Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/251342922

APreliminaryInvestigationoftheRelationshipsBetweenDispositionalMindfulnessandImpulsivity

ARTICLEinMINDFULNESS·DECEMBER2011

ImpactFactor:3.69·DOI:10.1007/s12671-011-0065-2

CITATIONS

13

READS

243

5AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

JessicaRPeters

AlpertMedicalSchool-BrownUniversity

24PUBLICATIONS115CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

ShannonMErisman

ButlerHospital

6PUBLICATIONS217CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

RuthBaer

UniversityofKentucky

110PUBLICATIONS6,564CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

LizabethRoemer

UniversityofMassachusettsBoston

86PUBLICATIONS4,255CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:JessicaRPeters

Retrievedon:21October2015

ORIGINAL PAPER

A Preliminary Investigation of the RelationshipsBetween Dispositional Mindfulness and Impulsivity

Jessica R. Peters & Shannon M. Erisman &

Brian T. Upton & Ruth A. Baer & Lizabeth Roemer

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract Two studies examined the correlational relation-ships between self-reported mindfulness and impulsivity insamples of 347 and 227 university students. Usingmultidimensional measures of both mindfulness and impul-sivity, results from both studies indicate that several aspectsof mindfulness are negatively correlated with elements ofimpulsivity, even after controlling for trait-level negativeaffect in Study 1 and current general distress in Study 2.However, the relationships between different facets ofmindfulness and types of impulsivity varied in strengthand significance level. These results suggest that mindful-ness skills may be related to the ability to refrain frommaladaptive impulsive behavior in the presence of negativeaffect or distress and that specific mindfulness skills may bemost helpful in addressing different types of impulsivebehaviors.

Keywords Mindfulness . Impulsivity. Negative urgency.

Negative affect . Distress . Perseverance

Introduction

Impulsivity has been conceptualized in numerous ways.One model based on medical, physiological, behavioral,and social theories proposes that impulsiveness is com-prised of three higher-order factors, including motor

impulsiveness (the tendency to act on the spur of themoment and without perseverance), attentional impulsive-ness (the tendency to make quick cognitive decisions andthe lack of ability to focus on the tasks at hand), andnonplanning (the tendency to act without consideration offuture consequences; Barratt 1993; Patton et al. 1995). Analternative conceptualization based on the five-factor modelof personality (FFM; McCrae and Costa 1990) suggests thatimpulsive behavior may be the result of several indepen-dent behavioral pathways that correspond to distinctpersonality facets in the FFM (Whiteside and Lynam2001). These pathways include urgency (rash action inresponse to emotion), lack of premeditation, lack ofperseverance, and sensation seeking (the tendency toenjoy exciting or dangerous activities). Maladaptiveimpulsive behavior is part of the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition(DSM-IV) criteria for many psychological disorders,including borderline personality disorder (BPD), bulimianervosa, binge eating disorder, and substance use disorders.The trait-level tendency to engage in impulsive behaviorpredicts poor outcomes in multiple domains (Bagge et al.2004; Bornovalova et al. 2005; Young 2005), suggesting thatreduction of impulsive behavior may be an important goalfor clinical interventions.

Mindfulness-based interventions appear to be useful fortreating a range of disorders, including those in whichimpulsive behavior is a significant component. For exam-ple, mindfulness training is a central element of dialecticalbehavior therapy (DBT; Linehan 1993). Research hasdemonstrated the efficacy of DBT in treating disorderscharacterized by impulsivity, including BPD, substance use,and eating disorders (Dimeff and Koerner 2007; Lynch etal. 2007; Robins and Chapman 2004). Although mindful-ness has been defined in several ways, most authors agree

J. R. Peters (*) :B. T. Upton : R. A. BaerDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky,Lexington, KY 40508, USAe-mail: jrpeters@gmail.com

J. R. Peters : S. M. Erisman : L. RoemerDepartment of Psychology, University of Massachusetts Boston,Boston, MA 02125, USA

MindfulnessDOI 10.1007/s12671-011-0065-2

that it includes nonjudgmental and nonreactive observationof present-moment experiences, such as bodily sensations,cognitions, and emotional states, as well as external stimulisuch as sights and sounds. Mindfulness is often contrastedwith behaving automatically and without awareness ofone’s actions. Some conceptualizations include the abilityto label or describe experiences with words as an elementof mindfulness.

