Yeganeh Bauback

5/14/2018 Yeganeh Bauback - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/yeganeh-bauback 1/127

Mindful Experiential Learning

by

Bauback Yeganeh

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Thesis Advisor: Dr. David A. Kolb

Department of Organizational Behavior

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

December, 2006



CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

We hereby approve the thesis/dissertation of

Bauback Yeganeh

candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree *.

(signed) David A. Kolb(chair of the committee)

Ronald E. Fry

Eric H. Neilsen

James E. Zull

________________________________________________

________________________________________________

(date) 10/31/06

*We also certify that written approval has been obtained for any proprietary

material contained therein.

vii



Copyright © by Bauback Yeganeh

All rights reserved

viii



Dedicated with love to my maternal Grandmother Fasiheh Manoochehri,

who taught me that peace and unconditional love are the wisest life values.

ix



TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………..…………..xi

List of Figures………………………………………………………………………………..xii

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….xiii

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………..xxiiIntroduction……………………………………………………………………………............1

1. Experiential Learning and Mindfulness..…………………………………………...............4

1.1 Research Focus………………………….……………………………………....................4

1.2 Research Objective………………………………………………………………….……..7

2. Mindfulness ………………………………………………………………...........................8

2.1 Meditative Mindfulness…………………………………………………………...............8

2.2 Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale………………………………………………...12

2.3. Social Psychological Mindfulness……………………………………………................17

2.4 Langer Mindfulness Scale…………………………………………………………..........21

2.5 Convergence and Divergence of Mindfulness Theories………………………..…..........23

2.6 A Definition of Mindfulness for Organizations……………………………….…………26

2.7 Hypothesized Points of Convergence on the LMS & MAAS……………………………293. Mindful Experiential Learning…...……………………………………………….……….31

3.1 Mindful Learning…………………………..………………………………….…............31

3.2 Experiential Learning Theory ……………………………………………….……..........33

3.3 Kolb Learning Style Inventory ……….………...………………………………..............39

3.4 Adaptive Style Inventory.………………………………………………..………............41

3.5 Mindful Experiential Learning…………………………………………………...............43

3.6 Hypothesized Relationship Between Mindfulness and Experiential Learning……….….47

4. Research Method………………………………………………………………..…...….....50

4.1 Research Questions and Hypotheses…..……………………………………...…….........50

4.2 Procedures……..……………………….………………………………………...............50

4.3 Demographics………………………..…...……………………………………………...51

4.4 Assessment Instruments…………………………………………………………….........52

5. Mindfulness Results…………………………………………………………….................57

5.1 Testing Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………....57

5.2 Langer Mindfulness Scale – Internal Consistency………………………………….........57

5.3 LMS and MAAS Dissertation Results……………………………………………...........60

5.4 LMS and MAAS Factor Analysis………………………………………………………..62

6. Mindfulness and Experiential Learning Results…………………………………….….....68

6.1 Testing Hypotheses……………………………………………………………………....68

6.2 Additional Findings……………………………………………………………………....70

6.3 Retesting for Gender Differences…………………………………………………...........71

7 Discussion & Conclusion.…………………………………………………………………74

7.1 Mindfulness and Experiential Learning……………………………………………….....807.2 Study Limitations and Future Research Implications…………………………………....91

7.3 A Revised Mindfulness Definition………………………………………………….........93

7.4 A Revised Experiential Learning Definition………………………………………..........94

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………..........95

References………………………………………………………………………….….........104

x



List of Tables

Table 1: Brown & Ryan (2003) MAAS Means, Standard Deviations, Factor

Loadings, and Item-Total Correlations

Table 2: Learning Flexibility Descriptive Statistics

Table 3: LMS and MAAS Descriptive Statistics

Table 4: LSI Variable Descriptive Statistics

Table 5: Correlations between EM7 items and the LMS Score Averaged over

Five Studies (Bodner, 2000)

Table 6: LMS Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix

Table 7: LMS Factor Correlation Matrix

Table 8: Mindfulness Pattern Matrix

Table 9: Mindfulness Factor Correlation Matrix

Table 10: LMS/MAAS Correlations

Table 11: Mindfulness as a Metacognitive Process

Table 12: Mindful Experiential Learning and a Sensory/Contextual Process

Table 13: LMS, MAAS, LSI Correlations Male

Table 14: LMS, MAAS, LSI Correlations Female

xi



List of Figures

Figure 1: Mindfulness Convergence Chart

Figure 2: Brain Functioning and ELT (Zull, 2002)

Figure 3: Mindfulness Convergence Chart Revisited

Figure 4: Revised Mindfulness Convergence Chart

Figure 5: Brain Functioning and ELT (Zull, 2002) Revisited

xii



ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The past four years have been rich with transition. As is the nature of transition,

especially when focused on a transformational program that so heavily impacts one’s

identity, I’ve had experiences that I’ve categorized with many labels; ranging from words

like “exhilaration” to “frustration”. However throughout my experiences in the Case

Western Reserve University Organizational Behavior Ph.D. program I was always sure I

was in the “right” place for me at the time. I feel truly fortunate to have been able to learn

in a variety of ways throughout the duration of my program. One of the things I have

learned most about is the power of relationships. My life has been exceptional over the

past several years because of the people who I have had the pleasure of calling friends,

mentors, colleagues, and family members. There are many people to thank and I would

like to take a moment to at least briefly acknowledge them.

Given that this is a dissertation, I will mention faculty first, followed by family

and friends. I first thank my dissertation advisor Professor David Kolb. His patience,

kindness, thoroughness, dedication of time, and sharp intelligence has been a gift. I have

always felt unconditional positive regard between us and his authenticity has been

precious not just through the dissertation process, but throughout my time as a Doctoral

student in the OB department. To build on Dave’s seminal work on Experiential

Learning Theory has been an honor and I will use mindful experiential learning as a

model to aspire to in life. I thank him for taking me on as his pupil and working with him

has been a perfect closing chapter to my Ph.D. experience.

I am also grateful to my dissertation committee members. To Professor Ron Fry

for signing on as my advisor when I first came to Case, serving graciously as my

xiii



qualifying research advisor/chair, and being in my corner ever since. Our work in

Thailand will never be forgotten and watching Appreciative Inquiry in action from a

master facilitator helped my growth tremendously. To dissertation committee member

Professor Eric Neilson, for a rigorous dedication to the field of Organizational Behavior

that transcends trends and popularity, and for offering helpful perspectives that I had not

considered. Thanks to dissertation committee member Professor Jim Zull, for sharing his

brilliance with me. Jim’s extensive knowledge of brain research contributed to a unique

Ph.D. experience and cannot go unnoticed.

I am very grateful to Professor David Cooperrider for connecting me to a world of

people interested in generative discourse, allowing me to dive head first into our Brazil

work, and for bringing me on board with the United Nations Global Compact Leaders

Summit. He mentored me into practicing Appreciative Inquiry rigorously, mindfully

even, and now I can distinguish high quality AI to my students and workshop

participants. As it is an honor to learn appreciative inquiry from David, it is equally an

honor to learn Emotional Intelligence from Professor Richard Boyatzis. I thank Richard

for always inviting me into learning conversations inside and out of class. Despite how

in demand his time is, he truly maintains an ethic of being available to students who want

to learn. I cannot thank Richard enough for supporting my personal and professional

development.

This next person is special indeed and his tutelage played a central role in the

completion of this thesis. Thank you to IS Ph.D. Candidate and friend Danail Ivanov for

being supremely generous with his time. I can’t think of another friend who would sit

with me through data pooling, factor analyses and correlations, all with the energy and

xiv



fascination of an a young superstar waiting to burst on the scene. I am forever grateful

and hope I can return the favor someday. Thank you to Teresa Kabat for working so hard

with me on the online survey at no charge. She went above and beyond her job to help

me.

I would like to make a special remark about our Organizational Behavior

Department Manager, Patricia Petty. Pat’s unparalleled kindness and management skills

are both admirable and touching. Whenever I felt cold and alone, a conversation with Pat

would shift my mindset and I cannot thank her enough for that. I have been consistently

baffled at how she manages to create a perceived seamless environment out of

turbulence.

Thank you to Professor Melvin Smith for always being in my corner. Despite his

intense workload and dedication, he always made time for me to have supportive

conversations. In a Ph.D. program, faculty like Melvin provide the kind of emotional

support that can make or break a student’s experience.

Thank you to other faculty: Professors Diana Billamoria, Sandy Piderit, Poppy

McLeod, and Suresh Srivastva. I have had the good fortune of working with these

Professors either as a student, a co-selection committee team member for incoming

students, or both and it has added to the richness of my experience here.

Thank you to Dr. Ilma Barros for some amazing learning opportunities in Brasil

and for a genuine friendship. Over the last four years I have also had the great fortune of

gaining wonderful Brasilian friends and colleagues in Enrique Santos, Vinicius and

Monica Gasparetto, and the whole BAWB Brasil team. In addition I am grateful to FIEP

xv



President Rodrigo Loures for his dedication to social change and the opportunities he has

provided to apply what I have been learning about change and learning in Brasil.

I would also like to thank Dr. Peter Senge for providing me with opportunities to

learn with him through the Society for Organizational Learning, namely on what was at

the time called the Intelligent Materials Pooling project. A high point moment for me was

our trip to Harley Davidson’s corporate university in Milwaukee where various private

sector leaders worked as part of a learning community that focused on environmentally

healthy business practices. It was great to watch Peter in action and there were all sorts

of rich learning opportunities throughout.

When it comes to family there is an easy first on my list. She represents an eternal

archetype of love in my life, my late maternal Grandmother Fassi Manoochehri. Though

I miss her dearly, I am very thankful to have had someone like her in my life to show me

what flourishing relationships feel like. It is truly a gift to understand the limitations of

the word “love”, where abstract labels no longer adequately represent the complexity of

what one feels for another. Such was the case between us. If in my life I can display a

small fraction of the loving acts that my Grandmother did in hers, I will consider myself

successful.

Next my thanks and love go to my maternal Grandmother’s immediate family, my

Great-Uncle Reza the wise and deep teacher, Great-Aunt Mahin-Joon the artist, and

loving caregiver, and Great-Aunt Aghdas Joon the sweet and dear angel. Man shoma rah

khaili dooset daram (I love you all very much). Next, although I never met my maternal

Grandfather before he passed, I am told that some of his traits have passed on to me (both

the “good” and the “bad”) and I feel gratitude towards him.

xvi



Special thanks and love to June Caldwell, a pioneer in social justice and

Organization Development consulting. June is to me as Godmothers are to theists

(clearly words do not explain everything clearly). She has been there for me since

toddler-hood and I am happy that I can continue to build on a field she helped start. As a

child I would listen in on intense conversations between June and my mom and from that

early socialization into learning conversations, critical predispositions were formed that

have since influenced many of the events culminating into this dissertation.

To the next generation: I thank my Mother, Shala Alavi for raising me and always

being there during times of need. Of course thanking my primary caregiver in a

Microsoft word file doesn’t do her justice because my life would be so different had she

not been a part of it. I hope to honor the work she did to open the initial doors of

opportunity for me. Also, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank my

Mom for all those stocking stuffers every Christmas (we used these 4 foot giant stockings

with our names on them). Thanks to my Uncle Siam for always being both a mentor and

one of the closest family members I have. When I think of him I think of sound life

advice and I also try to keep in mind what he teaches me about not taking life too

seriously/how illusory life can be. As long as he is willing to teach, I will be there to

soak in the lessons. Thank you to my Uncle Shayan and Uncle Sharam for their love,

support, and for being ever so interesting.

Immense thanks to Dr. Robin Yeganeh, talented clinical psychologist,

mindfulness therapy practitioner, and my twin brother, for helping with conversations,

revisions and being my best friend. His rigorous research and writing skills and sharp

xvii



eye helped the organization of my thesis tremendously. Regarding the topic, we have the

rest of our lives to try to master this stuff!

Next, in my experience at the American University, Masters of Science in

Organization Development program I found two mentors who changed my life. First I

must address one of the busiest and most talented people I know, Dr. Lennox Joseph.

Though I may not be the wide-eyed Masters student who first met him, I will always seek

his wise and exceptional mentorship. I am forever grateful to him for taking me under his

wing and teaching me the consulting ropes. I also thank Dr. Bob Marshak, who modeled

how to be powerful on the outside of the system, leverage intellect, have voice, publish

papers, and use it all for change. He has always kept time for me in his hectic schedule

and I will forever appreciate this.

I would like to express gratitude to University of Maryland

Industrial/Organizational Psychology Professor and brilliant researcher, Dr. Michele

Gelfand for always supporting me and having my best interests in mind. As a young

undergraduate student research assistant, her support enabled me to embrace a field of

study and relate it to a warm smiling face. These kinds of enablers are the ones that

gently guide us during life’s bifurcation points. I also thank University of Maryland

Industrial/Organizational Psychology Professor and GLOBE studies co-author Dr. Paul

Hanges for his consistent kindness and support during my undergrad research experience.

Also during my undergraduate experience I met my first mentor in organization

development, accomplished principal consultant, Michael Roblee. Michael guided me

with his expertise and has always been inviting, supportive, and affirming in my life. I

xviii



thank him for the life-long supportive dialogue he offers me and I look forward to

engaging with him as our paths continue to cross.

Eternal thanks to Dr. Bill Hale the healer. Bill has helped me learn about

transition, continuous change, letting go of illusion, the default patterns ingrained in our

minds, and how to change them. Learning from Bill may well have been the most life-

changing thing I have done during this journey in Cleveland and I am confident it is

where my most important and life-impacting growth has occurred.

I thank Dr. Jacquie McLemore and Jay Brinegar for being the best principal

consultants a guy could ever ask for. I experientially learn from them continuously as

they teach me how to grow both professionally and personally. It has been a pleasure

having them in my life and I look forward to our continued work together. I also thank

my colleague Rose Jonovich and her husband Greg for their unlimited generosity and

hospitality, and Liz Hutton for being such a great co-worker and friend.

To continue on the topic of colleagues whom I also consider friends, I would like

to mention my appreciation for OB Doctoral Candidate, colleague, and close friend

Darren Good for being a trusted partner in thinking, writing, and personal development. I

will remember our time spent together as one of the high points of my Ph.D. experience.

Our mindfulness qualifying (pre-dissertation) research together provided a rich

foundation that sparked much of my dissertation. Thanks to Darren’s wife Rachel for

creating such great environments to learn, have fun, and play with adorable baby Gracie

in.

xix



Thank you to OB Doctoral Candidate Ante Glavas for a deep friendship that will

last a lifetime. We have come very far since our synchronistic workshop meeting years

ago. I look forward to visiting Ante and Sandra – especially on the Croatian coast.

I appreciate OB Doctoral Candidate Claudy Jules for being a friend and my “OD

confidant”. Thanks to Jules for suggestions with my data gathering process and I hope

we continue to teach and learn together.

Good luck and best wishes to Ph.D. student colleagues Uri Gal, Meredith Myers,

Simy Joy, Ellen Van Oosten, Linda Ghazal, Lindsey Godwin, Duncan Coombe, Linda

Robson, Tim Ewing, Nurette Brenner and Allison Gunderson. In addition, I wish

happiness to all the other current organizational behavior doctoral students as well as

those to come!

Last but certainly not least, I would like to mention my “non-OB friends”.

Thanks to my best friend, Andrei McQuillan, for showing unconditional love since 1st

grade (except when you hit me with that wooden mixing spoon when I was 12, which I

still feel the psychological sting from) and being like our third twin (I guess his little

sister Lisa is alright too). Thank you to Dr. Omid Kiarash for being like family here in

Cleveland. Our meeting and subsequent friendship is a prime example of synchronicity in

the universe. I will always miss having a brother and one of my best friends just down

the hall from me. And most importantly, I thank Omid for providing me with a reason to

frequent Montreal in the years to come. Thank you to my cousin and one of my closest

friends Reza Zhargamee, Esquire who continues to impress us all. Deep thanks to

another one of my best friends Viq Hussain (you are one of the strongest people I know)

who I have enjoyed a growing friendship with over the last decade. Thank you to my

xx



younger cousins Fardaud and Farshin Yeganeh for allowing me to try my hand at

mentoring.

