et al., 2017). To separate the level and shape effects

in profiles, they used a combination of bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling and

latent profile analysis. They also tested the impact of including nonattachment in the set of

variables used to identify profiles on the nature of profiles. In a highly conservative test, they

sought to see if profile membership added value in predicting mental health and life
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 18

effectiveness, above and beyond a purely variable-centered approach of using the scale scores of

mindfulness and nonattachment. It did.

Consistent with prior research on profiles of mindfulness (Pearson, Lawless, Brown, &

Bravo, 2015), Sahdra et al. (2017) identified a judgmentally observing profile and a non-

judgmentally aware group; but inconsistent with prior research, they did not find profiles that

showed high or low levels on all specific aspects of mindfulness as measured by the FMMQ.

Adding nonattachment improved the clarity of profiles but did not alter their shape. When testing

the unique predictive utility of profile membership, above and beyond the scale scores of the

variable, the judgmentally observing profile, compared to other profiles, showed the highest

levels of mental ill-health, but also the highest levels of life satisfaction and effectiveness. Those

“mindful” individuals got things done and were happy with their lives, despite showing signs of

mental ill-health. Mindfulness is almost synonymous with “non-judgmental awareness” in both

the scientific literature and the general public’s understanding of the nomothetic concept. When

most people think of a mindful person, they do not automatically conjure a caricature of a

judgmental person. But that is part of the experience of being mindful for some people, as

measured by the FFMQ.

Idionomic Analysis: An Empirical Demonstration

We are arguing that the analysis of mindfulness processes will be more progressive and

surer footed if nested within an idionomic approach. That approach is new enough and different

enough to warrant an extended example so that others might explore its possible benefits. We

used an experience-sampling archival data set (Sanford, Ciarrochi, Hofmann, Chin, Gates, &

Hayes, 2022) to perform network analysis on the day-to-day links between indices of

mindfulness and other processes and negative affective experiences. For the purposes of this
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 19

demonstration, we focused on the five processes that showed the strongest link to negative affect

in previous publications (Ciarrochi et al., 2022).

Participants were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (“mTurk”) service, both to

maximize the potential pool of eligible participants and to secure a diverse sample in terms of

age, gender, and nationality. The sample was 44 (18 female, 26 male), with a mean age of 33.8

(SD=13.03). Data were collected twice daily, across 35 days. All items were completed using a

0–100 visual analog “finger swipe” scales to discourage anchoring.

The main process assessment was the Process Based Assessment Tool (PBAT; Ciarrochi

et al., 2022). The PBAT is not a scale but instead is a collection of 18 items focused on variation,

selection, and retention processes across a variety of psychological dimensions, as well as

sociocultural and biophysiological domains. The stem for each item in this study was “Over the

past 12 hours” and the response anchors were 0 = Strongly Disagree and 100 = Strongly Agree.

We used the top five items that were group-level predictors of negative affect in past research

(Ciarrochi et al., 2022). These items included our proxy for a core mindfulness skill – “I was

struggling to connect with the moments of my day-to-day life.” In the evolutionary model, this is

a form of selection focused on the yearning for orientation. The four additional items focused on

“stuck and unable to change (lack of variation)”, “struggling to keep doing something that was

important (lack of retention)”; “having no outlet for feelings (selection: yearning to feel)”, and

“thinking helped my life (selection: Yearning for coherence).” For a detailed discussion of these

items and their link to theory see Ciarrochi et al. (2022).

We assessed negative functioning using the Screening Tool for Psychological Distress

(Stop-D; Young et al., 2007, 2015). This five-item tool asks, “how much have you been bothered

by” four areas: Sadness - “Feeling sad, down, or uninterested in life?”; Anxiety - “Feeling
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 20

anxious or nervous?”; Stress - “Feeling stressed?”; Anger - “Feeling angry?”; and Perceived lack

of social support - “Not having the social support you need?” (alpha = .90). because it produces

similar observed correlations with a well-validated life satisfaction scale on self-reported

happiness, physical health, and mental health.