Mindfulness skills may reduce impulsivity in severalways. Improving awareness of internal experiences mayfacilitate monitoring of impulses and reduction of impulsivebehaviors, which are characterized by a lack of reflectionand thoughtful intention. No research to date has directlyexamined this possibility. However, Wingrove and Bond(1997) found that a self-report measure of state impulsivitywas negatively correlated with behavioral impulsivity on acircle-tracing task when the state measure was administereddirectly prior to the behavioral one. The authors theorizethat the awareness of state impulsivity prompted by theself-report measure may have led to correcting forimpulsiveness during the behavioral task, suggesting thatsimply being made aware of one’s impulsive tendenciescould allow for greater control of them.

Mindfulness may also help to reduce impulsivitythrough the reduction of experiential avoidance, whichcan be defined as unwillingness to remain in contact withdistressing internal experiences (Chapman et al. 2006).Experiential avoidance includes efforts to alter the form orfrequency of internal events (thoughts and feelings) andoften takes the form of impulsive acts that function as waysof escaping aversive cognitions and emotions throughmeans such as substance abuse, self-harm, or binge eating,among others (Hayes et al. 1996). Mindfulness trainingpromotes nonjudgmental and nonreactive acceptance ofunpleasant internal experiences and therefore should reducethe tendency to act impulsively in order to escape or avoidthem.

Despite the increasingly common application of mind-fulness skills training to treat dysfunctional impulsivity andgrowing support for theoretical links between the twoconstructs, few studies have explored the direct connectionbetween mindfulness and impulsivity. Wupperman et al.(2008) found that in social problem-solving situations, acomposite variable of passive and impulsive emotionregulation styles was negatively associated with mindful-ness in a non-clinical population. However, no research todate has directly examined the relationship between self-reported mindfulness and trait-level impulsivity. Therefore,the present two studies examined this relationship usingmultifaceted measures of both mindfulness and impulsivity.The first study used an impulsivity measure based onBarratt’s conceptualization of impulsiveness, whereas thesecond used a measure of the facets of impulsivity

identified by Whiteside and Lynam (2001) and Lynam etal. (2007, unpublished technical report). Because mindful-ness and impulsivity have previously been shown to beassociated with negative affect, we examined whetherrelationships between mindfulness and impulsivity aresignificant after controlling for trait-level negative affectiv-ity (Study 1) and general distress (Study 2). Significantfindings would suggest that mindfulness may be useful inreducing impulsive behavior regardless of the extent towhich negative affect or psychological distress is present.

Study 1

In the first study, we predicted that self-reported mindful-ness would be negatively correlated with trait-level impul-sivity and that controlling for negative affect would reduce,but not eliminate, these relationships.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 347 members (206 female, 136 male, fiveunreported) of the University of Massachusetts Bostoncommunity (students, faculty, and staff) who completedquestionnaire packets consisting of a number of self-reportmeasures, only some of which were relevant to the presentstudy (listed below; see Measures). Participants ranged inage from 18 to 65 years with a mean age of 23.73 years(SD=7.66). The participants’ self-identified racial back-grounds were as follows—49.3% White, 16.1% Black,13.3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 8.4% Multiracial, 4.9%Latino and 4.9% Other, with 3.2% not reporting race.Participants received either class credit or monetarycompensation ($5.00) for their participation.

Measures

Impulsiveness was assessed using the Barratt ImpulsivenessScale (BIS-11; Patton et al. 1995), a 30-item measurecomprised of three factors: motor impulsiveness (e.g., “I acton impulse,” “I act without thinking,” “I change jobs”),attentional impulsiveness (e.g., “I don’t pay attention,” “Iam restless at plays and lectures,” “I have racingthoughts”), and nonplanning impulsiveness (e.g., “I saythings without thinking,” “I am more interested in thepresent than the future”). Items are rated using a four-point Likert-style scale (1=rarely/never, 4=almost al-ways/always). The BIS-11 total score demonstrates goodinternal consistency in a variety of populations, includingundergraduates (α=0.82) and general psychiatric patients

Mindfulness

(α=0.83). Total BIS-11 scores are strongly correlated withother self-report measures of dysfunctional impulsivityincluding the Narrow Impulsiveness factor on the EysneckImpulsiveness Questionnaire (Eysneck and Eysneck 1977)and the factor of Dysfunctional Impulsivity on the DickmanImpulsiveness Scale (Dickman 1990).