Finally, as this is a piece of work that reflects my values, I would like to express my

sorrow for all victims of organized violence across the world. Unfortunately in practice,

murder is only a relatively illegal crime. I refuse to contextualize and rationalize the

world’s differences to the degree that ruthless destruction of people makes sense. Doing

so is the ultimate mark of intellectual laziness. In mindlessness, one of the problems with

relying too heavily on preconceived categories is that we become less engaged in the

world around us and some would argue less human. If we try to 1) open our minds by

mindfully attending to the interconnectedness of life and 2) resist reifying socially

constructed labels that we identify with, perhaps the world will begin to heal. In his

book, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Gouldner (1970) writes:

“I think it is in the essential nature of background assumptions that they are not

originally adopted for instrumental reasons, the way, for example, one might select a

statistical test of significance or pick a screwdriver out of a tool kit. In short, they are

not selected with a calculated view to their utility. This is so because they are often

internalized in us long before the intellectual age of consent. They are affectively-

laden cognitive tools that are developed early in the course of our socialization into a

particular culture and are built deeply into our character structure.” (p. 32)

So long as people refuse to transcend ego-based claims, selective memory of past events

and over identification with a cause, they will have sustained cognitive filters to

rationalize war with. This goes for anyone and everyone, regardless of which "side" you

are on.

xxi



Mindful Experiential Learning

Abstract

By

Bauback Yeganeh

Although there is substantial research on mindfulness and experiential learning there has

been no effort to study how the two constructs relate to one another. This study explores

the relationship between mindfulness and experiential learning to develop a construct

called mindful experiential learning. It details two types of mindfulness research streams

and administers the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and the Langer

Mindfulness Scale (LMS) to measure the two approaches respectively as they relate to

experiential learning measured by the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI) and

adaptability of learning style as measured by Adaptive Styles Inventory (ASI). An

integration of the two mindfulness streams was hypothesized to load into three factors

and resulted in four factors of novelty seeking, novelty producing, engaging, and

attention/awareness. An integrated definition of mindfulness is proposed and a scale is

suggested. As it relates to experiential learning, the thesis aimed to clarify whether or not

mindful experiential learning is a metacognitive or sensory/contextual process. Data

revealed positive correlations between mindfulness as measured by the LMS and

concrete experience on the LSI and negative correlations between the LMS and reflective

observation on the LSI. There were no significant relationships found between learning

styles and mindfulness as measured by the MAAS, and no relationships found between

xxii



the ASI and either mindfulness scale. The data suggests that a mindful experiential

learning is a sensory/contextual process. Mindful experiential learning involves the

concrete experience of knowledge acquisition in order to seek and produce novelty that

allows one to learn in a way that best fits the context of the learning environment. From

this starting point, the learner may navigate a range of experiential learning styles to

improvise with the demands of the environment. Mindful experiential learning is

proposed as an engaged process of seeking and producing novel learning opportunities

while being attentive and aware of momentary concrete experience.

xxiii



MINDFUL EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

“You must take care not to make mistakes. But when they happen, learn from them. Use your

mistakes as a springboard into new areas of discovery; accidents can hold the key to innovation.

When things fall apart, make art. Carry this spirit through to every area of your life. ”

– Philip Toshio Sudo, Zen Guitar

Introduction

In Mindful Learning (1997), Ellen Langer uses her theory of mindfulness (Langer, 1989)

to examine seven myths that surround traditional educational ideas about learning. Similarly,

experiential learning theory (ELT) (Kolb, 1984, Kolb and Kolb, 2005) has offered a critique of

traditional learning theories, based on the central role that ELT gives to immediate direct

experiencing in the learning process. For decades, learners have developed themselves by

understanding the strengths and limitations of their learning styles and how to increase their

experiential learning skills. When learners are rigid, on autopilot, with predetermined rules that

limit their approach to learning across various contexts, they are acting mindlessly (Langer,

1977).

This thesis explores two contrasting ideas about the relationship between experiential

learning and mindfulness, the metacognitive view and the sensory contextual view. The first idea

is that mindful experiential learning is a metacognitive ability in which learners are aware of

their learning style and flexible with it depending on the learning situation they are in. Here

learners are able to create new cognitive categories by being aware of how they are thinking

during learning. The sensory/contextual idea is that mindful experiential learning is related to the

1



senses and immediate experience. Along this line of thought, direct sensing of the immediate

learning context is of primary importance.

This dissertation seeks to understand and define mindfulness and the relationship

between mindfulness and experiential learning to further learning research and organizational

practices. It explores the relationship between mindfulness and experiential learning and

introduces the concept of mindful experiential learning, using the Langer Mindfulness scale

(LMS) (Bodner, 2000) and the Brown and Ryan (2003) Mindful Attention /Awareness Scale

(MAAS) to collect mindfulness data, and the Kolb Learning Style Inventory (KLSI) (Kayes,

2000; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Kolb, 2005) and a new short form of the Adaptive Style Inventory

(ASI) (Boyatzis & Kolb, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c) to collect data on individual differences in

experiential learning style. 314 participants submitted data on mindfulness scales and 276

participants submitted data on both mindfulness and learning scales. The three research

questions of this thesis are:

1) What are the common factors among meditative and social psychological forms of

mindfulness that will inform an integrated definition of mindfulness?

2) Is mindful experiential learning a metacognitive process?

3) Is mindful experiential learning a sensory/contextual process?

A factor analysis of the combined LMS and MAAS scales was predicted to yield three

common factors,--present centered awareness, cognitive flexibility, and purposefulness. While

these were not found, three significantly correlated mindfulness factors between the LMS and

MAAS were awareness, novelty, and engagement. Findings suggest that attention/awareness as

measured by the MAAS may be a fourth factor to be added to the novelty producing, novelty

seeking, and engagement LMS factors, in place of an LMS flexibility factor which did not load

2



cleanly as a separate factor. It was predicted that mindfulness as assessed by the MAAS would

be positively related to LSI Concrete Experience and that mindfulness as assessed by the LMS

and the MAAS would be positively related to learning styles that balance Concrete Experience

and Abstract conceptualization. While these hypotheses were rejected, it was found that concrete

experience significantly relates to three factors on the LMS, novelty producing, novelty seeking,

and engagement, and no relationship was found between learning style and mindfulness on the

MAAS. The findings indicate that engaging concrete experience creates a doorway to mindful

experiential learning through novelty seeking and novelty production, which enables a learner to

create new categories to suit the learning context of a specific learning situation.

The remainder of this dissertation is organized into seven chapters. Chapter 1 is an

introduction of experiential learning theory and mindfulness theories. Chapter 2 presents a

systematic literature review of the two main streams of secular mindfulness research resulting in

an analysis of similarities, differences, and a synthesized definition of mindfulness and discusses

the two mindfulness measures being used. Chapter 3 develops the concept of mindful

experiential learning, grounds the reader in experiential learning literature, and discusses

experiential learning style and adaptive style inventory measures. Chapter 4 describes the

research questions, methods, and hypotheses. Chapter 5 consists of results of the mindfulness

data analysis. Chapter 6 reports results of the mindfulness and experiential learning data analysis.

Chapter 7 concludes the thesis with a discussion of findings and an elaboration on a theory of

mindful experiential learning.

3



Chapter 1 – Experiential Learning and Mindfulness

1.1 Research Focus

Experiential Learning Theory

Experiential Learning Theory (ELT) builds on the work of learning and development

theorists such as John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, Jean Piaget, William James, Carl Jung, Paulo Freire,

Carl Rogers and others (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). All of these prominent 20th century scholars

shared in a belief that experience is central to learning and thus their work naturally provided a

foundational structure upon which Kolb (1984) has contributed ELT to the scholar/practitioner

world. ELT is both a holistic model of the experiential learning process and a multilinear model

of adult development (Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Kolb, 1984). The theory provides a framework for

understanding both the cyclical nature of experiential learning and individual learning

tendencies, the latter being referred to as learning style. Kolb (1984) clearly conceptualizes

learning styles as dynamic states resulting from a learner’s preference to resolve dual dialectics

of experiencing/conceptualizing and acting/reflecting. These four learning modes anchor the

cycle of experiential learning. When learners touch on all four learning modes, they are

experiencing the full cycle of learning and are more likely to be responsive to contextual

demands. ELT suggests that learning is a complex and adaptive process integrating a range of

mental processes.

ELT is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of

experience (Kolb, 1984, p.41). Six characteristics of experiential learning are that it: a) is a

process, not an outcome, b) derives from experience, c) requires an individual to resolve

dialectically opposed modes of adaptation, d) is a holistic integrative process, e) requires the

4



interplay between a person and the environment, and f) results in knowledge creation (Kolb,

1984; Kayes, 2001; Kayes, 2002). Heavily influenced by the humanistic psychology movement

(Kolb, 1984), ELT has since been updated through an understanding of the biology of the brain

(Zull, 2002). Furthermore, 1004 entries in the 1999 ELT bibliography demonstrate the vast

multidisciplinary range of ELT’s integration into research, with 207 studies in management, 430

in education, 104 in information science, 101 in psychology, 72 in medicine, 63 in nursing, 22 in

accounting and 5 in law (Kolb, Boyatzis, and Mainemelis, 2001). In addition, organization

development scholar/practitioner oriented organizations such as National Training Laboratories

(NTL) have used experiential learning theory as the backdrop for their research, training, and

consultation practices. The concept of learning through experiencing is a fundamental part of

almost any organization development training and/or academic program.

This thesis explores the process of experiential learning theory by understanding its

relationship to mindfulness. In so doing, it aims to illuminate more about the process of

experiential learning. ELT will be explored further in Chapter 3.

Mindfulness

Mindfulness theories have grown increasingly popular in the social sciences.

Researchers in social psychology have found benefits in a range of areas including increased

creativity and decreased burnout in the workplace (Langer et al., 1988), increased productivity in

the workplace (Park, 1990), increased attention (Langer & Bodner, 1995), greater liking of a task

(Langer et al., in press), and a host of effective learning methods (Langer, 1997; Langer et al,

1989; Langer & Piper, 1987). Additionally, in the field of psychology, behavior therapy,

referring to the entire range of behavioral and cognitive therapies (Hayes et al., 2004), is

experiencing a shift toward therapies inspired by mindfulness, such as dialectical behavior

5



therapy, mindfulness-based stress reduction (which will be discussed later), mindfulness based

cognitive therapy, and acceptance and commitment therapy (Germer, 2005). Furthermore,

mindfulness has been studied in medical settings as an intervention to improve on a range of

issues including pain, mood disturbance, functional impairment and overall psychiatric

symptomatology (Kabat-Zinn, Lipworth & Burney,1985), anxiety (Kabat-Zinn et al., 1992;

Miller, Fletcher, Kabat-Zinn, 1995), fibromyalgia symptoms (Kaplan, Goldenberg, Galvin-

Nadeau, 1993), and increases in specific antigens (Saxe et al., 2001).

Mindfulness research has been predominantly developed under two umbrellas which will

be referred to as meditative mindfulness and social psychological mindfulness. The operational

definition of mindfulness initially used for this study builds on my previous research with Darren

Good (Good & Yeganeh, 2006) and integrates the two leading streams of research on

mindfulness into a definition of mindfulness to be applied in organizations. We define

mindfulness as a state in which an individual is: 1) aware and accepting of changes in

momentary experiences based on present centered awareness, 2) aware of and flexible with

cognitive patterns/categories, and 3) in control of attention in the moment to scan for new

information; resulting in more available resources for a wider variety of cognitions and

behaviors. Mindfulness is both a state, and a process. In order to maintain conceptual clarity

mindfulness refers to the state, but there are differences in people’s propensity to experience this

state. Additionally one can develop a mindful practice to enhance this propensity.

6



1.2 Research Objective

This research seeks to help us understand mindful experiential learning. It examines the

relationship between validated meditative and social psychological mindfulness scales, seeking

points of convergence between the two measures and their respective theoretical formulations.

The relationship between experiential learning style and mindfulness scale scores are then

explored. Predicted behaviors of mindful experiential learners will be tested. Contributions

from this study benefit the field of organizational behavior by contributing to our knowledge of

the experiential learning process. It advances our knowledge of ELT and mindfulness by helping

us better understand how they relate to one another.

7



Chapter 2 - Mindfulness

This chapter reviews two leading mindfulness theories, which will be referred to as

meditative mindfulness and social psychological mindfulness. Much of this mindfulness

literature review started during my previous research with Darren Good (Good & Yeganeh,

2006). Points of convergence and divergence between the two mindfulness theories are

presented and a definition is developed which synthesizes the construct.

Imagine any part of your day in which you were unaware of what you were doing, but

you were doing it nevertheless. Our morning shower experience is a popular example used by

both Buddhist author Thich Nhat Hanh and mindfulness scholar John Kabat-Zinn. They

question how often our minds are actually present-focused in the shower versus focusing on

something else automatically. We have all experienced similar automatic and mindless states.

This state can block us from experiencing a richness of cognitions, feelings and insights as they

relate to the present.

2.1 Meditative Mindfulness

Mindfulness has been referred to as the heart of Buddhist meditation (Thera, 1962; Kabat

Zinn, 1994). From the Buddhist perspective mindfulness is an awareness of being aware (Hirst,

2003). Kabat-Zinn and other authors use the concept, and meditation technique originated in the

Eastern traditions to help people heal themselves and live enhanced lives. This secular

meditative approach to mindfulness will be referred to as meditative mindfulness.

Mindfulness emerged from Buddhism but has since been used and refined as a secular

technology to aid mental well being. From the meditative perspective, it can be defined as

8



paying attention in a particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally

(Kabat-Zinn, 1994). This type of paying attention nurtures greater awareness, clarity and

acceptance of present moment reality (Kabat-Zinn, 1994; Hayes, 2004; Germer, 2005).

Advocates of meditative mindfulness remind us of the many moments when we are not in

“acceptance” of present moment reality. This state is often called automaticity, or mindlessness.

Mindfulness from the meditative perspective helps unlock what we have over-learned as critical

thinkers, which is that we should think harder in order to generate truth. A by-product of this

critical way of being is that we suffer from fatigue by rehearsing future and past events and

clutter our minds, which increases stress (Kabat-Zinn, 1994).

Marlatt & Kristeller (1999) write that mindfulness is “bringing one’s complete attention

to the present experience on a moment to moment basis” (p. 68). From the meditative

mindfulness literature, mindfulness means being completely aware of each moment and what

you are doing in that moment, while mindlessness is when you allow the mind to get “hooked”

or attached to the many thoughts that arise randomly (Braza, 1997). When being mindless one is

operating with habitual reactions and is not examining or watching the processes of thought and

their effects on behavior. This reduction in examined behavior, can contribute to one’s own

human suffering, and that of others (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). “If we don’t really know where we are

standing – a knowing that comes directly from the cultivation of mindfulness – we may only go

in circles…” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 15).

Through a mindful practice, one learns to self observe non-judgmentally. Meditative

mindfulness practitioners achieve this through a form of meditation called mindfulness

meditation or more commonly known as insight meditation, in which one focuses on the moment

while letting thoughts enter and exit the mind in real time. During insight meditation the

9



individual focuses on breathing and awareness of the present moment. Sounds and feelings are

registered but not clung to. Thoughts are momentary and non-judgmental. When thoughts of

future or past emerge, one gently brings his/her attention back to the breath, and the moment,

allowing one to be mindful and develop a discipline of the mind. Kabat-Zinn’s particular

program called mindfulness based stress reduction will be discussed below.

Present moment awareness is constantly clouded by our attempts to judge and evaluate

our circumstance based on perceived needs and biases. In addition, our experience of the present

moment is ‘severely edited’ by the habitual and unexamined activity of our thoughts and

emotions (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 148). We all have lenses that we “slip unconsciously between

observer and observed that filter and color, bend and shape our view” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 54).

This notion of a lens is similar to mental representations, such as schemas (Ormrod, 1995; Goetz,

SchaIlert, Reynolds, & Radin, 1983; Martin & Halverson, 1981), scripts (Abelson, 1981;

Sawyer, 2001; Lord, 1987; Pinder, 1998) and mental models (Kenneth Craik, 1943; Senge,

1991). In the practice of meditative mindfulness, it is accepted that our biases and judgments are

unavoidable and are limiting our experience.

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction

Mindfulness meditation requires intentional practice and discipline. It is insufficient to

“just let go” considering one may not be aware of how “attached” he really is or how much he is

caught up in his habitual patterns of thinking (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 148). In Pali (the original

language of Buddha), the word Bhavana translates to “development through mental training”

(Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p. 81). Kabat-Zinn contends that over time, a regular disciplined practice will

cultivate a true inner orientation that is akin to an art form (1994).

10



Kabat-Zinn and colleagues have published many empirical studies showing that

meditation can positively impact a range of medical conditions. Through the use of mindfulness

meditation, he has pioneered a program called Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR).

The MBSR program is conducted over an 8 to10 week period of time and is offered in a group

setting. Groups engaged in the program can be as large as 30 individuals who participate in

weekly sessions that are 2-2.5 hours in length. The purpose of these weekly sessions is to

develop a mindfulness meditation practice and establish a safe setting to discuss stress and ways

to cope with it. An all day (7-8 hr) intensive session on mindfulness is held around the sixth

week of the program. The program uses an array of meditative techniques to enhance

mindfulness, which includes a 45 minute body scan, seated meditation with directed attention to

the breath, walking mediations, eating meditations and various Hatha yoga postures (Baer,

2003). “In each type of exercise, individuals are instructed to be attentive to their emotions,

sensations, or cognitions as they arrive in the moment and to observe them non-judgmentally”

(Baer, 2003, p. 126). Participants use these skills outside the group setting by engaging in 45

minutes of mindfulness meditative practice six times per week.