Turning to analysis, our focus was twofold: 1) examine the extent that our mindfulness

item linked to within-person changes in negative functioning and 2) identify the extent that this

relationship varied from person to person. Idionomic analysis begins with the individual, rather

than group level averages, so we sought to estimate the strength of relationship between

mindfulness and negative functioning for each person using Autoregressive Integrated Moving

Average (ARIMAX) analysis to deal with the time series data (see Ciarrochi, Sahdra, Hayes, &

Hofmann, n. d. for details). This procedure produced an effect size estimate (Beta) and standard

error for each individual which we then submitted to meta-analytic analyses. This allows us to

apply well-understood standards regarding when it is appropriate to pool data from a collection

of studies to the issue of when it is appropriate to pool data from a collection of people.

Meta-analytic results revealed a highly reliable pooled effect (Beta = .25, SE=.042, 95%

CI[.16,.33]), indicating that low mindfulness was generally associated with higher negative

functioning. However, an I2 of .88 suggested extremely high variability and the Q test for

heterogeneity was highly significant, Q = 366, p< .0001. Figure 1 below illustrates both the mean

value (triangle on x axis) and variability of effects. Many values are significantly positive

(shown when confidence interval (+-1.96SD) for positive beta values don’t cross 0), but a

significant number are either non-significant or significantly negative (the latter shown when

error bars for negative beta values don’t cross 0).

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 21

Figure 1: The strength of relationship between low mindfulness and negative affect

broken down by individual

To put this variability into context, in meta-analyses I2 represents the percentage of total

variability across studies that is due to true heterogeneity rather than mere random variation or

“chance.” Rough guidelines for interpreting I2 in the meta-analytic literature are that values less
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 22

than 25% reflect low inconsistency, 25% to 50% reflects moderate inconsistency, 50 to 75%

reflects high inconsistency, and over 75% shows very high inconsistency. Thus, this finding

represents very high inconsistency and suggests that averages should not be used.

Process-based approaches focus not just on individual variables but on the role of

variables in a wider network of processes and aspects of context. In a network, it may be that as

some processes exert weaker influence, other processes may become more impactful and thus we

examined whether when mindfulness was having little impact on some people, other processes

were more paramount. To explore these differences, we divided the sample into two based on the

above idiographic analysis: those for whom mindfulness and negative affect did not occur at the

same time (Group 1; below median relationship) and those for whom they did (Group 2; above

median relationship).

We then performed the ARIMAX procedure described above on the other four process

variables: “stuck unable to change”, “struggling to keep doing something that was important”;

“having no outlet for feelings”, and “thinking helped my life.” The results of these analyses are

summarized in Table 1. The use of both significant (p<.05) and marginally significant (p<.10)

addresses the common criticism about the over-reliance on p-value cut-offs in psychology. By

considering both levels, the general pattern of results is more evident, which may be less obvious

with a strict p<.05 cutoff. Importantly, the two levels are clearly distinguished, reducing the risk

of misinterpretation. Looking at the low-impact group, we see that mindfulness is modestly

positive 2 times (green; linked in expected positive ways to mindfulness) and negative four times

(red; linked in unexpected negative way), and neutral the other times. In contrast, “stuck” is

positive (significant and in expected direction) nine times and “persist” is positive 7 times and

negative once. These appear to be more reliable drivers of change for this group than
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 23

mindfulness. In contrast, the high-impact group appears to be generally influenced by all the

processes, though again, there are important exceptions, and mindfulness certainly is more

important for some than others. Even though many other processes are involved, we hypothesize

that it would be more effective to focus on mindfulness among those in the high positive impact

group compared to those in the low group. To the low-impact group, we hypothesize that it is

best to focus on more behavioral processes such as feeling stuck and failing to persist at

something -- processes that are likely beneficial to at least 50% of the group, whereas

mindfulness is not.
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 24

Table 1: Link between daily processes and daily negative affect within person

Mindfulness had low positive impact Mindfulness had moderate to high positive impact
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 25
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 26

Note: Mindl = struggled to connect with the moments of my day-to-day life; Stuck=stuck unable to change; Persist = Struggled to
keep doing something that was important; Feel = no outlet for feelings; Cog—thinking helped my life
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 27

Table 1 clearly indicates that even within the two groups, there is a substantial amount of

heterogeneity. We recognize this constraint but still sought to make some nomothetic

generalizations about the two separate groups whilst still advising caution in overinterpreting the

mean averages. A notable improvement from past research is that we have taken the step of

creating groups based on idiographic and bottom-up type analyses.