Two items were removed from the BIS-11 scale in thepresent study in order to improve internal consistency of thesubscales. The item “I am future oriented” demonstrated acorrelation of only 0.01 with the motor impulsivity subscale inthe present sample. Removing it improved the Cronbach’salpha of this subscale from 0.69 to 0.72. Similarly, theitem “I am more interested in the present than the future”had a correlation of −0.03 with the nonplanning subscaleand removing that item increased Cronbach’s alpha forthis factor from 0.68 to 0.71. All of the attentionalimpulsivity subscale items demonstrated correlations withthe factor of 0.78 or greater, and this subscale hadadequate internal consistency in the present sample (α=0.73). The BIS total score also had good internalconsistency in the present sample (α=0.82).

Mindfulness was assessed using two measures: theMindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brownand Ryan 2003) and the Five Facet Mindfulness Question-naire (FFMQ; Baer et al. 2006). The MAAS is a single-factor, 15-item measure of the tendency to engage inpresent-oriented attention and awareness. Participants rateitems using a six-point Likert scale (1=almost always, 6=almost never). Items include statements such as: “I findmyself doing things without paying attention” and “I breakor spill things because of carelessness, not paying attention,or thinking of something else.” In previous research, theMAAS demonstrated strong convergent and discriminantvalidity (Brown and Ryan 2003; Baer et al. 2006). MAASscores have been found to be significantly higher insubjects experienced in mindfulness practice as comparedwith matched community controls. In the present study, theMAAS demonstrated good internal consistency (α=0.88).

The FFMQ is a 39-item measure based on factoranalyses of several independently developed mindfulnessquestionnaires. It assesses five facets of mindfulness:observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudgingof inner experience, and nonreactivity to inner experience.The observing subscale (eight items) measures the ability toobserve one’s inner experiences and responses to stimuli (e.g., “I pay attention to how my emotions affect my thoughtsand behavior.”). The describing facet (eight items) assessesthe ability to put words to one’s thoughts and feelings (e.g.,“I’m good at finding words to describe my feelings.”). Theacting with awareness facet (eight items) measures thetendency to make conscious and deliberate actions asopposed to functioning automatically and without thoughtor reflection (e.g., “It seems I am “running on automatic”

without much awareness of what I’m doing.” reversescored). The nonjudging facet (eight items) measures thetendency to accept one’s inner state as opposed to judgingthoughts and emotions as good or bad (e.g., “I tell myself Ishouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling.” reverse scored).The nonreactivity subscale (seven items) assesses thetendency to process emotionally provocative stimuli with-out reacting (e.g., “When I have distressing thoughts orimages, I am able just to notice them without reacting.”).Respondents use a five-point Likert-style scale (1= Neveror very rarely true, 5=Very often or always true) to ratehow well each item describes themselves. Previous workshows significant correlations for most of the facets withvariables predicted to be related to mindfulness. Howev-er, the observing facet has shown an inconsistent patternof convergent correlations (Baer et al. 2006). In thepresent study, the facets demonstrated adequate to goodinternal consistency (observing, α=0.80; describing, α=0.86; acting with awareness, α=0.85; nonjudging, α=0.84; nonreactivity, α=0.74).

Negative affectivity was measured using the ten-itemnegative affect subscale from the Positive and NegativeAffect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al. 1988). Respondentsrate their experiences of negative affect (NA) on a five-point Likert-style scale (1=very slightly, 5=extremely).Examples include “distressed,” “ashamed,” “hostile,” and“nervous.” Multiple time frames can be used with thisinstrument; in the present study, participants were asked torate their experiences of negative mood “in general,” thusproviding a measure of trait-level negative affect. Inprevious research, NA scores have shown strong positivecorrelations with self-report measures of distress, dysfunc-tion, and depression symptoms (Watson et al. 1988). TheNA scale of the PANAS demonstrated good internalconsistency in this sample (α=0.89).

Results

Analyses and Data Transformation

The results were analyzed using SPSS 18.0. Pearsoncorrelations were computed among the trait impulsivityscores (BIS-11) and the mindfulness measures (MAASand FFMQ). Partial correlations were computed betweenimpulsivity and mindfulness measures while controllingfor NA. All data were screened for skewness andkurtosis in order to test assumptions of normality(Tabachnick and Fidell 2000). The PANAS-NA variablewas skewed and corrected using square root transforma-tion. Due to the number of correlations and the samplesize, correlations were considered significant at a p valueof less than 0.01.