The purpose of MBSR is to “challenge and encourage people to become their own

authorities” of personal well-being (Kabat-Zinn, 1994: p. 191). In essence individuals can learn

to contain their stress through the process of taking more responsibility for their own lives and

their own health (Kabat-Zinn, 1994).

To reiterate, studies have illustrated the benefits of MBSR interventions on a range of

issues including pain, mood disturbance, functional impairment and overall psychiatric

symptomatology (Kabat-Zinn, Lipworth & Burney,1985), anxiety (Kabat-Zinn et al., 1992;

Miller, Fletcher, Kabat-Zinn, 1995), fibromyalgia symptoms (Kaplan, Goldenberg, Galvin-

11



Nadeau, 1993), and increases in specific antigens (Saxe et al., 2001). Research on MBSR largely

legitimized the use of meditative mindfulness practices in health services. A range of other

techniques utilizing mindfulness meditation have had positive results as well, including

mindfulness based cognitive therapy (Teasdale et al., 2000) and dialectical behavior therapy

(Linehan et al., 1999). Meditative mindfulness continues to grow in popularity and should be

examined carefully when conceptualizing mindful experiential learning so that its benefit is

understood and realistically applied.

2.2 Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)

To measure mindfulness as defined above, Brown and Ryan (2003) have developed and

validated a scale that continues to grow in popularity. The Mindfulness Attention Awareness

Scale (MAAS) was created, to measure individual differences in the frequency of mindful states

over time. “The MAAS is focused on the presence or absence of attention to and awareness of

what is occurring in the present rather than on attributes such as acceptance, trust, empathy,

gratitude, or the various others that have been associated with mindfulness (e.g. Shapiro &

Schwarz, 1999).” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p. 824). The focus coincides with a meditative

approach to mindfulness, though they do not limit their exploration to measuring the effects of a

mindful practice. Brown & Ryan (2003) define awareness as “the background radar of

consciousness, continually monitoring the inner and outer environment” (p. 822). Attention is

understood as “a process of focusing conscious awareness, providing heightened sensitivity to a

limited range of experience” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p.822).

Overall, high scorers on the MAAS “tend to be more aware of and receptive to inner

experiences and more mindful of their overt behavior” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p.832). They are

more in touch with their emotional states, able to alter them, more likely to fulfill basic

12



psychological needs, and less likely to be self-conscious, socially anxious, and ruminative than

low scorers are. MAAS scores were also positively correlated with higher pleasant affect,

positive affectivity, vitality, life satisfaction, self-esteem, optimism, and self-actualization. The

MAAS was shown to be reliable and valid for both college students, n = 327, internal

consistency (alpha) = .82 and general adult populations, n = 239, internal consistency (alpha) =

.87 (Brown & Ryan, 2003).

One way mindfulness measured by the MAAS can enhance well being is its association

with higher quality or optimal moment-to-moment experiences. “A recent experiment by LeBel

and Dubé (2001) found that individuals whose attention was focused on the sensory experience

of eating chocolate reported more pleasure than individuals engaged in a distraction task while

eating chocolate. More broadly, research has found that intrinsically motivated and flow

activities, which are characterized by engagement with, and attention to, what is occurring, yield

considerable enjoyment and a felt sense of vitality (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990, Deci & Ryan,

1985)” (Brown & Ryan, 2003, p.824).

While mindfulness is clearly a state of being, Brown and Ryan, assume a) that individuals

differ in their propensity or willingness to be aware and to sustain attention to what is occurring

in the present and b) that this mindful capacity varies within persons, because it can be sharpened

or dulled by a variety of factors (2003). Participants completing the MAAS are asked to answer

according to what “really reflects” their experience rather than what they think their experience

should be, in an attempt to avoid socially desirable response biases. Upon examination of the

MAAS, one will notice that the items are worded negatively, measuring mindlessness rather than

mindfulness. This was because statements reflecting high levels of attention and awareness had

very low loadings in the factor analysis. Furthermore, Brown and Ryan explain that it is

13



relatively easy, if incorrect, to endorse being attentive and aware, and that the means and

distributions of these items had low values on the Likert scale and marked skewness. They also

point out that “statements reflecting less mindlessness are likely more accessible to most

individuals, given that mindless states are much more common than mindful states” (Brown and

Ryan, 2003, p. 826). Indirect claims, as the authors argue, may be more “diagnostic” than direct

claims to mindfulness. Upon empirical investigation, Brown and Ryan found that the correlation

between a directly framed MAAS version and the MAAS had a .70 correlation (n = 145), and an

exploratory factor analysis uncovered a single factor structure in the direct version, similar to the

MAAS. Cronbach’s alpha was .81. When comparing the two MAAS versions in terms of their

correlations with other psychological scales the two had similar relations, the correlations were

as follows, with MAAS correlations given first and the direct MAAS correlations given second:

NEO-FFI Openness (.19, .21), Trait Meta-Mood Scale emotional intelligence (.37, .34), MMS

(LMS) mindfulness (.33, .44), SCS Private Self-Consciousness (.05, .06), SCS Public Self-

Consciousness (.01, .07), SCS Social Anxiety (-.33, -.26), RRQ Reflection (.20, .20), RRQ

Rumination (-.39, -.25), NEO-FFI Neuroticism (-.56, -.45), BDI depression (-.42, -.32), POMS

Anxiety (-.42, -.32), pleasant affect (.40, .33), unpleasant affect (-.42, -.26), PANAS Positive

Affect (.39, .36), PANAS Negative Affect (-.37, -.27), Rosenberg self-esteem (.43, .41), Life

Orientation Test optimism (.34, .23), Marlowe–Crowne desirability (.28, .32), and MMPI Lie

(.03, .02).

Interestingly the Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS) (a scale used to measure social

psychological mindfulness that will be reviewed later), correlated with the original MAAS at .33

while the direct MAAS version correlated at .44. Otherwise, the original MAAS often showed

14



stronger relations in expected directions with a variety of constructs including well being (Brown

& Ryan, 2003), and was subsequently retained.

Brown & Ryan (2003) define mindfulness as attending to and being aware of the

moment. Contrasting Langer’s definition, Brown and Ryan (2003) do not focus on particular

cognitive approaches to external stimuli, rather their “definition emphasizes an open, undivided

observation of what is occurring both internally and externally” (p.823). Mindfulness from their

perspective is an inherent state of consciousness that differs among individuals for a variety of

reasons and that can be changed by individual. They conducted an exploratory factor analysis

with 55 items on a sample of 313 participants. The first factor accounted for 95% of the total

variance across factors. 15 of the strongest items that loaded on the first factor were retained

(see Table 1).

15



Table 1: Brown & Ryan (2003) MAAS Means, Standard Deviations, Factor Loadings, and

Item-Total Correlations

Scale item M SD F I-T

1. I could be experiencing some emotion and not beconscious of it until 4.02 1.12 .46 .45

some time later.2. I break or spill things because of carelessness, not payingattention, or

4.13 1.47 .45 .42

thinking of something else.

3. I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in thepresent.

3.80 1.23 .51 .49

4. I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going withoutpaying attention

3.41 1.27 .45 .39

to what I experience along the way.5. I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension ordiscomfort until they

3.83 1.22 .27 .25

really grab my attention.

6. I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been toldit for the first

3.40 1.54 .33 .31

time.7. It seems I am “running on automatic” without muchawareness of what

3.72 1.24 .78 .72

I’m doing.

8. I rush through activities without being really attentive tothem.

3.81 1.11 .74 .67

9. I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I losetouch with

3.74 1.15 .38 .38

what I am doing right now to get there.

10. I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware ofwhat I’m doing.

3.70 1.20 .69 .61

11. I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doingsomething else at

3.52 1.16 .55 .49

the same time.

12. I drive places on “automatic pilot” and then wonder why Iwent there. 4.36 1.42 .62 .57

13. I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past. 2.66 1.03 .28 .26

14. I find myself doing things without paying attention. 3.66 1.14 .77 .69

15. I snack without being aware that I’m eating. 4.11 1.42 .47 .41

Note. All scores are based on Sample A data (N 313). Items were introduced by the following: “Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Usingthe 1– 6 scale below, please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently haveeach experience. Please answer according to what really reflects your experiencerather than what you think your experience should be.” The accompanying 6-point scalewas1 almost always, 2 very frequently, 3 somewhat frequently, 4 somewhatinfrequently, 5 very infrequently, and 6 almost never. F factor loadings; I-T item-total correlations.

16



2.3 Social Psychological Mindfulness

Another approach to mindfulness comes from social psychology research. To avoid

confusion, the mindfulness definition supported by this line of research will be referred to as

social psychological mindfulness. As with meditative mindfulness, Langer contrasts

mindfulness with mindlessness which she describes as automatic behavior and an entrapment in

old cognitive categories. Social psychological mindfulness emphasizes context and awareness of

situationality (Langer, 2000; Langer 1997). Langer defines mindfulness as follows:

“When we are mindful, we implicitly or explicitly (1) view a situation from several

perspectives, (2) see information presented in the situation as novel, (3) attend to the

context in which we are perceiving the information, and eventually (4) create new

categories through which this information may be understood.” (Langer,1997, p.111)

Langer and colleagues began researching mindfulness over 30 years ago in an attempt to

decipher the differences between mindful behavior and mindless behavior (Langer &

Moldoveau, 2000). Specifically, mindfulness research emerged from early work which attempted

to contrast mindlessness with views of the individual as an active information processor or

intuitive scientist. Later mindfulness studies in the workplace showed increases in creativity,

decreased burnout and greater enjoyment of tasks (Langer, Hefferman, & Keiester, 1988). More

recent studies in education have revealed a sharp increase in memory and creativity for mindful

treatment groups (Langer, 1997).

During a study on creativity, Dror and Langer (in press) conducted an experiment in

which undergraduate participants were asked to build a bridge over an imaginary river using

small wooden blocks. It was explained that the height of the bridge would determine the size of

the boats that could use the river, so the highest bridge attainable was the desirable outcome.

17



Half the participants were briefly shown examples of how the blocks could be used in a different

building task (building the longest bridge possible or building a tower) while the other half had

no prior exposure to the blocks. In the first experiment, 92 percent of the group that was primed

with block building examples used the blocks in formations identical to the ones they had been

shown, where only 8 percent of the group that did not see the examples used such formations.

Even more interestingly, the prepped group came up with two solutions while the other group

came up with ten. Their hypothesis that groups shown examples would have difficulty forgetting

those examples was confirmed (Langer, 1997). The study also demonstrated automatic

processes that occur when people mindlessly acquire information.

Langer (1989) details mindfulness by breaking it down into five parts: creating new

categories, welcoming new information, taking multiple perspectives, being context sensitive,

and being process orientated.

Creating new categories. When mindful, an individual seeks to create new categories

rather than rely on old ones. Unfortunately, we tend not to re-conceptualize our knowledge of

facts or the past unless there is some sort of crisis that motivates us. However, Langer suggests it

is valuable to pay attention to context and situations as we make categories in new ways. Re-

focusing in this way helps us understand that the world is much more detailed than the way we

usually think about it. “If we describe someone we dislike intensely, a single statement usually

does it. But if, instead, we are forced to describe the person in great detail, eventually there will

be some quality we appreciate” (Langer, 1989, p.66).

Welcoming New Information. When we are mindful, we are open to new information.

“Our minds have a tendency to block out, small inconsistent signals. For example if a familiar

quotation is altered so that it is made nonsensical (but retains sufficient structural familiarity),

18



someone reading it out loud is likely to read the original quote. Even though what she was

reading was not on the page in front of her, she is likely to express great confidence that the the

quote was indeed read accurately. (Reread the last sentence, and note the double the.)” (p.67).

Multiple Perspectives. When we are mindful of other people’s perspectives we become

aware that there are as many different views as there are different observers. It becomes easier to

realize that two people can be right about the same thing from their perspectives without

automatically making the other wrong. “A steer is steak to a rancher, a sacred object to a Hindu,

and a collection of genes and proteins to a molecular biologist” (p.69).

Sensitivity to Context. This aspect of mindfulness is about drawing distinctions (Langer,

1997). Distinctions reveal that everything happens in a context and hence many different

contexts may be considered. “To view an answer as right or wrong, we must freeze the context

in which the answer is being evaluated” (Langer, 1997, p.135)

Process Orientation. Preoccupations with outcomes make us mindless. Being process

oriented reduces the probability of engaging in faulty comparisons. Furthermore being engaged

in process enables us to think of a broader range of choices for behaviors rather than thinking of

an outcome and automatically behaving in a way that we think will generate it.

Connecting these five parts, mindfulness is an integrated state in which its various aspects

reinforce one another. For example, “by viewing the same information through several

perspectives, we actually become more open to that information.”(Langer, 1997, p.133). Hence

being sensitive to context is connected to welcoming new information and seeing multiple

perspectives.

In contrast to a mindful state Langer also writes of its antithesis, mindlessness. When we

are engaged in a mindless (automatic) practice or in a mindless state we are no longer actively

19



creating distinctions in the world around us. “We act like automatons who have been

programmed to act according to the sense our behavior made in the past, rather than the

present.”(Langer & Moldoveanu, 2000). This automatic functioning leaves us following

predetermined rules, routinized behaviors and reliant on rigid perspectives without capacity for

much variation.

Mindless behavior can emerge from repetition or single exposure of material that is

presented unconditionally (Langer, 2000b). Mindlessness can occur through repetition as one

becomes so expert at a certain task that one no longer needs to think about how to perform it, or

in some cases can no longer recall the process of how to perform it (Langer, 1989). Single

exposure induced mindlessness happens when information is given to us as fact without any

alternative consideration. This will often result in something (i.e. an idea) understood just one

way and held that way when presented in the future (Langer, 2000b). However, if we attend to

our natural capacity to vary the target of our attention, whether visual or an idea, we can literally

improve our appreciation and our memory of it (Langer, 1989). Mindfulness can help us to be

intentional when we vary our attention to scan more of the environment. This is important

because “the idea that to pay attention means to act like a motionless camera is so ingrained in us

that when we do pay attention successfully we are usually unintentionally changing the context

or finding novel features in our subject” (Langer, 1997, p. 40).

Mindfulness is a state in which a person is both aware that his understanding of a

situation is always subject to alternative interpretations and is willing to direct his attention

toward creating those other interpretations (Bodner, 2000). The individual is able to notice

differences between the past and the present and therefore can override preprogrammed routines

when encountering cues. “The same behaviors resulting from habits, mindsets and other routines

20



may be enacted when in a mindful state; however, these routines are now available for revision if

the situation warrants.” (Bodner, 2000, p. 3)

As stated earlier, social psychological approaches to mindfulness have led to increased

creativity and decreased burnout in the workplace (Langer et al., 1988), increased productivity in

the workplace (Park, 1990), increased attention (Langer & Bodner, 1995), greater liking of a task

(Langer et al., in press), and a host of effective learning methods (Langer, 1997; Langer et al,

1989; Langer & Piper, 1987).

2.4 Langer Mindfulness Scale

The Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS), also known as the Mindfulness/Mindlessness

Scale (MMS), is a 21-item questionnaire used for training, self-discovery, and research. The

LMS provides a snapshot of a dynamic process, and similar to the MAAS it assesses an

individual’s propensity to be mindful. Unlike the MAAS which focuses on a single construct of

attention and awareness however, the LMS focuses on four factors: Engagement, Novelty

Seeking, Flexibility, and Novelty Producing (Bodner, 2000). These factors derive from Langer’s

(1997) definition of mindfulness: an openness to novelty, an alertness to distinction, a sensitivity

to different contexts, an awareness of multiple perspectives, and an orientation to the present.

The first section, an openness to novelty corresponds with Novelty Seeking and Producing

factors. Alertness to distinction and sensitivity to different contexts correspond with all four

factors. An awareness of multiple perspectives corresponds to the Engagement and Flexibility

factors. Finally, an orientation to the present corresponds to the Engagement factor. According

to Bodner & Langer, flexibility and novelty producing factors refer to how one operates on one’s

environment while novelty seeking and engagement refer to one’s orientation to the

environment. Descriptions of the four LMS factors will be discussed below.

21



Engagement and Novelty Seeking:

These two factors represent individual differences in the degree and manner of

engagement with the environment . This involves the awareness component of mindfulness.

People who approach the environment seeking novelty search out learning opportunities.

Flexibility and Novelty Producing:

The last two factors consist of individual differences in how information about the

environment is processed . Flexible people can see a situation from multiple perspectives and can

easily change them. “A mindfully flexible person is implicitly aware of the social construction

of reality and believes that all knowledge is bounded by a social context” (Bodner, 2000, p. 15).

Truth changes in differing contexts. Furthermore, a novelty-producing person creates new and

useful information. This can be done by making associations where previously none existed and

it differs from flexibility in that it does not necessarily require adding new information to make

novel associations.