We examined the interconnectedness between processes and negative affect, using multi-

level vector autoregression (Moulder et al., 2022) on six time series, namely, the five processes

and negative affect in daily life. We used mlVAR package in R to estimate the lagged and

contemporaneous network model for both samples (Epskamp, Deserno, Bringmann, & Veenman,

n.d.). MlVAR is able to simultaneously model reciprocal linkages between dynamic processes

and facilitates the understanding of highly complex interactions within a unified framework (Li

et al., 2022; Moulder et al., 2022). This data-driven approach can be used to explore the within-

person dynamics and allows for and explores autoregressive and bidirectional associations

between variables at the within-person level.

Contemporaneous relationships involve the within-person link between processes and

outcomes moment-to-moment. Figure 2 presents the contemporaneous networks for the low

impact (LI) and moderate to high impact (MI) groups. The LI network contains no direct link

with mindfulness but does involve a direct link between struggling to persist at something

important and negative affect. This link is not present in the MI group. In the MI group there is a

link between not having an outlet for feelings and negative affect, but this link does not occur in

the LI group. In addition, effective thinking (reversed scored) is central to processes in the MI

group but not the LI group. Note that this pattern of findings does not mean that mindfulness is
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 28

irrelevant to the LI group. Careful examination of the network suggests that mindfulness may

have indirect effects through its impact on struggling to persist.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 29

Figure 2: The estimated fixed effects of the contemporaneous network structures obtained in multilevel VAR for both the

idiographically identified groups.

Group 1: Mindfulness had low positive impact Group 2: Mindfulness had moderate to high positive impact
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 30

Note: Green links indicate positive relationships between negative processes and negative affect. Mindl=struggled to connect with the

moments of my day to day life; Stuck=stuck unable to change; Persist = Struggled to keep doing something that was important;

Feel=no outlet for feelings; Cog=thinking helped my life; Naff=negative affect

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 31

In terms of overall themes, the role of mindfulness, thinking, and outlets for feelings are

dominant in MI participants: each of those variables have the maximum of five contemporaneous

links to them, along with being stuck and unable to change. In the LI group, the only variable

with this kind of centrality (5 relations) was being stuck and unable to change. As it relates to

negative affect, mindfulness plays only an indirect role for LI, linking with more behavioral

indices of being stuck and failing to persist, and these behavioral indices, in turn, link directly to

negative affect.

The lag network relationships are presented in Figure 3. Because there are lagged

relations, directionality can now be modeled. Here we see that the groups again differ. For

example, feeling stuck has a larger impact on later thinking in the MI group compared to the LI

group. They do share some things in common. Feeling stuck and unable to change predicted later

low levels of mindfulness and persistence in both groups.

It is important to understand what can and cannot be inferred from contemporaneous and

a lagged network analysis. If a variable predicts another variable at a lag over and above auto-

regression, then this indicates that such a variable might be an antecedent or even have a causal

relation to the later-in-time variable. However, if there is no relationship between variables in the

lag network, this does not mean that there is no temporal or causal relationship between the

variables. It is possible that the length of the lag is simply too short or too long, for instance. If

mindfulness has an immediate negative effect, then a lag of three hours may miss this effect;

likewise, purely contemporaneous relations might show a lagged relation if temporal units were

smaller.
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 32

Figure 3: The estimated fixed effects of the lagged network structures obtained in multilevel VAR for both the ideographically

identified co-occurring and non-co-occurring participants.

Group 1: Mindfulness had low positive impact Group 2: Mindfulness had moderate to high positive impact
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 33

Note: Mindl=struggled to connect with the moments of my day to day life; Stuck=stuck unable to change; Persist=Struggled to keep

doing something that was important; Feel=no outlet for feelings; Cog=thinking helped my life; Naff=negative affect
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 34

This preliminary set of findings begins to suggest that mindfulness may not have the

same psychological meaning to people or the same psychological consequences depending on the

context of other processes that are idiographically present or absent. Mindfulness appears to be

much more central and influential for those in the LI group as compared to the MI group, where

its impact on negative affect is indirect and through relatively behavioral processes.

There is a growing list of idionomic and network approaches and what has been shared

here is more by way of documenting the need and possible benefits of changing our analytic

strategies than it is to present a turn-key solution of the problem of ergodicity. Furthermore,

however it is accomplished, we consider this kind of network identification of different process

profiles and patterns to be only step one in a multistep pragmatic process (Ciarrochi et al., 2021;

Hayes et al., 2019, 2022). The next step involves using those profiles to personalized therapy by

targeting specific nodes or relations in the network. That research has begun (e.g., Ong, Hayes, &

Hofmann, 2022) but it is in its infancy.