Mindfulness

Descriptive Statistics for Mindfulness, Impulsiveness,and Negative Affect Measures

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for the BIS-11 (totalscore and subscales), MAAS, FFMQ subscales, andPANAS-NA subscale (untransformed). Correlations of allvariables with the PANAS-NA score also are shown.Negative affect was significantly and negatively correlatedwith all mindfulness variables except the observing facet ofthe FFMQ and significant positively correlated with allimpulsivity variables.

Associations Between Mindfulness and ImpulsivityMeasures

Zero-order correlations were computed to examine therelationships among mindfulness and impulsivity variables.All mindfulness facets except the observing scale wereexpected to be negatively correlated with the impulsivityscores. However, because a negative association betweenmindfulness and impulsivity could be attributed to relation-ships with negative affect, the more important question waswhether correlations remained significant after controllingfor PANAS-NA scores. Both zero-order and partial corre-lations are shown in Table 2.

At the zero-order level, nearly all correlations betweenmindfulness and impulsivity were negative and significant,as expected. Exceptions were seen for the nonreactivityfacet of mindfulness, which was unrelated to attentional ormotor impulsivity, and for the nonjudging facet, which wasunrelated to nonplanning impulsivity. The observing facetshowed inconsistent relationships with the impulsivity

measures. When correlations were recomputed controllingfor trait-level negative affect, most remained significant,although the magnitude of the correlations was somewhatreduced. However, the correlations between impulsivity andthe nonjudging facet of mindfulness were no longersignificant after controlling for negative affect.

Discussion

As predicted, the zero-order correlations revealed signifi-cant negative relationships among most of the mindfulnessand impulsivity scales. Many of these remained significantafter controlling for negative affect; however, the correla-tions for nonjudging were no longer significant. Therelationships between mindfulness, impulsivity, and nega-tive affect varied somewhat across different facets ofimpulsiveness and mindfulness.

Consistent with previous research (Baer et al. 2008; Baeret al. 2006), the observing facet of the FFMQ appears tofunction differently from the other facets in predictingnegative outcomes. Not only did it produce the smallestcorrelations with impulsivity, but it was the sole facet notsignificantly associated with negative affect. Baer et al.(2006) proposed that in populations untrained in mindful-ness meditation, observing can assess mindful attention butcan also measure a type of attention that is ruminative,reactive, and judgmental, and therefore inconsistent withmindfulness. Accordingly, it tends to show a mixed patternof relationships with other variables. In the present study,observing was significantly negatively correlated withnonplanning impulsivity, suggesting that observing internaland external stimuli may reduce the tendency to respondimpulsively to them.

Of the mindfulness measures, the MAAS and theacting with awareness facet of the FFMQ had the strongestzero-order correlations with impulsivity. The relationshipsamong these constructs were somewhat reduced whencontrolling for negative affect, but all remained signifi-cant. These relationships may be a function of overlap inthe way mindfulness and impulsivity are operationalizedin these scales. The attentional impulsiveness subscale ofthe BIS-11 has items (“I don’t pay attention” and “I oftenhave extraneous thoughts when thinking”) that are similarto items in the acting with awareness facet of the FFMQand the MAAS (“It seems I am ‘running on automatic’without much awareness of what I’m doing.” “I rushthrough activities without being really attentive to them.”and “I find myself doing things without paying atten-tion.”). Despite these similarities, the correlations aremoderate, suggesting that impulsivity and mindfulness asconceptualized in these ways are overlapping yet distinctconcepts.

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, and correlations with negativeaffect for study 1 variables (N=374)

Measure Mean SD r with PANAS-NA

BIS total 60.23 10.76 0.39*

Attentional impulsivity 17.11 4.32 0.42*

Motor impulsivity 21.08 4.88 0.28*

Nonplanning impulsivity 21.99 4.79 0.20*

MAAS 57.65 13.13 −0.40*FFMQ scales

Observing 25.02 6.18 0.05

Describing 27.37 6.03 −0.23*Acting with Awareness 26.48 5.84 −0.40*Nonjudging 26.72 5.85 −0.39*Nonreactivity 20.71 4.43 −0.18*

BIS total Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Total Impulsiveness score,MAAS Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale, PANAS-NA Positiveand Negative Affect Scale Negative Affect Subscale

*p<0.01

Mindfulness

The describing facet of the FFMQ also showedsignificant negative relationships with impulsivity scores,suggesting that clearly identifying and labeling one’sinternal experiences may facilitate the ability to respondto them in non-impulsive ways. After controlling fornegative affect, the nonreactivity facet showed a moderaterelationship with nonplanning impulsivity, suggesting thatallowing one’s internal experiences to come and go mayfacilitate non-impulsive behavior. However, the nonreactiv-ity facet did not show strong relationships with the otherimpulsivity subscales. The nonjudging facet of the FFMQno longer demonstrated significant relationships withimpulsivity scores after controlling for negative affect. Thisfinding suggests that the relationship between nonjudgingand impulsivity is largely attributable to overlap withnegative affect.