The internal structure of the LMS shows with relative confidence that the instrument

corresponds fairly well with the theoretical structure underlying it. A confirmatory factor

analysis provided evidence to support its first claim, that mindfulness is a latent variable

underlying the four related latent domains of Flexibility, Novelty Producing, Novelty Seeking,

and Engagement. Of 8 studies by Bodner (2000), the average coefficient alpha internal

consistency of the LMS was 0.88 (SD = 0.02). In terms of temporal stability, the correlation

between scores on the LMS over a four week period was estimated to be r = 0.80, and r = 0.76

over six months. As related to construct validity, the LMS was positively correlated with the

tendency to entertain multiple perspectives (r =.57), the need for cognition (r =.41), the liberal

thinking style (r =.44), openness to experience (r = .50), the general cognitive ability (r = .32)

22



and was negatively correlated with the need for cognitive closure (r = -.19) and the need for

structure (r = -.27) (Bodner & Langer, 2001).

Bodner (2000) concludes that the LMS should be further examined in terms of its

correlation with other psychological scales. This thesis examines it in relation to the Kolb

Learning Styles Inventory.

2.5 Convergence and Divergence of Mindfulness Theories

The following section examines differences and points of convergence that inform a

definition of mindfulness, as a state and practice for people in organizations. The intention of the

definition is to re-conceptualize mindfulness utilizing the strengths of both meditative and social

psychological streams discussed in this paper. The proposed definition is more applicable to

organizational life than the meditative mindfulness definition alone, because it suggests that a

mindfulness practice no longer requires a meditation or some version of MBSR. However, it is

also more beneficial to organization members than the social psychological definition alone

because it embraces the momentary acceptance which is at the heart of meditative mindfulness.

In fact, the acceptance of momentary reality emphasized by Kabat-Zinn in meditative

mindfulness may be the very way to practice flexibility with precognitive commitments

emphasized by Langer and colleagues. However, this is a provocative concept that has yet to be

explored in mindfulness research and goes beyond the purposes of this thesis. Furthermore, the

benefits of applying social psychological mindfulness to learning are built upon in the new

definition as it is applied to mindful experiential learning theory and this is discussed with

greater detail in the next chapter. The proposed definition opens up the ways mindfulness can be

practiced across multiple contexts and in demanding work environments.

23



Divergence

The social psychological approach to mindfulness should not be confused with

meditative approaches. While there are similarities between the two approaches, distinct

differences exist as well. Social psychological interventions usually include the treatment of

material external to the individual participants (Baer, 2003; Langer, 1989). It pursues a learning

agenda, can be very goal-oriented and involves the use of mindfulness in enhancing problem

solving and other cognitive exercises, which often involves the world outside of the individual

(Baer, 2003; Langer 1989). The meditative approaches and traditions are usually aimed at the

inner experience of the participant and involve non-judgmental observation.

Traditional spiritual orientations of mindfulness maintain that clearing the mind and

living in the moment enables an individual to access objective truth in the world, a concept

called veridical perception, or seeing the world as it is. Neither meditative mindfulness nor

social psychological mindfulness claim that mindful practices lead to veridical perception.

However, a difference between the two is that meditative mindfulness assumes that without

momentary experience, we become over engaged in subjective thoughts of past and future and

hence stray from the reality of our present experience. Langer and colleagues place less of an

emphasis on momentary experience and emphasize continually acquiring many perspectives

which can reflect the complex world around us and then being flexible with them in various

contexts. An aspect of this may entail living in the moment, but it is not stressed in the same

way as in meditative mindfulness literature. Furthermore, a meditative mindful practice aims at

reducing the clutter of our thoughts, something that social psychological mindfulness does not

discuss. Also, while social psychological mindfulness research helps us understand the

multidimensional nature of mindfulness, the studies that support it tend to focus on aspects of the

24



definition in isolation (i.e. thinking contextually), rather than researching what its authors

conceptualize as a holistic mindful practice. Both distinct and shared strengths exist within both

streams of mindfulness literature.

Convergence

Both approaches to mindfulness stress cognitive flexibility and awareness. Meditative

mindfulness stresses being present centered in order to direct attention away from rumination of

the past and anxious thoughts of the future. Its approach to flexibility consists of “letting go” of

unwanted thoughts through acceptance rather than resistance to them. From the social

psychological perspective, one must be aware of biases in order to create novel distinctions and

new biases with a value on uncertainty and conditionality in order to be flexible in a changing

environment. Furthermore, both suggest that being purposeful and intentional is part of

mindfulness. Finally, both approaches to mindlessness describe an automatic state where one is

on autopilot, with rigid biases, and predetermined rules.

25



Figure 1: Mindfulness Convergence Chart

Mindfulness Convergence Chart

Social Psychological Mindfulness Meditative Mindfulness

ConstructSimilarities

Mindfulness1. Sensitivity to context 1. Awareness 1.Present centered awareness

awareness 2. Cognitive Flexibility 2. Nonjudgme taln2. Openness to new information 3. Purposefulness 3. Purposeful 3. Novel distinction/ New

categories4. Multiple perspectives5. Situated in present

Mindlessness 1. Autopilot 1. Autopilot 1. Habitual reactions

2. Following predetermined rules 2. Rigid Biases 2. Living in past/future3. Engaged in routinized 3. Predetermined Rules 3. Judgment/Evaluation

behaviors 4. Autopilot4. Rigid perspectives5. Without capacity for much

Variation

2.6 A Definition of Mindfulness for Organizations

The following definition of mindfulness integrates useful aspects of both streams of literature. It

will be used to hypothesize three factors that should emerge from an exploratory factor analysis

using the MAAS and LMS:

Mindfulness is a state in which an individual is:

1) Aware and accepting of changes in momentary experiences based on present centeredawareness

2) Flexible with cognitive patterns/categories

3) Purposefully attentive to scan for new information;

resulting in more available resources for a wider variety of cognitions and behaviors.

26



Aware and accepting of changes in momentary experiences based on present centered

awareness

When mindful, a person is purposeful about being anchored in the awareness of present

moment reality, even when thinking about past or future events. Awareness of momentary

experiences anchor us in process over outcome, which in terms of learning can help us achieve

desired outcomes. Although it may seem counterintuitive, having too rigid a focus on outcomes

may hinder achieving them. Acceptance of changes in the moment happen when we realize that

there are things beyond our control, and rather than expending energy through either emotional

distress or pointless action, we manage self cognitions and behaviors by better accepting life as it

is, in the ever-changing present. This creates opportunities to shift focus to the things that we do

have the capacity to control in a given moment. It does not imply we should engage in a form of

forced complacency, rather, it provides insight into the limitations of our control over past and

future events, and the ways we choose to manage ourselves in the present moment.

Flexible with cognitive patterns/categories

Cognitive patterns and categories, such as schemas, scripts, mental models, and any other

biases that direct our attention automatically can be observed throughout the day, and can be

problematic when people are automatic to the degree that they are inaccurate or erroneous in

their calculations. This happens by mindlessly engaging mental categories. Chanowitz &

Langer’s (1981) study suggests that individuals can overcome premature cognitive commitments

if they think to do so. When an individual is presented with information that is not viewed as

personally relevant he is not likely to consider the information critically. Therefore the

information that was experienced will be encoded in one way and will likely be recalled in a

similar way without critical reflection. Being aware of the way we acquire information is the first

27



part of this aspect of mindfulness. The next part is being flexible with our cognitive

precommitments, which can happen multiple ways. Through social psychological mindful

approaches we do this when we understand that multiple contexts exist, and we are openly

uncertain of the universality of our truths. The resulting openness to doubt gives way to

flexibility and a wider variety of cognitions. The meditative mindfulness approach achieves this

when we are aware and accepting of momentary reality while letting go of inclinations to cling to

past cognitions and/or rehearsals of the future. This cognitive flexibility results in a wider

variety of behaviors.

Purposefully attentive to scan for new information.

When we are intentionally attentive, we are being purposeful. We are purposely open to

new information. Attention is a resource and a potential way to generate value to ourselves and

others. As with all resources, attention is limited individually and collectively within

organizations. Mindfulness creates a way to leverage attention in an efficient manner,

overcoming the state of mindlessness that disrupts us from purposefully directing our minds to

things that may be overlooked in a mindless state.

Individuals fluctuate in their experiences of mindfulness. All states are experienced

subjectively and vary, and mindfulness is no different. Accordingly, an individual need not be

engaged in all three elements of the definition in order to be mindful. A mindful individual can

acknowledge being mindless and switch modes toward awareness and acceptance of the

moment. This cognitive redirection toward the present does not guarantee that becoming more

flexible to precognitive commitments and scanning for new information will follow, yet it does

signal a shift that is represented by the first part of the definition.

28



When all three parts of the definition are engaged simultaneously, controlled attention

that was needed to enter the state relaxes, thus freeing up additional resources to operate toward

novel distinctions. There is value in the experience of mindfulness as an initial engagement and

as a deeper cognitive experience.

2.7 Hypothesized Points of Convergence on the LMS & MAAS

The mindfulness literature review conducted led to three points of commonality between

meditative and social psychological mindfulness theories: present centeredness, purposefulness,

and cognitive flexibility. Theoretically, these three factors are common among the two

approaches to mindfulness that were identified. This was the result of a theoretical analysis. If

the two scales measure the two theories adequately, then we should see these three

commonalities representing the three factors. Only one study has looked at the relationship

between the MAAS and LMS. While a factor analysis was not conducted between the scales, in

their exploration of correlations between the MAAS and the LSM, Brown and Ryan (2003)

found as they had expected, that MAAS was most strongly associated with the mindful

engagement section of the LMS, r = .39, p < .0001. It was less correlated with novelty seeking (r

= .30, p < .001) and producing (r = .23, p < .01), with no relation to cognitive flexibility. The

lack of relationship in flexibility raises flags regarding the theoretical emphasis between the two

theoretical approaches to mindfulness on flexibility (social psychological mindfulness directly

referencing flexibility, and meditative mindfulness emphasizing acceptance approaches to

change which may indirectly involve flexibility). This thesis will empirically test the three

theoretically related areas of the two mindfulness approaches. The first research question of the

present study seeks to further explore the relationship between the two scales using factor

analysis.

29



A reading of the scale items would suggest that they fit into the three factors as indicated

below:

Awareness: the degree to which an item is likely to measure how often one is aware of his own

actions and thoughts

Purposefulness: the degree to which an item is likely to measure how often an individualintentionally engages in information scanning.

Cognitive Flexibility: the degree to which an item determines how flexible (or rigid on thereverse score) an individual is with his thoughts.

Research Question #1:

What factors converge between meditative mindfulness and social psychological mindfulness

measures?

H1: Factor analysis of the combined LMS and MAAS scales are predicted to yield three

common factors: present centered awareness, purposefulness and cognitive flexibility.

30



Chapter 3 - Mindful Experiential Learning

3. 1 Mindful Learning

In her work on Mindful Learning, Langer (1997) asserts that unhelpful habits and

routines are a result of the way we are taught to learn. Langer states that myths pervade cultures

and teach us lessons. Some of these lessons advance our culture and some should be questioned.

Langer (1997) identifies and challenges 7 myths about learning that encourage mindlessness:

1. The basics must be learned so well that they become second nature

2. Paying attention means staying focused on one thing at a time

3. Delaying gratification is important

4. Rote memorization is necessary in education

5. Forgetting is a problem

6. Intelligence is knowing “what’s out there”

7. There are right and wrong answers.

Langer exaggerates these 7 myths to illustrate the traps learners can fall into as a result of

universally believing in them and ignoring context.

Mindfully, we can choose to be flexible with our decisions to act in the environment. The

environment either confirms or disconfirms our assumptions, so rather than over-committing to

our original decisions and creating blindspots, being flexible and understanding that there are

many ways to view reality, empowers us to have a wider range of cognitions and behaviors.

Learning can be done mindfully when the learner places a value on doubt. Langer (1997)

refers to this concept as mindful learning. This suggests new modes of teaching should not only

be based on an appreciation of both the conditional nature of the world, but also on the value of

31



uncertainty. For example, in an appreciative experiment in a hospital Langer and colleagues

asked a group of patients about to undergo major surgery “to view the experience from a more

adaptive perspective; to attempt to notice the advantages of being in the hospital… Patients in

this group felt less stress, took fewer pain relievers and sedatives, and left the hospital sooner

than did patients who were not given this preparation. The desire to be distracted was the desire

to be otherwise attracted.” (p.36). Langer refers to this technique as “creative distraction” which

she defines as “a deliberate attending to something other than what we think is important” (p.37).

This technique involves learning from the attraction of various distractions, and how one may be

able to add the attractive elements to stimuli we wish to attend to.

With its emphasis on purposefulness, cognitive flexibility, and present centeredness,

mindfulness provides the framework for an individual to manage the conflicting dialects in any

given moment of experiential learning. This is done through an individual’s awareness of

productive ways to engage in learning and working. It also entails flexibility of approaches to

learning and momentary concentration in learning that deters unnecessary distractions that can

stimulate unbalanced learning style tendencies. As we will discuss later, those with balanced

learning styles then, theoretically, should have access to a greater range of cognitions and

behaviors to address the contextual demands of complex and varying environmental situations.

32



3.2 Experiential Learning Theory

ELT is grounded in the assumption that people have a natural capacity to learn and that

learning involves an interplay between knowledge acquisition and knowledge transformation.

Both of these dimensions require one to resolve a dialectic, or a set of competing learning

tensions (Kayes, 2002; Kolb, 1984).

Knowledge Acquisition

Acquisition of knowledge requires a person to resolve tension between apprehension

(concrete experience) and comprehension (abstract conceptualization). Apprehension involves

accepting new knowledge through sensory perception and direct experience with the world (i.e.

feelings or emotions) (Kayes, 2002). Comprehension, on the other hand, occurs as a result of

gathering knowledge through abstract concepts and symbolic representations. “Comprehension

occurs when a person breaks down experience into meaningful events and places them within a

symbolic system of culture and society” (Kayes, 2002, p. 140).

Knowledge Transformation

Acquired knowledge readily interacts with knowledge transformation. The dialectic

involved in knowledge transformation is knowledge intention (reflective observation) versus

knowledge extension (active experimentation). “Learning, the creation of knowledge and

meaning, occurs though the active extension and grounding of ideas and experiences in the

external world and through internal reflection about the attributes of these experiences and ideas”

(Kolb, 1984, p. 52). This dialectic describes the tendency one has to reflect to himself, versus

actively engaging with the environment.

Biologist James Zull presents evidence showing that the process of experiential learning

is related to the process of brain functioning, as shown in Figure 2. “Put into words, the figure

33



illustrates that concrete experiences come through the sensory cortex, reflective observation

involves the integrative cortex at the back, creating new abstract concepts occurs in the frontal

integrative cortex, and active testing involves the motor brain. In other words, the learning cycle

arises from the structure of the brain.” (Zull, 2002 p. 18-19).

Figure 2 : Brain Functioning and ELT (Zull, 2002)

Together, the four processes of concrete experience, abstract conceptualization, reflective

observation, and active experimentation constitute an experiential learning cycle. A learning

style can be thought of the tendency to resolve dialectical tensions a particular way. “Learning

styles represent preferences for one mode of adaptation over the others; but these preferences do

not operate to the exclusion of other adaptive modes and will vary from time to time and

situation to situation” (Kolb, 1981, p.290). Thus a concrete person might become more abstract

when theorizing about life’s lessons, but still not experience it as abstractly as someone who has

a more abstract learning style.

Much research on ELT has focused on learning styles using the Learning Style Inventory

(LSI) to assess individual learning styles. Individuals tested on the LSI show many different

patterns of scores, however research on the instrument has identified four statistically prevalent

34



learning styles – Diverging, Assimilating, Converging, and Accommodating (Kolb, 1971; Kolb,

1999, Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Hickcox (1991) conducted an extensive review of ELT’s theoretical

origins and qualitatively analyzed 81 studies in accounting and business education, helping

professions, medical professions, post-secondary education and teacher education. The review

found that overall 61.7% of the studies supported ELT, 16.1% showed mixed support, and 22.2%

did not support ELT (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

The following summarizes the four phases of the learning cycle, the four basic learning

styles, and the extended 9 learning styles (Kolb, 1984, Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

Phases of the Learning Cycle:

Concrete Experience (CE)

Learning by experiencing specific events, relating to people, and being sensitive to feelings and

people, through the senses.

Abstract Conceptualization (AC)

Learning by thinking, logically analyzing ideas, planning systematically, acting on an intellectual

understanding of the situation.

Reflective Observation (RO)

Learning by reflecting, carefully observing before making judgments, viewing issues from

different perspectives, looking for the meanings of things.

Active Experimentation (AE)

Learning by doing, showing ability to get things done, taking risks, influencing people and

events through action.