The field will need far more research in both areas. To support step one, we will need to

gather very large samples of people reporting mindfulness and other processes in an intensive

longitudinal context. This may allow us to identify characteristic profiles – considering them

useful if and only if they increase idiographic fit. In step two, we evaluate whether the

knowledge of these idionomic networks and the profiles and patterns they may reveal will

contribute to the relevance and impact of an intervention. Stated simply, does a personalized

intervention based on this statistical knowledge improve outcomes over and above a generic

intervention?
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 35

Conclusion

Mindfulness research began with broad hypotheses such as “Mindfulness reduces stress”

or “Mindfulness drives well-being.” As research has evolved, we as a field have begun to think

more in terms of individual heterogeneity, but the hypotheses still appear to be linear and fairly

general, such as “more mindfulness will lead to more well-being for some.”

As our process focus becomes more nuanced, we need to think in terms of networks of

process relations. For example, a person who is focused on psychological flexibility might

suppose that mindfulness skills should be deployed in service of greater emotional and cognitive

flexibility, or in the service of deeply held values such as an increased ability to care for others.

Other people who are focused on reducing unhelpful physiological arousal might use

mindfulness interventions to increase parasympathetic activity and increase awareness of

sympathetic activations.

That kind of network thinking is progressive, but it cannot be reliably done purely

nomothetically. Average processes are not processes at all, and average networks do not escape

the requirement of ergodicity to be applied with confidence to individuals. We will need a more

bottom-up change in our measures and research methods to truly understand how mindfulness

skills impact people’s lives.

This sensitivity is timely because as mindfulness methods are being widely implemented

in the west, we are beginning to see such aberrations as selfish mindfulness or self-centered self-

compassion. These iatrogenic effects may have been intuitively avoided in the wisdom traditions

at least to some extent, but evidence-based psychological interventions will need to do so another

way. Idionomic analysis suggests that poor outcomes can be avoided by considering the larger
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 36

network of processes that are needed for mindfulness skills to be deployed in a positive way

given an individual’s goals.

Incorporating mindfulness skills into evidence-based care is a positive thing, but how we

do it differs from the spiritual and religious traditions that have developed over thousands of

years. As empirical clinicians, we need to learn to be wiser and to deploy these skills in a way

that makes them safe for individuals and for cultures. Every individual matters in such a journey,

and so skills and aspirations of the unique individuals we work with must be measured, modeled,

and understood in a way that allows their unique voices to be heard.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 37

Authors’ Note

Dr. Hofmann receives financial support by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (as

part of the Alexander von Humboldt Professur) and the Hessische Ministerium für Wissenschaft

und Kunst (as part of the LOEWE Spitzenprofessur). Dr. Sanford is funded by NIH Institutional

Postdoctoral Training Grant NIH-T32-HL144470

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 38

References

Altgassen, E., Geiger, M., & Wilhelm, O. (2023; in press). Do you mind a closer look? A jingle-

jangle fallacy perspective on mindfulness. European Journal of Personality. Doi:

10.1177/08902070231174575

Ashley, S. (2015). Ergodic theory plays a key role in multiple fields. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 112(7), 1914-1914.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The

Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment, 11, 191-206.

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, 27-45.

Berry, D. R., & Brown, K. W. (2017). Reducing separateness with presence: How mindfulness

catalyzes intergroup prosociality. In Mindfulness in social psychology (pp. 153-166).

Routledge.

Birkhoff, G. D. (1931). Proof of the ergodic theorem. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences, 17(12), 656-660.

Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., ... & Devins, G.

(2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science

and Practice, 11, 230-241.

Boltzmann, L. (1884). Ueber eine von Hrn. Bartoli entdeckte Beziehung der Wärmestrahlung

zum zweiten Hauptsatze. Annalen der Physik, 258(5), 31-39.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in

psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822-848.

Carpenter, J. K., Conroy, K., Gomez, A. F., Curren, L. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2019). The

Relationship between trait mindfulness and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis of the

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 39

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Clinical Psychology Review, 74, 101785.

Doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101785

Chang, D. F., Donald, J., Whitney, J., Miao, I., & Sahdra, B. K. (2023). Does mindfulness

improve intergroup bias, internalized bias, and anti-bias outcomes? A meta-analysis of

the evidence and agenda for future research. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. .

doi: 10.1177/01461672231178518. Online ahead of print.