Study 2

The primary goal of Study 2 was to examine relationshipsbetween mindfulness and impulsivity using an alternativemeasure of impulsivity. The Urgency, Premeditation, Per-severance, Sensation Seeking scale (UPPS-P; Lynam et al.2007, unpublished technical report) assesses behavioralpathways to impulsivity identified by Whiteside and Lynam(2001) and Lynam et al. (2007, unpublished technicalreport). While two of the UPPS-P subscales (premeditationand perseverance) overlap in part with how impulsivity isoperationalized in the BIS-11, the UPPS-P also assessesother forms of impulsivity, including the tendency to seekout stimulation and the tendency for rash action in thepresence of both positive and negative emotion. Given thatthese types of impulsivity are related to psychologicaldysfunction and that mindfulness predicts psychologicalsymptoms, it is important to determine whether relation-ships between mindfulness and impulsivity are independent

of the occurrence of psychological symptoms such asdepression, anxiety, and stress. Therefore, this studycontrolled for current severity of these symptoms. It waspredicted that the mindfulness measures, with the exceptionof the observing facet of the FFMQ, would be negativelycorrelated with the impulsivity measures and that currentgeneral distress would correlate positively with the UPPS-Pscales and negatively with the FFMQ facets (except forobserving). It was also predicted that controlling for currentgeneral distress would reduce but not eliminate thesignificant relationships between mindfulness and impul-sivity variables.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 227 psychology students (151 female, 76male) at the University of Kentucky who completedquestionnaire packets including a number of self-reportmeasures, only some of which were relevant to the presentstudy (listed below; see Measures). Participants ranged inage from 18 to 25 years with a mean age of 19.01 years(SD=1.11). The racial backgrounds self-identified byparticipants were as follows—84.3% White, 7.8% Black,4.3% Latino, 2.6% Asian, and 0.9% Other, with 0.9% notreporting race. Participants received class credit for theirparticipation.

Measures

Mindfulness was assessed using the FFMQ, as in Study 1.Impulsivity was measured using the UPPS-P (Lynam et al.2007, unpublished technical report), which includes 59items and assesses five distinct personality pathways toimpulsive behavior. The negative urgency subscale assesses

Table 2 Zero-order and partial correlations (controlling for negative affect) between mindfulness and impulsivity scores in study 1 (N=374)

BIS-11 total Attentional impulsivity Motor impulsivity Nonplanning impulsivity

MAAS −0.46* (−0.39*) −0.47* (−0.40*) −0.37* (−0.28*) −0.23* (−0.19*)FFMQ scales

Observe −0.14 (−0.17*) −0.07 (−0.10) 0.03 (0.02) −0.27* (−0.29*)Describe −0.43* (−0.37*) −0.37* (−0.30*) −0.21* (−0.14) −0.41* (−0.38*)Act aware −0.54* (−0.44*) −0.57* (−0.50*) −0.39* (−0.28*) −0.22* (−0.22*)Nonjudge −0.22* (−0.08) −0.22* (−0.11) −0.27* (−0.12) 0.01 (0.04)

Nonreact −0.22* (−0.18*) −0.13 (−0.08) −0.03 (0.03) −0.33* (−0.32*)

Partial correlations are in parentheses

BIS total Barratt Impulsiveness Scale Total Impulsiveness score, MAAS Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale, FFMQ Five Facet MindfulnessQuestionnaire

*p<0.01

Mindfulness

the tendency to give in to strong impulses in the presence ofnegative emotion by engaging in rash behavior that maylater be regretted. The perseverance subscale assesses theability to persist in tasks or obligations despite boredomand/or fatigue. The premeditation subscale assesses thetendency to think through the consequences of behaviorbefore acting. The sensation seeking subscale assessespreference for stimulation and excitement. The positiveurgency subscale assesses the tendency to give in toimpulses to engage in rash behavior when experiencinghigh levels of positive affect. The UPPS-P is scored on afour-point Likert-style scale (1=agree strongly, 4=disagreestrongly). Some items are reverse scored so that high scoresrepresent higher levels of impulsivity. Internal consistencyis good to excellent for all of the subscales in previousresearch (Whiteside et al. 2005; Cyders and Smith 2010)and in the present study: perseverance (α=0.90), premed-itation (α=0.85), sensation seeking (α=0.82), negativeurgency (α=0.88), positive urgency (α=0.94).