35



Basic Learning Styles:

Diverging

With dominant learning abilities in CE and RO, people with this learning style are

strongest at viewing concrete perspectives from many points of view. The term “Diverging”

describes people who perform better in situations that involve generation of ideas, such as

brainstorming sessions. Other qualities that tend to describe people with this learning style

include having broad culture interests, enjoying gathering information, high interest in people,

imaginative and emotional, tending to specialize in the arts, and preferring to work in groups.

Assimilating

Dominant abilities in AC and RO enable people with this learning style to best

understand a wide range of information, and then put it into concise, logical form. Assimilators

are less focused on people and more interested in abstract concepts. They prefer theories having

logical soundness over practical value. These types of learners migrate toward information and

science careers, and in learning situations prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models,

and having time to think things through.

Converging

Dominant learning abilities of Convergers are AC and AE. Their strength lies in finding

practical uses for ideas and theories and they have the ability to solve problems and make

decisions based on finding solutions to questions or problems. Those with the Converging

learning style like to deal with technical tasks and problems rather than with social issues and

interpersonal issues. They have skills that work well with specialist and technology careers. In

formal learning environments they tend to prefer experimenting with new ideas, simulations,

laboratory assignments, and practical applications.

36



Accommodating

Tending to use abilities of CE and AE, Accommodating style learners learn well from

“hands-on” experiences. They act on gut feelings more often than on logical analysis. When

solving problems they rely more heavily on people for information than their own technical

analysis. Accommodators tend to be effective in action-oriented careers like marketing and

sales. In learning situations they prefer to work with others, set goals, do field work, and test out

different approaches to completing a project.

Nine ELT Styles:

Recent research has shown that the original four learning styles can be refined to show

nine distinct styles. Abbey et al. (1985) and Hunt (1987) identified four added learning styles

which they labeled as Northerner (emphasizing CE while balancing AE and RO) Easterner

(emphasizing RO while balancing CE and AC), Southerner (emphasizing AC while balancing

AE and RO), and Westerner (emphasizing AE while balancing CE and AC). They describe

these additional four styles as follows:

“Northerner: This person has difficulty in conceptualizing or making meaning of

experience; consequently, the cycle runs from feelings to reflection (which remains

unconsolidated) to action. The consequence of this Northerly pattern is that the flow is

discontinuous and the actions are poorly organized since they are not informed by the foundation

of AC meaning…

Easterner: Persons with an Easterly pattern have trouble putting plans into action. (AE)

Consequently, they spend much time buried in thought. Because the AE mode is short circuited,

their thoughts (AC) are about their feelings (CE) rather than about their direct actions; this

imbalanced cycle lacks the rejuvenation provided by actions…

37



Southerner: Persons with a Southerly pattern are not in touch with their feelings. They

reflect on the mechanics of their actions (AE) without benefit of emotional feedback. The

reflection may lead to reformulation of concepts (AC) but the revision is mechanical and

sterile…

Westerner: In this pattern, the Westerner goes directly from feelings to conceptualizing

without sorting out the concrete experience. Consequently the, the initial conceptual framework

is likely to be unclear, with little possibility to correct it through reflection.” (Hunt 1987, p. 155)

Furthermore, Mainemelis, Boyatzis and Kolb (2002) identified a balanced style that

integrates AC and CE and AE and RO. The researchers tested and found support for an ELT

hypothesis that the more balanced people are in their learning orientation on the LSI, the greater

their adaptive flexibility as measured by the Adaptive Style Inventory (ASI) (see ASI review in

Chapter 4). The correlations were stronger for the balanced profile on the Abstract/Concrete

dimension, which called for further investigation (Mainemelis, Boyatzis and Kolb, 2002; Kolb &

Kolb, 2005).

A note of importance on learning styles is that they are dynamic states rather than fixed

styles. Learning is influenced by context, which will be discussed soon. Kolb writes:

“The stability and endurance of these states in individuals comes not solely from

fixed genetic qualities or characteristics of human beings: nor, for that matter,

does it come from the stable fixed demands of environmental circumstances.

Rather, stable and enduring patterns of human individuality arise from consistent

patterns of transaction between the individual and his or her environment…The

way we process the possibilities of each new emerging event determines the range

of choices and decisions we see. The choices and decisions we make to some

38



extent determine the events we live through, and these events influence our future

choices. Thus, people create themselves through the choice of actual occasions

they live through.” (Kolb 1984 p. 63-64)

3.3 Kolb Learning Style Inventory

The LSI is a self-report instrument designed as a self-diagnostic tool to assess learning

along the four dimensions of experiential learning (Kayes, 2000; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Kolb,

2005). Similar to mindfulness as measured by the MAAS and the LMS, experiential learning

style is dynamic and consists of an interplay between the individual and environment. The LSI

is designed to assess an individual’s propensity or willingness to learn a particular way from his

experiences. It consists of 12 items, each of which offers four options that are ranked according

to the degree to which the participant believes it describes the way he learned in a recent learning

situation of his choice. The data is then summed and a learning style is indicated.

In response to critique (Freedman and Stumpf, 1980), Kolb redesigned the LSI in 1985

and again in 1999 (Kayes, 2000). The revisions largely address previous concerns (Greer &

Dunlap, 1997; Yahya, 1988). The major issue raised with the LSI is that it uses ipsative

measures for cross-subject comparison. This means that when a high score on one dimension

results, a correspondingly low score on another dimension must also result. While this causes

problems using factor analysis to determine internal construct validity and inflates internal

reliability (Kayes, 2000), recent research indicates that the problems resulting from ipsative

measures are minor empirical deviations that can be corrected using simple statistical procedures

(Greer & Dunlap, 1997).

“When it is used in the simple, straightforward, and open way intended, the LSI usually

provokes an interesting self-examination and discussion that recognizes the uniqueness,

39



complexity, and variability in individual approaches to learning. The danger lies in the

reification of learning styles into fixed traits, such that learning style types become stereotypes

used to pigeon hole individuals and their behavior” (Kolb, 1981, p.291). Being aware of

situationality should sound familiar based on the previous review of Langer’s definition of

mindfulness. Kolb similarly emphasizes the complexity of learning in an ever changing

environment, where particular aspects of learning styles can dominate and change. “The basic

learning modes assessed by the LSI, however, are theoretically interdependent (i.e any action,

including responding to the test, is determined in varying degrees by all four learning modes) and

variable (i.e., the person’s interpretation of the situation should to some degree influence which

modes are used).” (Kolb, 1981, p. 291). Furthermore, test-retest reliability on the LSI is highest

when the test-retest time period is short and experience in the test-retest period is highly similar

to previous experience, i.e. no major situational changes. Responses to the LSI are determined

by variably situational factors in addition to more stable personal disposition (Geller, 1979).

Furthermore, in 1994 Iliff conducted a meta-analysis of 101 quantitative studies gathered

from 275 dissertations and 624 articles that were qualitative, theoretical, and quantitative studies

of ELT and the LSI (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Using Hickox's evaluation format he found that 49

studies showed strong support for the LSI, 40 showed mixed support and 12 studies showed no

support. Nearly half of the 101 studies reported sufficient data on the LSI scales to compute

effect sizes via meta-analysis. Most studies reported correlations classified as low (<.5) with

effect sizes falling into the weak (.2) to medium (.5) range for the LSI scales. Iliff suggests that

the strength of these statistics is insufficient to meet standards of predictive validity. The author

also correctly notes that the LSI was not intended to be a predictive psychological test like IQ,

GRE or GMAT. The LSI was originally developed as a self-assessment exercise and later used

40



as a means of construct validation for ELT (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Construct validation is focused

on the theory or construct the test measures, not the outcome criterion. Judged by the standards

of construct validity, ELT has been widely accepted as a useful framework for learning centered

educational innovation, including instructional design, curriculum development, and life-long

learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

3.4 Adaptive Style Inventory (Abbreviated Version)

The ASI is a self-report of individuals’ perceptions of the extent to which they prefer to

the four learning processes (CE, RO, AC, and AE) under four situational press conditions

(Valuing, Thinking, Deciding, and Acting) (Bell, 2005).

1.Valuing situations, this condition "presses" for CE and RO. To illustrate, imagine a job

counseling session in which the situation presses helpers to pay attention to momentary

experiences of the client while simultaneously reflecting on the possible career paths he or she

may flourish in.

2. Thinking situations press for AC and RO. This kind of situational press is common in training

programs that emphasize students’ development of analytical skills, and is typified by case

analysis activities (Mainemelis, Boyatzis, & Kolb, 2002). Thinking situations press for mastery

and manipulation of abstract concepts, theory building, and reflective consideration of

relationships among concepts.

3. Deciding situations press for AE and AC. Troubleshooting environments are often deciding

situations that press people into decisions based on abstract concepts and active experimentation

in the application of those concepts.

4. Acting situations involve dominant characteristics of CE and AE. An example is a first week

on the job where the employee is schooled in the daily operations of an organization. These

41



situations press attunement to human conditions and other contextual factors, active involvement

with others, and pragmatism in one’s efforts.

“Theoretically, individuals who systematically prefer learning modes that are in contrast

to those featured in the press of a situation are more likely to possess higher levels of integrative

development and to develop creative responses to situational demands.” (Bell, 2005, p.6)

The most salient findings regarding dimensional adaptive flexibility were found by Mainemelis

et al. (2002) where individuals with a nearly equal, or “balanced,” preference for AC and CE

learning processes in the LSI tended to have adaptive flexibility in the AC/CE dimension in the

ASI ( ß = .25, R

2

= .08, F (2, 195) = 8.08, p < .001, N = 198). “This outcome lent support to the

authors’ hypothesis that lack of a strong preference for either opposing learning mode afforded

more opportunities to flex or change preferences in different situations” (Bell, 2005, p. 11).

Only three studies (Bell, 1994; Boyatzis & Mainemelis, 2000; Kolb & Wolfe, 1981)

reported internal reliability coefficients for ASI first-level (i.e., total mode) scores, and

values ranged from very low (e.g., .21) to high (e.g., .89) (Bell, 2005).

Furthermore, using a subsample (n = 109) of engineers, social workers, and mid-life men

and women in the original instrument development study, Kolb and Wolfe (1981) found total

adaptive flexibility to be positively correlated with level of ego development (r = .26) and

negatively correlated with concern for coping with stress (r = -.13). Among the sample of mid-

life adults (n = 39), individuals with higher levels of total adaptive flexibility perceived

themselves to be more self-directed in current life situations (r = .26), to have greater flexibility

(r = .36) and higher levels of differentiation (r = .35) in their personal relationships, and used

more constructs to describe their life structures (r = .25). Additionally they perceive themselves

having lower levels of conflict in their lives (r = -.34). The results suggested that despite

42



perceiving their lives as more complex, persons with higher levels of adaptive flexibility

considered their lives to be less stressful and more self-directed.

This study employs an abbreviated 8 item ASI survey designed by Professor David Kolb,

which like the LSI uses an ipsative, ranking format.

3.5 Mindful Experiential Learning

The proposed research enables us to gain insight into the process of experiential learning.

Since experiential learning is a cycle, it is important to address the four aspects that it involves,

otherwise a learning imbalance occurs. In its idealized state, integrated experiential learning is a

process involving creative tension among four learning modes that are responsive to contextual

demands (Mainemelis, et al., 2002). It is a process that results in a state of engagement that

feeds back into the process as well. Similarly, mindfulness is a state and a process that leads to

its own state. Hence when practicing mindfulness one attempts to reach a mindful state and is

being mindful to varying degrees from focusing on the process of practicing mindfulness. With

its focus on process over outcome, mindfulness may be a construct that helps us uniquely

understand the process of experiential learning. Its emphasis on moment to moment awareness

of experience reveals an opportunity in terms of lessening the automatic tendencies that

unbalanced experiential learners may activate when learning. In addition as previously

discussed, a by-product of this is that we can lessen the stressful clutter in our minds (Kabat-

Zinn, 1994).

The proposed definition of mindful experiential learning is: a process of being aware of

dominant modes of experiential learning and being flexible and purposeful with the way one

engages in a learning situation so that it is appropriate to the environment. This will be tested for

and potentially edited based on a data analysis. An alternative to being mindful of one’s learning

43



process is being mindless of it. When people mindlessly learn it is either due to repetition of

processing information a particular way, or because no reason is found to critically consider

information during a single exposure to it (Chanowitz & Langer, 1981). Mindless experiential

learning occurs when learners are automatically enacting learning routines without awareness of

the dialectics they are engaged in. Without awareness of our learning modes, our opportunities

to changing learning styles as appropriate to context become reduced.

For several decades ELT has suggested learning is a process and not an outcome, an

assumption shared later in Langer’s (2000) notion of mindful learning. Traditional learning

theories engaged behaviorist doctrines that focus on learning in terms of behavioral outcomes

(Skinner, 1948). Successful learning in the behaviorist approach means an accumulation of the

“right” habits and fixed ideas in a given person. The early popularity of this orientation toward

outcomes rather than adaptation, in the eyes of many, led to a negative effect on the educational

system (Kolb, 1984). While teaching particular behaviors and habits can be a powerful treatment

for medium to extreme psychological disorders, the approach is incomplete in terms of its

contribution to how the average person learns. ELT however has shifted the epistemology as it

assumes that “ideas are not fixed and immutable elements of thought but are formed and re-

formed through experience” (Kolb, 1984, p. 26). This awareness opens up a whole new way of

thinking about learning. Part of the reason for this is the emphasis and importance of context in

learning (Langer, 1997). An individual has the option of engaging in concrete awareness,

focusing on internal sensations as well as sight, sounds, smell, and touch; or thinking abstractly

in symbolic form which involves contemplating the multiple relationships that exist in one’s

world. On another dimension one has the option of reflecting internally or acting out in the

world. These four options are not always clear cut states, rather they describe the dynamics of

44



cognitive processes that take place when an individual is engaged in the complex task of

learning. The process of experiential learning refers to the way in which the conflicts among the

dialectically opposed modes of adaptation get resolved (Kolb, 198). This is important because

“if conflicts are resolved by suppression of one mode and/or dominance by another, learning

tends to be specialized around the dominant mode and limited in areas controlled by the

dominated mode” (Kolb, 1984, 31). Integrated learning may result from a balance in these

dialects rather than being locked in the extremes.

Mainemelis et al. (2002) found that balance of the experiential learning dialectics is

related to flexibility while specialization is related to skill development. In research, they

learned that individuals that balance concrete experience and abstract conceptualization

tendencies respond more flexibly in adapting to experiencing and conceptualizing learning

situations. Of participants with an experiencing/conceptualizing balance, males showed

significantly less developed learning skill in the analytical quadrant while females showed

significantly lower skill in the information quadrant. Flexibility in how one acquires information

is also an indicator of mindfulness and supports the idea that a balance in modes of learning

involves being mindful. Regarding knowledge transformation, mindlessness may be one

explanation for an individual who is overly engaged in reflective observation with no action, or

active experimentation of behaviors without reflection.

Furthermore, both mindfulness (Bodner, 2000) and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984),

are holistic adaptive processes, which can be practiced in all realms of life. Kolb (1984)

describes the advantage of holistic and adaptive learning processes in the following passage:

“When learning is conceived as a holistic adaptive process, it provides conceptual bridges across

life situations such as school and work, portraying learning as a continuous lifelong process.

Similarly this perspective highlights the similarities among adaptive/learning activities that are

45



commonly called by specialized names—learning, creativity, problem solving, decision making,

and scientific research. Finally, learning conceived holistically includes adaptive activities that

vary in their extension through time and space. Typically, an immediate reaction to a limited

situation or problem is not thought of as learning but as performance. Similarly at the other

extreme, we do not commonly think of long-term adaptations to one’s total life situation as

learning but as development . Yet performance, learning, and development, when viewed from

perspectives of experiential learning theory, form a continuum of adaptive postures to the

environment, varying only in short degree of extension in time and space. Performance is limited

to short-term adaptations to immediate circumstance, learning encompasses somewhat longer-term

mastery of generic classes of situations, and development encompasses lifelong adaptations to

one’s total life situation” (p.34)

In support of this adaptive view to learning, mindfulness scholars Ryan & Brown (2003)

emphasize an alternative to the Western biased view of self-as-object. They describe the theory

of self-as-process:

“In contrast to the self-as-object perspective is another take on self derived from developmental

and organismic theorizing—the self-as-process (e.g., Blasi, 1988; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Loevinger,

1976). Researchers in the self-as-process tradition view the self not merely as a concept, or as an

object of self-evaluation, but as the very process of assimilation and integration. The self

represents the integrative core of the person and entails ongoing activities of extending,

assimilating, and bringing meaning and coherence to life experiences. Thus, in this view, the self

is both an inherent tendency and a dynamic, synthetic process. SDT [self determination theory]

has specifically focused on the conditions that support the integrative tendencies that characterize

the self, versus those under which these tendencies or functions are compromised (Ryan, 1995).”

(Ryan & Brown, 2003, p.27)

In order to integrate and adapt, individuals interact with the environment in a symbiotic fashion.