Ciarrochi, J., Hayes, S. C., Oades, L. G., & Hofmann, S. G. (2021). Toward a Unified

Framework for Positive Psychology Interventions: Evidence-Based Processes of Change

in Coaching, Prevention, and Training. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 809362.

Ciarrochi, J., Sahdra, B. K., Hayes, S. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (n.d.). A personalised-approach to

identifying important determinants of well-being. Osf.io. https://osf.io/m4zhw/download

Ciarrochi, J., Sahdra, B., Hofmann, S. G., & Hayes, S. C. (2022). Developing an item pool to

assess processes of change in psychological interventions: The Process-Based

Assessment Tool (PBAT). Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 23, 200–213.

Condon, P. (2017). Mindfulness, compassion, and prosocial behaviour. In J. C. Karremans & E.

K. Papies (Eds.). Mindfulness in social psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.

Dimidjian, S., & Linehan, M. M. (2003). Defining an agenda for future research on the clinical

application of mindfulness practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 166-

171.

Donald, J. N., Sahdra, B. K., Van Zanden, B., Johannes Duineveld, J., Atkins, P. W. B.,

Marshall, S., & Ciarrochi, J. (2019). Does your mindfulness benefit others? A Systematic

Review and Meta-analysis of the Link between Mindfulness and Prosocial Behavior.

British Journal of Psychology, 110, 101-125. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12338.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 40

Epskamp, S., Deserno, M., Bringmann, L., Veenman, M. (n.d.). mlVAR: Multi-Level Vector

Autoregression (Version 0.5.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=mlVAR

Farb, N. A. S., Segal, Z. V., Mayberg, H., Bean, J., Mckeon, D., Fatima, Z., & Anderson, A. K.

(2007). Attending to the present: Mindfulness meditation reveals distinct neural modes of

self-reference. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 2, 313–322. Doi:

10.1093/scan/ nsm030

Ferrari, M., Ciarrochi, J., Yap, K., Sahdra, B., & Hayes, S. C. (2022). Embracing the complexity

of our inner worlds: Understanding the dynamics of self-compassion and self-criticism.

Mindfulness, 13(7), 1652-1661.

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts

build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build

consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,

1045–1062. Doi: 10. 1037/a0013262

Fredrickson, B. L., Cohn, M. A., Coffey, K. A., Pek, J., & Finkel, S. M. (2008). Open hearts

build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build

consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95,

1045–1062. Doi: 10. 1037/a0013262

Galante, J., Galante, I., Bekkers, M.-J., & Gallacher, J. (2014). Effect of kindness-based

meditation on health and well-being: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 1101–1114. Doi: 10.1037/a0037249

Germer, C. (2009). The mindful path to self-compassion: Freeing yourself from destructive

thoughts and emotions. Guilford Press.

Goleman, D. (2003). Destructive emotions. New York, NY: Bantam.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 41

Harrington, A., & Dunne, J. D. (2015). When mindfulness is therapy: Ethical qualms, historical

perspectives. American Psychologist, 70(7), 621–631. Doi: 10.1037/a0039460

Hayes, S. C. (2004). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and the new behavior therapies:

Mindfulness, acceptance and relationship. In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, & M. Linehan

(Eds.), Mindfulness and acceptance: Expanding the cognitive behavioral tradition (pp. 1-

29). New York: Guilford.

Hayes, S. C. (2019). A liberated mind: How to pivot toward what matters. New York:

Penguin/Avery.

Hayes, S. C., Ciarrochi, J., Hofmann, S. G., Chin, F., & Sahdra, B. (2022). Evolving an

idionomic approach to processes of change: Towards a unified personalized science of

human improvement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 156, 104155.

Hayes, S. C., Hofmann, S. G., Stanton, C. E., Carpenter, J. K., Sanford, B. T., Curtiss, J. E., &

Ciarrochi, J. (2019). The role of the individual in the coming era of process-based

therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 117, 40–53.