Current general distress wasmeasured using the DepressionAnxiety Stress Scales (DASS; Lovibond and Lovibond 1993),a 42-item measure of levels of negative affect and bodilysymptoms over the last week. It provides subscale scores fordepression, anxiety, and stress, as well as a total score. Thescales have shown strong correlations with other measures ofanxiety and depression (Lovibond and Lovibond 1995). Thepresent study used the total score as a control for currentgeneral distress. Internal consistency was excellent for thetotal score in the present sample (α=0.96).

Results

Analyses and Data Transformation

The results were analyzed using SPSS 18.0. We computedPearson correlations among the subscales of the impulsivitymeasure (UPPS-P) and the mindfulness measure (FFMQ),as well as partial correlations among impulsivity andmindfulness scales while controlling for current generaldistress (DASS). Because of the large sample size andnumber of correlations examined, only those with p values<.01 were considered significant. All data were screenedfor skewness and kurtosis in order to test assumptions ofnormality (Tabachnick and Fidell 2000). The data did notviolate assumptions of normality, so no transformationswere performed.

Descriptive Statistics for Measures of Mindfulness,Impulsiveness, and Current General Distress

Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the UPPS-Pand FFMQ subscales and the DASS total score. Correla-

tions between all variables and the DASS also are shown.Current general distress was significantly positively corre-lated with all UPPS-P factors except for sensation seeking.Current general distress also was significantly negativelycorrelated with four of the five mindfulness facets (all butobserving).

Associations Between Mindfulness and ImpulsivityMeasures

Zero-order correlations were computed to examine therelationships among mindfulness and impulsivity variables.All mindfulness facets except the observing scale wereexpected to be negatively correlated with the impulsivityscores. However, because a negative association betweenmindfulness and impulsivity could be attributed to relation-ships with distress, the more important question waswhether correlations remained significant after controllingfor DASS scores. Both zero-order and partial correlationsare shown in Table 4. At the zero-order level, correlationsbetween mindfulness and impulsivity were mixed. Asexpected, correlations for the observing facet were eithernonsignificant or positive. Of the UPPS-P scales, negativeurgency and lack of perseverance were the most consis-tently associated with FFMQ scales, each demonstratingsignificant negative correlations (as expected) with three ofthe mindfulness facets. Both were significantly correlatedwith the acting with awareness and nonjudging facets,whereas negative urgency was correlated with nonreactivityand lack of perseverance with describing. Positive urgencywas significantly negatively correlated with the acting with

Table 3 Means, standard deviations, and correlations with currentgeneral distress for study 2 variables (N=227)

Measure Mean SD r with DASS

UPPS-P scales

Negative urgency 29.03 7.37 0.39*

Positive urgency 27.93 9.58 0.37*

(Lack of) perseverance 20.06 5.65 0.27*

(Lack of) premeditation 23.10 5.40 0.18*

Sensation seeking 35.54 7.53 −0.07FFMQ scales

Observing 24.04 5.80 0.14

Describing 26.06 6.37 −0.21*Acting with awareness 25.55 5.80 −0.41*Nonjudging 27.03 6.92 −0.52*Nonreactivity 19.58 4.15 −0.26*

Partial correlations are in parentheses

UPPS-P Urgency, Premeditation, Perseverance, Sensation SeekingScale, FFMQ Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire

*p<0.01

Mindfulness

awareness and nonjudging facets. Lack of premeditationwas significantly correlated only with the nonreactivityfacet. The sensation seeking scale was significantlycorrelated only with the observing facet of mindfulness.As previously noted, this correlation was positive.

When controlling for current general distress, mostcorrelations were somewhat reduced in magnitude; howev-er, the pattern of significance was changed only for positiveurgency, for which correlations with acting with awarenessand nonjudging became nonsignificant.

Study 2 Discussion

As expected, the zero-order correlations revealed a number ofsignificant negative relationships between the mindfulnessand impulsivity factors. Also as expected, the observing facetshowed positive or nonsignificant correlations with impul-sivity and current general distress. This pattern of results isconsistent with Study 1 and provides further support for theprevious findings that in non-meditating populations, theobserving facet may be interpreted in ways that are notconsistent with mindfulness. This underscores the impor-tance of the quality of awareness when conceptualizingmindfulness, rather than simply awareness itself.