ELT is grounded in the assumption that learning from experience results in individual knowledge

acquired within a culture of social knowledge. Vygotsky describes the zone of proximal

46



development as "the distance between the actual development level as determined by

independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through

problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers" (Vygotsky,

1978). This is the zone where learning happens. Learning becomes the vehicle for human

development through interactions between individuals with their biologic potentialities and the

society with its symbols, tools, and social other cultural artifacts (Kolb, 1984). Mindfulness as

we have reviewed also engages the participant in awareness of social influences, context, and

situationality. Perhaps when we are mindful of how situations bring forth modes of learning, we

can better balance its competing modes.

3.6 Hypothesized Relationship Between Mindfulness and Experiential Learning

In looking at the two scales, there appeared to be two possibilities as to how mindfulness

would relate to learning styles, one involved a metacognitive process and the other a

sensory/contextual process. As a metacognitive process, high scoring mindful experiential

learners would have a propensity to be more balanced or adaptive in their learning style in terms

of where they get their information from (concrete experience or abstract conceptualization). As

a sensory/contextual process high scoring mindful experiential learners would have a propensity

to be more concrete and present centered and aware. The contents of all instruments were

analyzed and it was thought that the MAAS was more oriented toward a sensory/contextual

process of mindful experiential learning while the LMS was more related to a metacognitive

process.

The second research question inquires into whether or not mindful experiential learning is

a metacognitive process. As the hypotheses below indicate, it was thought that a metacognitive

process of mindful experiential learning could be observed two ways. First, if total MAAS/LMS

47



mindfulness scores were highly correlated with learners who are balanced in terms of the way

they take in information it may be an indication that mindful experiential learning is about being

aware of and choosing the appropriate method for acquiring information in a given moment. In

this scenario, flexibility as measured by the LMS and by a lack of dominance in LSI CE or AC

scores, places emphasis on cognitive flexibility. The other pattern in the data that would place an

emphasis on metacognitive processes in mindful experiential learning would be if learners high

in adaptive flexibility would score higher on MAAS/LMS total scores. This is because if a

person can adapt his or her learning style to a given situation and tends to be mindful it may be

that the core ability is awareness and flexibility, suggesting metacognitive processes.

The third research question inquired into whether or not mindful experiential learning is a

sensory/contextual process. The first way to examine this is if MAAS scores, which seem to

focus on concrete experiences, correlate with LSI concrete experience. If a strong pattern

emerged in which high scorers on the MAAS are dominant CE learners, a clear pattern would

emerge in which sensitivity to context through concrete awareness would be the connection

between mindfulness and experiential learning. Likewise, if high MAAS scorers scored lower on

abstract conceptualization then a strong argument could be made for mindful experiential

learning being a sensory/contextual “experiencing” process as opposed to a process that involves

abstract forms of thought. An analysis of the MAAS and LMS led to the belief that MAAS items

are more related to sensory/contextual processes while with the LMS this link was less clear.

48




Is mindful experiential learning a metacognitive process?

H2: Participants who are balanced on LSI concrete experience and abstract conceptualization

dimensions will score higher on Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale and Langer

Mindfulness Scale total scores.

H3: Participants high on adaptive flexibility in ACCE on the ASI will on average score higher

on Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale and Langer Mindfulness Scale total scores.


Is mindful experiential learning a sensory/contextual process?

H4: Participants who score high on the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale will score high

on the concrete experience domain.

H5: Participants who score high on the Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale will score low

on the abstract conceptualization domain.

49



Chapter 4 – Research Method

4.1 Participants

Participants for this study were mostly from American organizations though some

international participants contributed. People were recruited through a snowball effect of

participants forwarding a website link and a participant invitation email letter to various

organization members who they believed fit participation criteria of working as fulltime adults.

In addition the President of National Training Laboratories (NTL) sent the link to NTL members,

and it was posted on a subscription email list hosted by the National OD Network. Through

these means, data were obtained representing a variety of fields including psychology, business,

education, social sciences, engineering, computer science and information systems, health,

humanities, science and mathematics, fine and applied arts, communications, law, literature,

social work, medicine, accounting, nursing, architecture, and languages.

4.2 Procedures

Participation was voluntarily and conducted through online assessments. Participants

were told about the study via an email description with a link to a website and instructions to

follow the link provided to fill out the required surveys. Participants were then provided with an

online consent form. In order to participate in the study it was required that they confirm consent

by clicking a checkbox. After participants agreed o the consent form, instructions were provided

followed by an administration of both the MAAS and LMS scales and the ASI. Upon

completion of these scales, participants were provided with a link to an online LSI scale. To

maintain anonymity, participants were instructed not to use their own names. Rather they were

asked to create an identification code which could be any word followed by a two digit number.

50



Participants were given the option of receiving a full LSI analysis profile online to provide

insight into how they learn and how they can leverage their styles to become better learners. This

benefited the participant by providing a valuable self development instrument at no charge.

4.3 Demographics

A total of 349 participants completed at least partial online surveys. Of these,

approximately 274 (79%) submitted full demographic information, 314 completed both

mindfulness scales, and approximately 243 completed the LMS, ASI, MAAS, and LSI measures

required to proceed with the mindful experiential learning analysis. Regarding age range, 15

participants were between ages 19-24, 77 were between ages 25-34, 55 were between ages 35-

44, 66 were between ages 45-54, 52 were between ages 55-64, and 11 were age 65 and over.

Gender associations of 189 female and 85 male were indicated. Regarding education levels, 47

participants held doctoral degrees, 125 held masters degrees, 22 completed secondary school

only, 79 held university degrees only and 3 completed primary school only. In terms of job

sector, 95 participants worked in the private sector, 67 worked in non-profit settings, 63 were self

employed, and 89 participants indicated “other”. Of participants who indicated place of birth, 24

countries were represented with the majority of participants having been born in the United

States. Of the participants who indicated their country of residence, 235 lived in the United

States, 19 lived in Canada, 12 lived in India, 2 in the United Kingdom, 1 in Mozambique, 1 in

Singapore, 1 in Thailand, and 1 in Venezuela. In terms of race, 204 participants were Caucasian,

26 were Black/African American, 21 Asian, 5 Hispanic/Latino, 2 American Indian/Alaskan

Native, and 17 other. Job Industry represented a variety of fields with 71 participants indicating

other, 48 indicating psychology, 34 business, 22 education, 20 social sciences, 9 engineering, 8

computer science and information systems, 7 health, 7 humanities, 7 science and mathematics, 6

51



fine and applied arts, 6 communications, 6 law, 5 literature, 3 social work, 3 medicine, 3

accounting, 2 nursing, 1 architecture, and 1 in languages. Furthermore, participants indicated a

nice representation of job levels with 78 technical/professionals, 60 managers, 49 other, 42

senior executives, 17 hourly/administrative employees, 17 students, 12 supervisors.

4.4 Assessment Instruments

This section will introduce a new learning flexibility scale, briefly restate the previously

described scales and describe the variables created for data analyses.

Learning Flexibility

A new four item scale was created in attempt measure learning flexibility in a

straightforward self assessment. Two of the questions consisted of two reverse worded items and

two positively worded items. The items were as follows:

1 2 3 4 5 6AlmostAlways

VeryFrequently

SomewhatFrequently

SomewhatInfrequently

VeryInfrequently

AlmostNever

When I learn I modify my style based on what I am learning

1 2 3 4 5 6

When I learn I am very consistent in my style of learning

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am generally flexible as to how I go about learning something.

1 2 3 4 5 6

I consistently learn things a particular way

1 2 3 4 5 6

A total learning flexibility variable called LearnFlexTotal was created by reverse scoring items 2

and 4 and them summing all four items together (see Table 2).

52



Table 2: Learning Flexibility Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

LearnFlexTotal 314 6.00 24.00 13.6178 2.78181

Valid N (listwise) 314

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)

The Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale created by Brown and Ryan (2003),

measures individual differences in the frequency of mindful states over time using 15 items. The

items are negatively worded and counter balance this by using the following a likert scale: 1 =

Almost Always, 2 = Very Frequently, 3 = Somewhat Frequently, 4 = Somewhat Infrequently, 5

= Very Infrequently, to 6 = Almost Never. The variable created for this scale is called MAAS

Total and it is a sum of all the items. See Table 2 for MAAS total variable descriptive statistics.

The Langer Mindfulness Scale (LMS)

The Langer Mindfulness Scale is a 21-item questionnaire used for training, self-

discovery, and research. It focuses on four factors: Engagement, Novelty Seeking, Novelty

Producing, and Flexibility (Bodner, 2000). The items are measured using the following likert

scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly Disagree, 4 = Neutral, 5 = Slightly

Agree, 6 = Agree, 7 = Strongly Agree. After reverse items 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, 19, and 21 are

reverse scored, the following variables were created: Engagement by summing all flexibility

items, Novelty Seeking by summing all novelty seeking items, Novelty Producing by summing

all Novelty Producing items, Flexibility by summing all flexibility items, LMS Total which is the

total of all LMS items. In addition an LMS/MAAS total variable was created which totaled

MAAS Total and LMS Total variables. See Table 3 for LMS total variable descriptive statistics.

53



Table 3: LMS and MAAS Descriptive Statistics


LMS_NS 314 8 56 46.71 5.600

LMS_NP 314 7 28 21.21 4.443

LMS_ENG 314 4 21 17.34 2.759LMS_TOTAL 314 40 105 85.25 9.724

MAAS_TOTAL 314 29 74 54.69 9.437

LMSMAASTOTAL 314 96 181 146.03 15.537


Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI)

The LSI is a self-report instrument designed as a self-diagnostic tool to assess learning

along the four dialectics of experiential learning (Kayes, 2000; Kolb & Kolb, 2005; Kolb, 2005).

It consists of 12 items each of which offers four options that are ranked according to the degree

to which the participant believes it describes the way he learned in a recent learning situation of

his choice. The data is then summed and a learning style is indicated depending on the scoring

along the two dialectics. The following variables were created for the LSI: CE, RO, AC, and AE

variables were all calculated by summing their respective item rankings. In addition two

measures of specialization in one of the dialectical modes of the two dimensions in ELT (ACCE

= AC-CE, AERO = AE-RO) were created; and to assess a balanced profile the absolute of these

two dialectical scores was adjusted for population variation. “For example, individuals scoring

equally in AC and CE can be said to be balanced on this dimension” (Mainemelis et al., 2002,

p.14). Their absolute score reflects an inverse score of this balance, so a low score indicates a

balanced profile while a high score indicates specialization on either end of the dialectical

dimension. The absolute AC-CE score (ACCE BAL) was adjusted to center around the 50th

percentile (ABS [AC- (CE + 7)] of the LSI normative comparison group (Kolb & Kolb, 2005).

54



Likewise the formula for the absolute AE-RO dimension score (AERO BAL) is ABS [AE – (RO

+ 6)]. See table 4 for LSI variable descriptive statistics.

Table 4: LSI Variable Descriptive Statistics


CE 277 12 47 27.90 7.651

RO 278 12 47 27.36 7.375

AE 278 15 45 33.25 6.369

AC 277 15 48 31.44 8.067

AC_CE_BAL 277 0 35 11.82 7.840

AE_RO_BAL 278 0 30 9.72 6.479

AERO 278 -19 41 5.95 11.697

ACCE 278 -28 32 3.46 13.838


Adaptive Style Inventory (ASI - Abbreviated Version)

The ASI provides a self-report of individuals’ perceptions of the extent to which they use

the four experiential learning modes learning modes (CE, RO, AC, and AE) under four

situational learning conditions (Valuing, Thinking, Deciding, and Acting) (Bell, 2005). This

study used an abbreviated version of the orignal ASI (Kolb 1984, Boyatzis and Kolb 1993a,b&c)

converting the original 8 item paired comparison instrument into a 4 item ipsative ranking format

similar to the LSI. A variable measuring the extent to which individuals varied their use of the

abstract and concrete learning modes in different learning situations was created following the

work of Mainemelis, Boyatzis and Kolb (2002) where flexibility on this dimension was shown to

be related to balance on the AC-CE dimension of the LSI. The formula for ASI adaptive

flexibility in AC-CE using items 1, 2, 7 &8 from the original ASI is: ASI AC-CE Flexibility =

ABS(AC-CE) where a low score indicates high situational adaptive flexibility. The variable

along with Balance on the LSI AC-CE dimension and the Learning Flexibility items was used to

examine whether mindful experiential learning is a meta-cognitive activity. Preliminary analysis

55



of the data from the 278 respondents who completed all three instruments showed that the ASI

AC-CE Flexibility variable had a mean of 6.79 and a standard deviation of 1.68. The correlation

between ASI AC-CE flexibility and AC-CE balance on the LSI was .36 (p< .000) replicating the

finding of Mainemelis, Boyatzis and Kolb. Both variables were positively related to the learning

flexibility scale: -.11 (p< .08) for the LSI and -.16 (p<.005) for the ASI.

56



Chapter 5 – Mindfulness Results

5.1 Testing Hypotheses

Research Question #1: What factors converge between meditative mindfulness and social

psychological mindfulness measures?

As the reader recalls, the first research question inquired into the factors that potentially

converge between meditative mindfulness and social psychological mindfulness measures.

This section reviews previous LMS and MAAS findings related to this study, presents results

from this thesis, and revisits the integrated definition of mindfulness presented earlier to consider

implications of the present findings.

5.2 Langer Mindfulness Scale – Internal Consistency

The major validation study of the LMS comes from Bodner’s (2000) dissertation. The

analyses conducted used 46 items while the current LMS available for purchase consists of 21

items within the same four factors. As the reader may recall, the four factors that make up

mindfulness on the LMS are: novelty seeking, engagement, novelty production, and flexibility.

The first two factors, engagement and novelty seeking, make up individual differences in

the degree and manner of engagement with the environment. They contribute primarily to the

“awareness” component of mindfulness (Bodner, 2000). As the reader recalls, in Langer’s

theory, one must be aware of mental categories in order to change them. High engagement

scorers are likely to notice more details about his or her specific relationship with the

environment. An individual who seeks novelty perceives situations as opportunities to learn

something new.

57



Flexibility and novelty producing, the last two LMS factors, contribute to the

reassessment and reconstruction aspects of mindfulness. Flexible people understand that

knowledge is bounded by social context, and novelty producing people generate new and useful

information.

Bodner (2000) conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to see if LMS items loaded onto

four oblique factors as Langer’s theoretical model assumed. Moderate correlation levels among

the four LMS factors were found except for flexibility and engagement which had a low

correlation (r=.12). Findings showed a small percentage of variance accounted for by the four

factors (17%). Furthermore, Bartlett’s test suggested there are more non-zero residual

correlations than one would expect if the residual correlations were all zero. Given the number

of items and the sample size (n= 586), these two concerns called the validity of the theoretical

structure into question. However, Bodner (2000) points out the possible misinterpretations of

results when factor analyzing item-level data, as it nearly always leads one to believe that the

data are more highly dimensional than a theoretical model states. The construction of the LMS

focused heavily on constructing the four scales so that they would have acceptable internal

consistency and simple internal structures. This was because “the ultimate goal of these four

scales was to explore whether and to what extent a single factor underlies them” (Bodner, 2000,

p. 70). Data suggested that a set number of items were determining mindfulness scores across

five studies that validated the scale. To explore this, 7 of the most highly loading items were

identified and made into a scale called EM7. EM7 items were drawn from novelty seeking and

novelty producing scales, suggesting that these two scales were largely determining LMS scores.

The average correlation for EM7 with the total LMS score (M = .55, SD = .02) was contrasted

with the average correlation between the 39 other items and the total LMS (M = .38, SD = .09).

58



Of the five studies, total EM7 scores highly correlated with total LMS scores, ranging from .75

to .87 (M = .81, SD = .05).

Later a poster was presented at the 13th Annual American Psychological Society

Conference where Bodner and Langer (2001) presented the 21-item pencil and paper instrument

and its construct validation and referred to it as the Mindfulness/Mindlessness Scale (MMS).

The 21 item scale is still referred to at the online purchasing site as the “LMS” so for

consistency, the synonym “LMS” will continue to be used throughout the rest of this thesis. The

scale still had four subscales, with flexibility loading the most poorly (personal communication

with Bodner, 2006), but it was presented as a reliable and valid instrument to assess a relatively

stable individual difference called the propensity to be mindful. The current 21 item scale builds

off of the EM7 items (see Table 5), as well as other stronger items from the original 46 items.

Table 5: Correlations between EM7 items and the LMS Score Averaged over Five Studies(Bodner, 2000)

59



An instrument qualifies as having adequate internal structure when data derived from it

correspond with the underlying theoretical structure of the instrument. The two claims of the

LMS are that 1) it is a latent variable underlying four related latent domains called Flexibility,

Novelty Producing, Novelty Seeking, and Engagement and 2) these four latent domains underlie

the responses to the items in the LMS (Bodner, 2000). The confirmatory factor analysis

provided evidence to support the first claim, but mixed evidence for the second. The item-level

data appeared to be more multidimensional than the four latent variable model predicted.