Hayes, S. C. & Wilson, K. G. (2003). Mindfulness: Method and process. Clinical Psychology:

Science and Practice, 10, 161-165. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/bpg018

Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based

therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and

Clinical Psychology, 78, 169-183. doi: 10.1037/a0018555

Hollis-Walker, L., & Colosimo, K. (2011). Mindfulness, self-compassion, and happiness in non-

meditators: A theoretical and empirical examination. Personality and Individual

differences, 50(2), 222-227.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 42

Hyland, T. (2015) McMindfulness in the workplace: Vocational learning and the

commodification of the present moment. Journal of Vocational Education & Training,

67(2), 219-234. DOI: 10.1080/13636820.2015.1022871

Kay, A. A., Masters-Waage, T. C., Reb, J., & Vlachos, P. A. (2023). Mindfully outraged:

Mindfulness increases deontic retribution for third-party injustice. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 176, 104249. Doi:

10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104249

Khoury, B., Lecomte, T., Fortin, G., Masse, M., Therien, P., Bouchard, V., Chapleau, M.-A.,

Paquin, K., & Hofmann, S. G. (2013). Mindfulness-based therapy: A comprehensive

meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 33, 763-771. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2013.05.005

Kurien, P. (2006). Multiculturalism and American religion: The case of Hindu Indian Americans.

Social Forces, 85 (2), 723–741. Doi: 10.1353/sof.2007.0015.

Li, Y., Wood, J., Ji, L., Chow, S.-M., & Oravecz, Z. (2022). Fitting Multilevel Vector

Autoregressive Models in Stan, JAGS, and Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 29(3), 452–475.

Lutz, A., Brefczynski-Lewis, J., Johnstone, T., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Regulation of the

neural circuitry of emotion by compassion meditation: Effects of meditative expertise.

PLoS ONE, 3, e1897. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0001897.

MacLean, K. A., Ferrer, E., Aichele, S. R., Bridwell, D. A., Zanesco , A. P., Jacobs, T. L., King,

B. G., Rosenberg, E. L., Sahdra, B. K., Shaver, P. R., Wallace B. A., Mangun, G. R., &

Saron, C. D. (2010). Intensive meditation training leads to improvements in perceptual

discrimination and sustained attention. Psychological Science, 21, 829-839, DOI:

10.1177/0956797610371339.
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 43

Marsh, I. C., Chan, S. W., & MacBeth, A. (2018). Self-compassion and psychological distress in

adolescents—a meta-analysis. Mindfulness, 9, 1011-1027.

Molenaar, P. C. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person

back into scientific psychology, this time forever. Measurement, 2(4), 201-218.

Molenaar, P. C. (2013). On the necessity to use person-specific data analysis approaches in

psychology. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10(1), 29-39.

Moulder, R. G., Duran, N. D., & D’Mello, S. K. (2022). Assessing Multimodal Dynamics in

Multi-Party Collaborative Interactions with Multi-Level Vector Autoregression.

Proceedings of the 2022 International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, 615–625.

Neff, K. D., & Dahm, K. A. (2015). Self-compassion: What it is, what it does, and how it relates

to mindfulness. Handbook of mindfulness and self-regulation, 121-137.

Neff, K. D., & Pommier, E. (2013). The relationship between self-compassion and other-focused

concern among college undergraduates, community adults, and practicing meditators. Self

and identity, 12(2), 160-176.

von Neumann, J. (1932). Proof of the quasi-ergodic hypothesis. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences, 18(1), 70-82.

Ong, C. W., Hayes, S. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2022). A process-based approach to cognitive

behavioral therapy: A theory-based case illustration. Frontiers in Psychology, 13,

1002849. Doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1002849

Pearson, M. R., Lawless, A. K., Brown, D. B., & Bravo, A. J. (2015). Mindfulness and emotional

outcomes: Identifying subgroups of college students using latent profile analysis.

Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 33–38. Doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.009.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 44

Phillips, W. J., & Hine, D. W. (2021). Self-compassion, physical health, and health behaviour: A

meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 15(1), 113-139.Sahdra, B. K., & Shaver, P. R.,

(2013). Comparing attachment theory and Buddhist psychology. International Journal for

the Psychology of Religion, 23, 282-293, DOI: 10.1080/10508619.2013.795821.

Ryan, R. M., Donald, J. N., & Bradshaw, E. L. (2021). Mindfulness and motivation: A process

view using Self-Determination Theory. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 30(4), 300–306. DOI:10.1177/09637214211009511

Sahdra, B. K., Ciarrochi, J., Klimczak, K., Krafft, J., Hayes, S. C., & Levin, M. (2023). Doing

What Matters: A Review of Idionomic Methods for Examining the Heterogeneity of

Valued-Action and Affect in Daily Life. PsyArXiv Preprint.