At both the zero-order level and after controlling forgeneral distress, the most consistent relationships betweenimpulsivity and mindfulness facets were seen for negativeurgency and lack of perseverance, suggesting that thetendency to act rashly in response to strong negativeemotions and the inability to persevere with importantbehavior in the face of discomfort may be related to deficitsin mindfulness. Both of these types of impulsivity involvedysfunctional responses to ongoing discomfort, so it ispossible that mindful responses to discomfort, particularlyawareness of the discomfort and acceptance or nonjudg-ment of it, may facilitate less impulsivity of these types.These findings suggest that mindfulness facets relatedifferentially to forms of impulsivity and that eachmindfulness facet has significant, unique relationships withaspects of impulsivity beyond the shared variance withcurrent general distress.

These results are also consistent with previous findings insuggesting that impulsivity, as operationalized by the UPPS-P,is a heterogeneous construct. When controlling for generaldistress, the sensation seeking, positive urgency, and lack ofpremeditation scales showed only limited relationships withmindfulness facets, whereas negative urgency and lack ofperseverance showed stronger and more consistent relation-ships. These findings suggest that mindfulness skills may beparticularly helpful in addressing these types of impulsivebehavior and that the most relevant mindfulness skills mayvary, depending on the type(s) of impulsivity observed.

General Discussion

As predicted, these two studies both demonstrated negativerelationships between many facets of mindfulness andimpulsivity. These correlations varied in magnitude and inthe extent to which they shared variance with trait-levelnegative affect or current general distress. The acting withawareness component of mindfulness had some of thestrongest relationships to impulsivity, and these correlationsgenerally persisted independently of trait-level negativeaffect or current general distress. These findings suggestthat increased awareness of ongoing activity may promotebetter regulation of behavior even when negative affect ordistress is present. The nonjudging facet of mindfulnessmay also contribute to reduced negative urgency andincreased perseverance, and the nonreactivity facet maycontribute to reduced negative urgency and increasedpremeditation. This would be consistent with previoustheoretical work suggesting that mindfulness reducesimpulsive behavior via improved awareness and acceptanceof ongoing emotion (Chapman et al. 2006).

A limitation of the present studies is the use of self-report methods to measure both impulsivity and mindful-ness, which assumes the ability of individuals to report onthese phenomena. The inclusion of other types of measures,such as behavioral tasks that assess aspects of impulsivity,might capture variance not assessed by self-report. Behav-ioral and self-report measures of impulsivity, while eachpredictive of dysfunction (Bornovalova et al. 2005), are not

Table 4 Zero-order and partial correlations (controlling for current general distress) between mindfulness and impulsivity scores in study 2 (N=227)

Negative urgency Positive urgency (Lack of) perseverance (Lack of) premeditation Sensation seeking

Observe 0.15 (0.08) 0.21* (0.16) 0.11 (0.08) 0.11 (0.05) 0.28* (0.23*)

Describe −0.13 (−0.05) −0.13 (−0.01) −0.27* (0.21*) −0.07 (−0.02) 0.13 (0.12)

Act aware −0.36* (−0.25*) −0.25* (−0.14) −0.45* (−0.40*) −0.14 (−0.12) −0.05 (−0.10)Nonjudge −0.41* (−0.24*) −0.28* (−0.08) −0.31* (−0.19*) −0.14 (−0.08) 0.01 (−0.01)Nonreact −0.27* (−0.19*) −0.15 (−0.04) −0.17 (−0.08) −0.27* (−0.19*) 0.18 (0.18)

*p<0.01

Mindfulness

always correlated (Dom et al. 2007; Reynolds et al. 2006),suggesting that comprehensive study of the relationshipsbetween mindfulness and impulsivity should include bothbehavioral and self-report measures.

Future research should examine relationships betweenmindfulness and impulsivity in broader samples, includingcommunity, experienced meditation and clinical samples. It isalso important to test causal relationships between mindful-ness and impulsivity by investigating the effects of mindful-ness training on individuals’ impulsivity levels, particularlyfor those with initially high levels of impulsivity.