However, based on extensive validation studies reported in Bodner’s dissertation, the LMS does

appear to be relating to outcomes to which it should be theoretically related.

5.3 LMS and MAAS Dissertation Results

First the LMS was tested through an exploratory factor analysis (n=314). An exploratory

factor analysis is conducted to discover latent variables, or factors, that are behind a set of

variables or measures. Initial free loading indicated 4 factors but the variables that made up the

Flexibility factor were not salient. Though Bodner & Langer (2001) found factor loadings for

Flexibility items from .41 to .59, results for this thesis were far different, with no flexibility items

loading cleanly as a factor at all. In contrast to Flexibility, the other three factors of Novelty

Seeking, Novelty Producing, and Engagement were strongly expressed. LMS Flexibility items

were discarded because they lacked meaningful extraction of variance. Furthermore, items 5

and 9 cross loaded and were discarded to eliminate noise, as can be seen in the pattern matrix in

Table 6 below.

60



Table 6: LMS Factor Analysis Pattern Matrix

Factor

NS NP E

LMS1 .647 -.135 .116

LMS5 .327 .111 .138

LMS13 .584 .103

LMS14 .603 .264 -.096

LMS17 .552 .116

LMS20 .595 -.192

LMS3 .644 -.167

LMS4 .459

LMS16 .456 -.115

LMS2 -.189 .585

LMS6 .779

LMS10 .729

LMS18 .259 .603 -.105

LMS21 -.118 .708 .201

LMS9 .165 .335

LMS8 .525

LMS15 .699

LMS19 .188 .552

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a Rotation converged in 6 iterations. Note: NS=Novelty Seeking, NP=Novelty Producing, E=Engagement

In exploring the relationship between subcomponents of the LMS, the strongest

relationship was found between novelty seeking and novelty production. Table 7 shows that

novelty seeking is also the most highly related factor to engagement within the LMS while

correlations among novelty producing and engagement were <.3.

Table 7: LMS Factor Correlation Matrix

Factor NS NP E

NS 1.000 .658 .361

NP .658 1.000 .252

E .361 .252 1.000

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

61



5.4 LMS & MAAS Factor Analysis

A second exploratory factor analysis was conducted to explore whether the LMS and

MAAS loaded on similar factors (n=314). Data was pooled so that the scales (1-6 and 1-7)

would convert to a 0-30 scale. As found in the first factor analysis the three factors from the

LMS scale were most closely related among one another, while the items from the MAAS loaded

separately. The finding supports Brown & Ryan’s intentions of developing a scale that measures

a single isolated factor because the MAAS items loaded together strongly for the most part.

While items from the two scales did not load together, they were significantly correlated at a

moderate level, r=.248, p<.01. This suggests the scales may be measuring different

subcomponents of a mindfulness construct or different but related constructs that are both being

referred to as mindfulness, which is an important finding to be addressed in the discussion

section.

Additionally, as Table 8 shows, MAAS item 1 cross loaded on two factors and MAAS

item 6 showed no meaningful variance, so both were eliminated in order to proceed with

regression analysis. Engagement LMS items 8, 15, and 19 loaded cleanly, so they were retained.

LMS items 2, 6, 10, and 21 were retained because they loaded cleanly for the Novelty Producing

as measured by the LMS. Furthermore, LMS items 1, 13, 14, 17, 20, 3, 4, and 16 loaded cleanly

as Novelty Seeking and were retained.

62



Table 8: Mindfulness Pattern Matrix

Factor

Attention/ Awareness

NoveltySeeking

NoveltyProducing Engagement

LMS1 -.106 .681 -.123 .158

LMS13 -.135 .590 .167

LMS14 .094 .572 .278

LMS17 .530

LMS20 .550 -.153 .101

LMS3 .563 -.112

LMS4 .421

LMS16 .370

LMS2 -.186 .612

LMS6 -.103 .142 .712

LMS10 .115 .646

LMS18 .322 .570 -.120

LMS21 .655 .131

LMS8 .557

LMS1) .109 .642

LMS19 .290 .518

MAAS1 .346 .243 -.141

MAAS2 .517 -.154 -.095

MAAS3 .684 .125 -.112

MAAS4 .519

MAAS5 .326

MAAS6 .177

MAAS7 .638 -.173 .243 .172

MAAS8 .676 .190

MAAS9 .559

MAAS10 .701 -.124 .130

MAAS11 .500

MAAS12 .609

MAAS13 .536 .214 -.114 -.212

MAAS14 .807

MAAS15 .497 .100

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.a Rotation converged in 7 iterations.

63



Table 9: Mindfulness Factor Correlation Matrix

FactorAttention/ Awareness

NoveltyProducing Engagement

NoveltyProduction

MAAS 1.000 .115 .255 .367

Novelty Producing .115 1.000 .555 .151Engagement .255 .555 1.000 .194

Novelty Production .367 .151 .194 1.000

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization.

As previously stated, Brown and Ryan (2003) found that between the MAAS and the

LMS, the total score correlation was r = .33, p < .0001, the MAAS most strongly associated with

the mindful engagement section of the LMS, r = .39, p < .0001 and that it was less correlated

with novelty seeking (r = .30, p < .001) and producing (r = .23, p < .01), with no relation to

cognitive flexibility. Similarly, the data in this thesis showed the MAAS was most strongly

correlated with mindful engagement, r=.272, p < .01, however novelty seeking (r=.153, p<.01)

was more strongly correlated than novelty producing (r=.182, p<.05) (see Table 10). Again, the

total MAAS and LMS scores positively correlated, this time at a moderate level of r=.248, p<.01.

These correlations are lower than what Brown and Ryan (2003) found, though it is unclear why.

64



Table 10: LMS/MAAS Correlations

LMSNS

LMSNP

LMSENG

LMSTOTAL

MAASTOTAL

LMS_NS Correlation 1 .448(**) .275(**) .859(**) .153(**)

Sig. (2-tailed). .000 .000 .000 .007

N 314 314 314 314 314

LMS_NP Correlation .448(**) 1 .206(**) .773(**) .182(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .000 .001

N 314 314 314 314 314

LMS_ENG Correlation .275(**) .206(**) 1 .536(**) .272(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .000 .000

N 314 314 314 314 314

LMSTOTAL

Correlation.859(**) .773(**) .536(**) 1 .248(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 . .000

N 314 314 314 314 314

MAASTOTAL

Correlation .153(**) .182(**) .272(**) .248(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .001 .000 .000 .

N 314 314 314 314 314

LMSMAASTOTAL

Correlation.651(**) .616(**) .525(**) .806(**) .769(**)

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 314 314 314 314 314

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Hypothesis 1 predicted that converging factors between measures of meditative mindfulness and

social psychological mindfulness would take the form of awareness, purposefulness, and

cognitive flexibility factors. While this has theoretical face validity, it was statistically

unsupported, hence the first hypothesis was rejected.

65



Here it may be helpful to revisit the theoretical diagram that was being tested as the first

part of this dissertation:

Figure 3: Mindfulness Convergence Chart Revisited

Mindfulness Convergence Chart


Construct

Similarities Mindfulness

1. Sensitivity to context 1. Awareness 1.Present centeredawareness 2. Cognitive Flexibility 2. Nonjudgme taln

2. Openness to new information 3. Purposefulness 3. Purposeful 3. Novel distinction/ New

categories

4. Multiple perspectives5. Situated in present

Mindlessness 1. Autopilot 1. Autopilot 1. Habitual reactions2. Following predetermined rules 2. Rigid Biases 2. Living in past/future3. Engaged in routinized 3. Predetermined Rules 3. Judgment/Evaluation


variation

The primary area of divergence from the chart is around number two (Cognitive

Flexibility) in the mindfulness similarities column. Because the data did not support the

flexibility component to the LMS, it was rejected as a commonality among mindfulness

approaches. Rather, the three LMS factors of engagement, novelty seeking and novelty

producing correlated among each other and with a potential new fourth factor -

attention/awareness measured by the MAAS. Based on the strong correlations between novelty

and the MAAS a revision would replace flexibility with novelty in the similarities column.

Novelty is a central component to Langer’s definition of mindfulness, and from a meditative

mindfulness perspective, present centered awareness of the here and now is a nonstop exercise in

novelty through newly birthed experiences by the millisecond. An explanation for the significant

66



correlations of novelty producing and novelty seeking on the LMS with total MAAS scores is

that novelty is a major component of attention/awareness from the meditate mindfulness

perspective. Furthermore, the highest correlation between the MAAS and LMS was in the

engagement LMS factor on the LMS, so it is safe to assume that “purposefulness” should be

replaced with “engagement”. These ideas will be expanded upon as the integrated definition of

mindfulness is redefined in the discussion section.

Figure 4: Revised Mindfulness Convergence Chart

Revised Mindfulness Convergence Chart


Construct

Similarities Mindfulness

1. Sensitivity to context 1. Awareness 1.Present centeredawareness 2. Novelty 2. Nonjudgm talen

2. Openness to new information 3. Engagement 3. Purposeful 3. Novel distinction/ New

categories4. Multiple perspectives

5. Situated in present

Mindlessness 1. Autopilot 1. Autopilot 1. Habitual reactions2. Following predetermined rules 2. Rigid Biases 2. Living in past/future3. Engaged in routinized 3. Predetermined Rules 3. Judgment/Evaluation


variation

67



Chapter 6 - Mindfulness and Experiential Learning Results

6.1 Testing Hypotheses

Research Question #2: Is mindful experiential learning a metacognitive process?

Results indicated that the MAAS does not statistically relate to learning style as measured

by the LSI in any way but that the LMS does. The second hypothesis predicted that participants

who are balanced on the concrete experience and abstract conceptualization dimensions of the

LSI will score higher on mindfulness scale scores. As can be seen in Table 11, this was

unsupported by the data and H2 was rejected. ACCE Balance scores were not statistically

significant in relation to LMS Total scores (r = .045), or MAAS scores (r = .028). It was also

predicted that participants high on adaptive flexibility in ACCE will on average score higher on

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale and Langer Mindfulness Scale scores. After running a

correlation test there were no significant relationships between mindfulness scores and the ASI

ACCE scores so H3 was rejected (see Table 11). There was however a small significant

relationship between AERO ASI flexibility scores and total LMS scores, r=-.113, p<.05,

suggesting that the less balanced a learner is on the active experimentation/reflective observation

domain, the more likely he/she will score higher on the LMS. This is congruent with additional

findings which will be discussed in the next chapter.

68



Table 11: Mindful Experiential Learning as a Metacognitive Process

ASIABSACCE ASIABSAEROACCEBAL

LMS_NS Correlation .041 -.108 -.005

Sig. (2-tailed).473 .056 .936

N 314 314 241

LMS_NP Correlation .034 -.087 .108

Sig. (2-tailed) .553 .125 .095

N 314 314 241

LMS_ENG Correlation .074 -.041 -.005

Sig. (2-tailed) .188 .469 .944

N 314 314 241

LMS_TOTAL Correlation .060 -.113(*) .045

Sig. (2-tailed) .290 .045 .483

N 314 314 241

MAAS_TOTAL Correlation .040 .036 .028

Sig. (2-tailed) .482 .522 .669

N 314 314 241

LMSMAAS TOTAL Correlation .061 -.056 .044

Sig. (2-tailed) .281 .323 .497

N 314 314 241


Research Question #3: Is mindful experiential learning a sensory/contextual process?

Hypothesis 4 predicted that scores on the MAAS Scale would positively correlate with

scores on the concrete experience domain and the fourth hypothesis predicted that scores on the

MAAS Scale would negatively correlate with the abstract conceptualization domain of the LSI.

As Table 12 shows, H3 and H4 were rejected because no significant relationships between the

MAAS and the LSI were found. Potential reasons for this will be addressed in the discussion

chapter. While the hypotheses related to research question #3 were rejected, additional findings

may provide evidence that mindful experiential learning as it is measured with the current

instruments is a sensory/contextual process.

69



Table 12: Mindful Experiential Learning and a Sensory/Contextual Process

CE RO AE AC AERO ACCE

LMS_NS Correlation .140(*) -.097 .010 -.050 .058 -.103

Sig. (2-tailed) .030 .132 .872 .437 .372 .110

N 241 243 243 243 243 243

LMS_NP Correlation .262(**) -.338(**) -.054 .092 .187(**) -.096

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .402 .151 .003 .134

N 241 243 243 243 243 243

LMS_ENG Correlation -.006 -.028 -.021 .046 .007 .029

Sig. (2-tailed) .927 .668 .743 .473 .919 .653

N 241 243 243 243 243 243

LMSTOTAL

Correlation.199(**) -.219(**) -.025 .027 .121 -.095

Sig. (2-tailed) .002 .001 .701 .680 .060 .139

N 241 243 243 243 243 243MAASTOTAL

Correlation.033 -.036 -.014 .013 .006 -.009

Sig. (2-tailed) .615 .577 .832 .843 .932 .887

N 241 243 243 243 243 243

LMSMAASTOTAL

Correlation.149(*) -.174(**) -.027 .037 .087 -.060

Sig. (2-tailed) .021 .007 .673 .564 .178 .350

N 241 243 243 243 243 243


6.2 Additional Findings

While the hypotheses of this study were rejected, the data revealed several interesting and

significant findings that shed light on research question #3 (see Table 12). First, concrete

experience LSI scores were positively correlated with novelty production (r=.262, p<.01),

novelty seeking (r=.14, p<.05), LMS total scores (r=.199, p<.01), and LMS/MAAS total scores

(r=.149, p<.05). In contrast, reflective observation LSI scores were significantly negatively

correlated with novelty production (r=.338, p<.01), total LMS scores (r=-.219, p<.05), and had a

smaller negative significant relationship with LMS/MAAS total scores (r=-.174, p<.01).

Additionally, AERO scores (AE – RO = AERO) positively correlated with novelty production,

70



r=.187, p<.05. This may suggest that reflection is a barrier to novelty production but that action

does not necessarily influence it one way or the other.

Though small in relationships, learning flexibility negatively correlated with novelty

seeking on the LMS (r=-.133, p<.05), negatively correlated with LMS total scores (r=-.132,

p<.05), and negatively correlated with LMS/MAAS Total scores (r=-.122, p<.05). Learning

flexibility negative correlated with concrete experience on the LSI (r=-.185, p<.01) and

positively correlated with reflective observation (r=.158, p<.05). In addition correlations

between the Adaptive Styles Inventory and the four learning flexibility items revealed a negative

relationship between abstract conceptualization/concrete experience (ACCE) and learning

flexibility items (r=-.158, p<.01).

6.3 Retesting for Gender Differences

After conducting two more exploratory factor analyses on the data set controlling for

gender, it became clear that there were no significant differences among the factor loadings.

The only noticeable difference was that in the female gender sample, novelty production no

longer loaded as a clear factor that was distinct from novelty seeking. Given the difference in

participant numbers it is not possible to fairly attribute differences to gender. Interestingly, as we

have already seen, when data from both genders are analyzed together, there is a clean load on

the three LMS factors and the MAAS Attention Awareness factor while when they are separated

the load is no longer clean.

Two-tailed bivariate correlations tests revealed differences in relationships between

learning style and mindfulness scores among genders. Among males, concrete experience

correlated positively with novelty seeking (r=.24, p<.05), novelty production (r=.352, p<.01),

and total LMS scores (r=.279, p<.05) (see Table 13). Reflective observation negatively

71



correlated with novelty production (r=-.327, p<.01). Furthermore LMS total scores negatively

correlated with ACCE, scores (AC – CE = ACCE), r=.187, p<.05 suggesting that concrete

experience is positively correlated with LMS scores for males but that abstract conceptualization

does not necessarily influence it one way or the other.

Table 13: LMS, MAAS, LSI Correlations Male

LMSNovelty Seeking

LMSNovelty Production

LMSEngagement

LMSTOTAL

MAASTOTAL

LMSMAASTOTAL

ACCE -.226 -.209 -.045 -.235(*) .000 -.164

.055 .076 .707 .046 .998 .167

73 73 73 73 73 73

CE .240(*) .352(**) -.042 .279(*) -.026 .187

.041 .002 .725 .017 .828 .113

73 73 73 73 73 73

RO -.123 -.327(**) .018 -.203 -.008 -.159

.298 .005 .878 .085 .949 .178

73 73 73 73 73 73

AE .055 -.023 .184 .070 .073 .089

.642 .849 .119 .556 .540 .455

73 73 73 73 73 73

AC -.162 -.025 -.118 -.140 -.024 -.104

.171 .832 .319 .239 .838 .379

73 73 73 73 73 73


As Table 14 illustrates, among females concrete experience correlated positively with

novelty production (r=.23, p<.01) and had a smaller positive relationship with total LMS scores

(r=.152, p<.05). Reflective observation negatively correlated with novelty production (r=-.312,

p<.01) and total LMS scores (r=-.21, p<.05) and LMS/MAAS total scores (r=-.164, p<.05).