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/jd3af

Sahdra, B. K., Ciarrochi, J., & Parker, P. D. (2016). Nonattachment and mindfulness: Related but

distinct constructs. Psychological Assessment, 28(7), 819-829. DOI:

10.1037/pas0000264.

Sahdra, B. K., Ciarrochi, J., Ferrari, M., Yap, K., Haller, E., Hayes, S. C., Hofmann, S. G., &

Gloster, A. T. (2023). The compassion balance: Understanding the interrelation of self-

and other- compassion for optimal well-being. Mindfulness, 14.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-023-02187-4.

Sahdra, B. K., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P. D., Basarkod, G., Bradshaw, E. L., and Baer, R. (2017)

Are people mindful in different ways? Disentangling the quantity and quality of

mindfulness in latent profiles and exploring their links to mental health and life

effectiveness. European Journal of Personality, 31, 347– 365. doi: 10.1002/per.2108.

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 45

Sahdra, B. K., Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Marshall, S. & Heaven, P. (2015). Empathy and

nonattachment independently predict peer nominations of prosocial behaviour of

adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 263. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00263.

Sahdra, B. K., MacLean, K. A., Shaver, P. R., Ferrer, E., Jacobs, T. L., Rosenberg, E., Zanesco,

A., Aichele, S., King, B., Saron, C. D., Bridwell, D., Lavy, S., & Wallace, B. A. (2011).

Enhanced response inhibition enhanced by intensive meditation training predicts

improved adaptive socio-emotional functioning. Emotion, 11, 299-312, DOI:

10.1037/a0022764.

Sanford, B. T., Ciarrochi, J., Hofmann, S. G., Chin, F., Gates, K. M., & Hayes, S. C. (2022).

Toward empirical process-based case conceptualization: An idionomic network

examination of the process-based assessment tool. Journal of Contextual Behavioral

Science, 25, 10–25.

Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness.

Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 373–386.

Shonin, E., Van Gordon, W., & Singh, N. N. (Eds.). (2015). Buddhist foundations of mindfulness.

Zurich: Springer.

Singer, T., Critchley, H. D., & Preuschoff, K. (2009). A common role of insula in feelings,

empathy and uncertainty. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13, 334–340. Doi: 10.1016/j.tics.

2009.05.001

Sirois, F. M., Kitner, R., & Hirsch, J. K. (2015). Self-compassion, affect, and health-promoting

behaviors. Health Psychology, 34(6), 661.

Szabo, T. G., Long, D. M., Villatte, M., & Hayes, S. C. (2015). Mindfulness in contextual

cognitive behavioral models. Chapter in K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, & R. M. Ryan

A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 46

(Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 130-147). New

York: Guilford Press.

Tenzen Gyatzo (Dalai Lama XIV), & Ekman, P. (2008). Emotional awareness: Overcoming the

obstacles to psychological balance and compassion. New York, NY: Times Books.

Trammel, R. C. (2017). Tracing the roots of mindfulness: Transcendence in Buddhism and

Christianity. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work: Social Thought, 36(3),

367-383.

Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-

transcendence (S- ART): A framework for understanding the neurobiological

mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 1–30. Doi:

10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296

Voci, A., Veneziani, C. A., & Fuochi, G. (2019). Relating mindfulness, heartfulness, and

psychological well-being: The role of self-compassion and gratitude. Mindfulness, 10,

339-351.

Wieczner, J. (2016). Meditation has become a billion-dollar business. Fortune. Retrieved from

http://fortune.com/2016/03/12/meditation-mindfulness-apps/

Young, Q. R., Ignaszewski, A., Fofonoff, D., & Kaan, A. (2007). Brief screen to identify 5 of the

most common forms of psychosocial distress in cardiac patients: validation of the

screening tool for psychological distress. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 22(6), 525-

534.

Young, Q. R., Nguyen, M., Roth, S., Broadberry, A., & Mackay, M. H. (2015). Single-item

measures for depression and anxiety: Validation of the Screening Tool for Psychological
A Process-Based Idionomic Approach 47

Distress in an inpatient cardiology setting. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing,

14(6), 544-551.

Zessin, U., Dickhäuser, O., & Garbade, S. (2015). The relationship between self‐compassion and

well‐being: A meta‐analysis. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 7(3), 340-364.