In conclusion, these results generally support our predic-tions that self-reported dispositional mindfulness is negativelycorrelated with self-reported impulsive behavior. Many ofthese correlations, while reduced in strength, remainedsignificant after controlling for negative affect or currentgeneral distress, suggesting that mindfulness skills maycontribute to reduced impulsivity when negative affect ispresent. These findings may help to explain how treatmentslike DBT, which include training in mindfulness skills, effectchange in individuals with disorders characterized by mal-adaptive impulsive behavior. Given that different facets ofmindfulness demonstrated varying relations to the impulsivitysubscales and to negative affect and distress, focusing onincreasing certain aspects of mindfulness may be particularlybeneficial, depending on the type of impulsive behaviors andemotional difficulties presented.

References

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets ofmindfulness. Assessment, 13, 27–45.

Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J.,Sauer, S., et al. (2008). Construct validity of the five-facetmindfulness questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditatingsamples. Assessment, 15, 329–342.

Bagge, C., Nickell, A., Stepp, S., Durrett, C., Jackson, K., & Trull, T. J.(2004). Borderline personality disorder features predict negativeoutcomes 2 years later. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 279–288.

Barratt, E. S. (1993). Impulsivity: Integrating cognitive, behavior-al, biological and environmental data. In: McCowan, W.,Johnson, J. & Shure, M. The impulsive client: theory,research, and treatment. Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Bornovalova, M. A., Lejuez, C. W., Daughters, S. B., ZacharyRosenthal, M., & Lynch, T. R. (2005). Impulsivity as a commonprocess across borderline personality and substance use disor-ders. Clinical Psychology Review, 25, 790–812.

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present:Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.

Chapman, A. L., Gratz, K. L., & Brown, M. Z. (2006). Solving thepuzzle of deliberate self-harm: The experiential avoidance model.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 371–394.

Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2010). Longitudinal validation of theurgency traits over the first year of college. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 92, 63–69.

Dickman, S. J. (1990). Functional and dysfunctional impulsivity:Personality and cognitive correlates. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 58, 95–102.

Dimeff, L. A., & Koerner, K. (Eds.). (2007). Dialectical behaviortherapy in clinical practice: Applications across disorders andsettings. New York: Guilford.

Dom, G., De Wilde, B., Hulstijn, W., & Sabbe, B. (2007). Dimensionsof impulsive behaviour in abstinent alcoholics. Personality andIndividual Differences, 42, 465–476.

Eysneck, S. B., & Eysneck, H. J. (1977). The place of impulsivenessin a dimensional system of personality description. The BritishJournal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 16, 57–68.

Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl,K. (1996). Experimental avoidance and behavioral disorders: Afunctional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152–1168.

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderlinepersonality disorder. New York: The Guilford Press.

Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1993). Manual for the depressionanxiety stress scales (DASS), Psychology Foundation Mono-graph. New South Wales: University of New South Wales.

Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negativeemotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety StressScales with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories.Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33, 335–343.

Lynam, D., Smith, G. T., Cyders, M. A., Fisher, S. & Whiteside, S. A.(2007). The UPPS-P: A multidimensional measure of risk forimpulsive behavior. Unpublished technical report.

Lynch, T. R., Trost, W. T., Salsman, N., & Linehan, M. M. (2007).Dialectical behavior therapy for borderline personality disorder.Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 3, 181–205.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1990). Personality in adulthood.New York: Guilford.

Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structureof the Barratt Impulsivity Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology,51, 768–774.

Reynolds, B., Ortengren, A., Richards, J. B., & de Wit, H. (2006).Dimensions of impulsive behavior: Personality and behavioralmeasures. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 305–315.

Robins, C. J., & Chapman, A. L. (2004). Dialectical behavior therapy:Current status, recent developments, and future directions.Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 73–89.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2000). Using multivariatestatistics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development andvalidation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: ThePANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,1063–1070.

Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The Five Factor Model andimpulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understandimpulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 669–689.

Whiteside, S. P., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Reynolds, S. K. (2005).Validation of the UPPS impulsive behaviour scale: A four-factormodel of impulsivity. European Journal of Personality, 19, 559–574.

Wingrove, J., & Bond, A. J. (1997). Impulsivity: A state as well as traitvariable. Does mood awareness explain low correlations betweentrait and behavioural measures of impulsivity? Personality andIndividual Differences, 22, 333–339.

Wupperman, P., Neumann, C. S., & Axelrod, S. R. (2008). Do deficitsin mindfulness underlie borderline personality features and coredifficulties? Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 466–482.

Young, S. (2005). Coping strategies used by adults with ADHD.Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 809–816.

Mindfulness