Furthermore, AERO scores (AE – RO = AERO) positively correlated with novelty production,

r=.167, p<.05 showing that reflection may be a barrier to novelty production among women but

that action does not necessarily influence it one way or the other.

72



Table 14: LMS, MAAS, LSI Correlations Female

LMSNovelty Seeking

LMSNovelty Production

LMSEngagement

LMSTOTAL

MAASTOTAL

LMSMAASTOTAL

AERO .051 .167(*) -.034 .099 .006 .070

.512 .031 .667 .202 .935 .371

167 167 167 167 167 167

ACCE -.041 -.062 .086 -.027 -.029 -.024

.600 .428 .269 .733 .707 .762

167 167 167 167 167 167

CE .080 .230(**) -.010 .152(*) .061 .129

.303 .003 .893 .049 .436 .097

167 167 167 167 167 167

RO -.084 -.312(**) -.041 -.210(**) -.038 -.164(*)

.281 .000 .601 .007 .624 .035

167 167 167 167 167 167AE -.006 -.065 -.111 -.068 -.034 -.067

.938 .405 .154 .383 .662 .388

167 167 167 167 167 167

AC .005 .123 .140 .104 .003 .083

.950 .116 .072 .182 .970 .289

166 166 166 166 166 166


73



Chapter 7 – Discussion & Conclusion

This research began with two contrasting ideas about the relationship between

mindfulness and experiential learning. The first was a metacognitive approach in which people

are aware of their learning style and flexible with it depending on the learning situation they are

in, and able to create new cognitive categories while learning, which led to the hypothesis that

scores on both mindfulness scales would be related to adaptive flexibility. This concept assumed

that the flexibility component of social psychological mindfulness as measured by the LMS is a

core aspect of mindfulness. The second idea emphasized the sensory/contextual importance of

mindful experiential learning. This idea led to a prediction that concrete experience relates to

mindfulness as measured by the MAAS. In reading the LMS, its relationship with concrete

experience did not seem as pronounced, despite the fact that Langer’s studies have often

examined sensitivity to context (1997).

While the specific hypotheses were disconfirmed, nonetheless, the results clearly reject

the first idea and support the second. The overarching pattern suggests that mindfulness as

measured by the currently validated scales is linked to experiential learning through sensory

contextual processes that involve engaging in novel experiences through awareness of the senses,

emotions, and people around us. Thus this study provides evidence suggesting that there is a

sensory/contextual element to mindful experiential learning while evidence of the metacognitive

link to mindful experiential learning was not found.

In a factor analysis, LMS flexibility items were dropped when they did not cleanly load

onto a single factor. This led to a revised definition of mindfulness in terms of the convergence

between the two theories, with flexibility and purposefulness which are related to metacognition,

replaced by with novelty and engagement which are related to the sensory/contextual concept of

74



mindful experiential learning. Looking at the correlations between the two mindfulness scales

and the LSI, while the MAAS did not correlate with concrete experience, it also didn’t correlate

with the LSI at all. This chapter will discuss potential reasons for this based in the reverse

wording of the MAAS. On the other hand, mindfulness on the LMS correlated with concrete

experience as well as mindfulness on the MAAS. Finally correlation tests between mindfulness

scales and adaptive flexibility on the ASI, and mindfulness scales and the learning flexibility

scale showed no relationship between flexibility in learning style and mindfulness, further

supporting the idea that sensory/context is at the core of mindful experiential learning and

rejecting the idea of mindful experiential learning through metacognition. Areas of convergence

between the two mindfulness approaches center around concrete experience as a means of being

context sensitive, aware, oriented towards novelty, and engaged. Furthermore mindfulness as

measured by the LMS negatively correlated with reflective observation on the LSI, suggesting

that premature reflective observation may result in a learner missing out on the benefits of

concrete experience in the experiential learning cycle. In addition the flexibility component of

the LMS is called into question in terms of its ability to measure flexibility of cognitive

categories.

Given Langer’s theoretical emphasis on learning, a connection between the Langer

Mindfulness Scale and Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory is logical. Though not predicted, results

show that high mindful scorers on the LMS tend to engage learning experiences through concrete

experience. In addition, low scorers on the LMS tend to prefer a learning style dominant in

reflective observation. From this one can begin to abstract an image of mindful experiential

learning that involves concreteness, engagement, novelty seeking, and novelty production. The

latter three components are positively correlated to mindfulness attention/awareness on the

75



Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale. In retrospect, the construct validity of both mindfulness

scales as they relate to openness to experience was overlooked. Bodner and Langer (2001) state

that mindfulness relates most to the openness to experience personality dimension. Similar to

Bodner and Langer, Brown and Ryan (2003) point out that mindfulness “appears to relate to

aspects of the Openness to Experience dimension of personality, which involves receptivity to

and interest in new experiences” (p. 823). This could be potentially linked to concrete

experience and supports the concept of mindful experiential learning as a sensory/contextual

process.

Additionally no evidence was found for a metacognitive approach to mindful

experiential learning in any of the scales. It was found that LSI balance and ASI adaptive

flexibility are unrelated to either mindfulness scale. The following section discusses implications

of the results as they relate to the hypotheses followed by additional findings that can guide

future research.

This study was the first of its kind to empirically examine the construct validity of the

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale and the LMS by concurrently administering both

measures to a sample of employed adults between the ages of 19 and over. A major contribution

of this study was that it examined the MAAS and LMS through an exploratory factor analysis to

test for common factors. The first research question explored converging factors between the

MAAS and LMS. Hypothesis one predicted that the factor analysis would yield present centered

awareness, purposefulness, and cognitive flexibility as three common factors. It was rejected

because the two scales loaded four other factors: novelty seeking, novelty producing,

engagement, and attention/awareness. Though a significant positive relationship was found

between the MAAS and the LMS on engagement, novelty production, and novelty seeking,

76



MAAS (attention/awareness) items loaded as an independent factor. Data supports the

contention that the MAAS and the LMS are measuring either distinct aspects of a multi-factored

mindfulness construct or two distinct but related constructs which are both being referred to by

researchers as mindfulness. Given the theoretical similarities between meditative and social

psychological mindfulness, it was concluded that the two scales likely measure a four factor

construct of mindfulness made up of engagement, novelty production, and novelty seeking, and

attention/awareness factors.

The second and third research questions focused on the relationship between measures of

mindfulness, adaptive learning, and experiential learning styles. The second research question

explored whether or not mindful experiential learning is a metacognitive process. Hypothesis 2

predicted that participants who are balanced on the concrete experience/abstract

conceptualization experiential learning dialectic would score higher on MAAS/LMS total

mindfulness scores than unbalanced learners on this dialectic. This hypothesis was rejected as it

was unsupported by the data. There was no significant relationship between LMS/MAAS scores

and balanced CE/AC scores. One explanation for the unsupported finding is that the MAAS did

not correlate with the LSI. Another explanation is that the LMS positively correlates with

concrete experience on the LSI. Thus someone scoring a balance between concrete experience

and abstract conceptualization would have a lower CE score than people high on CE, who tend

to score higher on the LMS.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that participants high on adaptive flexibility in AC/CE on the ASI

will on average score higher on Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale and Langer Mindfulness

Scale total scores. This was rejected as the data did not support the prediction. Since the data

showed no significant relationships between the MAAS and the LSI, it is logical to deduce it

77



would not show significant relationships between the MAAS and ASI, which is a measure of

how adaptive and flexible one is with their LSI preferences.

The third research question explored whether or not mindful experiential learning is a

sensory/contextual process. Hypotheses 4 predicting that MAAS scores would positively

correlate with concrete experience on the LSI and H5 predicting that MAAS scores would

negatively correlate with abstract conceptualization on the LSI were unsubstantiated. Both were

rejected because while MAAS items at first glance seem to link to concrete experience, they did

not statistically relate to a concrete experiential style of knowledge acquisition. Potential reasons

for the lack of significant relationships between the two scales vary. One explanation may be

that the MAAS measures such a specific form of present centered awareness that it cannot be

directly linked to experiential learning preferences. However, there are alternative explanations

that could have driven this finding. For example, an explanation may lie in the reverse wording

of the MAAS items. As noted earlier, Brown & Ryan (2003) found that their version of the

MAAS that used items directly measuring positive manifestations of mindfulness correlated

more strongly with the LMS (r=.44, p < .0001) than the standard MAAS which is worded to

assess mindlessness (r= .33, p<.0001). Given that the LMS and LSI assess positive

manifestations of mindfulness and experiential learning style, respectively, and that the strongest

mindfulness and learning correlations were found between these two scales, perhaps a positive

version of the MAAS would have significantly correlated with the LSI as well as the LMS.

Additionally, even if the MAAS and concrete experience aspect of the LSI were measuring

similar constructs, concrete experience as a means of knowledge acquisition varies in its

application compared to attention/awareness. It is possible to start the learning process through

the 5 senses and feelings (which is the focus of concrete experience as measured by the LSI) and

78



still lack present centered awareness. This leads into another consideration, which is that the

MAAS includes items that do not appear to measure the acquisition of data through the 5 senses

and feelings. For instance, one item on the MAAS assesses the degree to which someone

remembers a name when it is initially shared for example. The idea driving this item is that when

we are aware and attending to the moment we will pay attention to the name being spoken to us

and hence be more likely to remember it. However, remembering a name is different than the

tendency to acquire knowledge through physiological senses and emotion. Another factor to

consider is that learning is a process by which one engages with the world of knowledge, while

mindful attentiveness may be more about the quality by which one attends to the moment. There

is a subtle difference here that future research would help clarify. Lastly, the fact that a 1-4 scale

ipsative measure (LSI) does not correlate with a 1-6 likert scale measure (MAAS) may call into

question structural scale incompatibilities and the lack of variance in range of scores on the items

on these measures. Nevertheless, the fact that the 1-7 LMS correlated so well with the LSI,

causes one to question if this is a likely reason for the lack of significance between the MAAS

and LSI. Although the hypotheses were rejected, additional findings discussed next reveal

evidence that mindful experiential learning is a sensory/contextual process.

79



7.1 Mindfulness and Experiential Learning

This study revealed interesting findings regarding the relationship between mindfulness

as measured by the LMS and experiential learning styles. Mindfulness as measured by the LMS

significantly related to some parts of the experiential cycle positively, some negatively, and in

other areas not at all. Before continuing it should be made clear that this research does not

suggest mindful experiential learning is something that should be aspired to in all learning

situations. There are settings in which learning in an automatic way is appropriate, for example,

when one has an effective routine of studying for an exam, and the upcoming exam is similarly

structured to the last, or when one is enacting an effective work routine that helps expedite

administrative tasks effectively. However, as has been discussed throughout this thesis, there are

other times when engaging mindfully in a learning environment is useful, as when working in a

turbulent business environment that requires thinking in new ways. The preceding caveat is

given because this section interprets various findings including the negative relationship between

reflective observation scores and mindfulness scores, and it is important to think through such

interpretations without falling into falsely convenient dichotomies such as mindfulness = good

and mindlessness = bad. In fact, both the words “mindful” and “mindless” do not serve the

construct appropriately. In addition it is debatable whether the lack of mindfulness is by default

a state of mindlessness. An understanding of the literature seems to indicate a dynamic range of

potential ways mindfulness manifests. Such critiques and areas of exploration are very important

but beyond the scope of this thesis.

80



Mindfulness and Reflective Observation

When we think about mindfulness, some imagine a sage reflecting on the world

while strolling alongside a stream. This study would suggest that secular forms of

mindfulness in action actually look quite different. Support for this notion is offered by

several findings. Reflective observation scores on the LSI were significantly negatively

correlated with novelty production, total mindfulness scores on the LMS, and combined

mindfulness scores on the LMS and MAAS. People who score high on reflective

observation on the LSI tend to carefully reflect before making judgments, view issues

from different perspectives, and look for the meanings of things. They tend to hold

thoughts in longer than someone who scores high on active experimentation which is

dialectically opposed to reflective observation on the LSI. A potential explanation of

why learners who are high on reflective observation scored lower on the LMS is that

reflection observation, the second stage in the learning cycle, can draw one away from

concrete experience prematurely.

Gestalt theory refers to a process in which action is substituted with reflection, called

“retroflection”, which happens when an individual holds back a response intended for the

environment and instead substitutes it with a response for him/herself (Perls, 1976).

Interestingly retroflection, as Perls writes about it, is often in the service of health and is only

detrimental to healthy functioning without awareness. Perhaps lack of awareness of one’s

tendency to reflectively observe contributes to hindering the necessary sensory/contextual

processes required for mindful experiential learning to occur.

81



Mindfulness and Concrete Experience

In contrast to our potentially false myth of mindful sages lost in reflective observation,

our myths of mindful sages living in the present moment, here and now, may be more accurate.

In experiential learning theory, concrete experience is defined as accepting new knowledge

through sensory perception and direct experience with the world (Kayes, 2002). In this study it

was found that concrete experience experiential learning style scores were positively correlated

with novelty production LMS scores, novelty seeking LMS scores, as well as with total LMS

scores and total LMS/MAAS mindfulness scores. Alternatively, there were no significant

relationships between mindfulness scores and abstract conceptualization. This suggests that

mindfulness as described by social psychologists may be practiced in learning environments by

engaging in the concrete experience phase of the learning cycle. It would seem that renewing

schemas through the pursuit and production of novelty, at least in part, requires acquiring

information through direct experience of the senses.

Concrete Experience and the Process of Mindful Experiential Learning

Both mindfulness and experiential learning describe people in terms of their means of

interacting with the environment. There is a range of propensities by which learners practice

mindful experiential learning processes. We can learn more about the process of mindful

experiential learning by seeking to better understand the connections between high mindful

scorers and their learning style tendencies. The fact that people who score higher on the Langer

Mindfulness Scale have a propensity toward concrete experience as a way of acquiring

knowledge serves as a starting point.

82



We begin with literature on concrete experience and the brain. As the reader will recall,

Zull (2002) focuses on brain functioning and experiential learning. Consider the diagram that

was presented earlier:

Figure 5: Brain Functioning and ELT Revisited (Zull, 2002)

The sensory cortex receives input from the world in the form of vision, hearing, touch, positions,

smells, and taste (Zull, 2002). Zull explains what he calls the “back cortex” because of its

location in the back of the brain:

“During concrete experience, physical information from the world and from our

bodies enters the brain through the sense organs (eyes, ears, nose, skin, mouth,

internal organs, joints, and muscles). It is then sent in parallel to the emotion

monitor (amygdala) and the specific parts of the cortex for each of the senses

(visual cortex, auditory cortex, somatosensory cortex, etc.). If the amygdala

recognizes the experience as dangerous, it will trigger an instinctive body action,

such as jumping back or freezing…” (Zull, 2002, p.137).

The amygdala is a part of the limbic system, “which governs feelings, impulses, and drives”

(Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2002, p.102). Just as the sensory and postsensory cortex sends

information to the limbic system (emotional system), the limbic system sends concrete

83



information in the form of feelings to the sensory and postsensory cortex (Kolb, personal

communication).

Human interest may be the connection between novelty producing, novelty seeking, and

emotions that can begin to explain the positive relationship between concrete experience and

mindfulness. Of note, Fredrickson (1998) mentions interest as one of four positive emotions that

have been marginalized in emotion research. “Importantly, the openness to new ideas,

experiences, and actions is what characterizes the mindset of interest as broadened, rather than

narrowed” (Fredrickson, 1998, p.305). Positive emotions like interest build resources and

broaden an individual’s momentary thought-action repertoire, promoting discovery of novel and

creative ideas and actions, which in turn expand the individual’s personal resources, intellectual

resources, or social resources (Fredrickson, 1998). Because fear is regulated by the limbic

system, and research suggests that fear limits cognitive capacity, perhaps being attentive to

concrete experience (i.e., momentary awareness through the senses and/or concretely

experiencing interest) without becoming fixated on a particular idea for longer than is productive

(i.e., anxiety that may lead to counterproductive rumination), discourages fear responses and

encourages less restriction on cognitive routines. In addition, this may increase cognitive

capacity, leaving room to seek and produce novelty in learning environments. If the reader

recalls, novelty seeking describes an aspect of the degree and manner of engagement with the

environment . People who approach the environment seeking novelty search out learning

opportunities. Novelty producing on the other hand describes how information about the

environment is processed . A novelty-producing person creates new and useful information.

This can be done by making associations where previously none existed and it differs from

flexibility in that it does not necessarily require adding new information to make novel

84



associations. It would be logical to deduce that increasing cognitive capacity by reducing

ruminative fear, which can be done by engaging in concrete experience via awareness of the

senses, could provide opportunities to seek out and produce novelty.

This can then help mindful (context-sensitive) learning to occur. It is one pathway by

which concrete experience can lead to mindful experiential learning. It also illustrates the nature

of momentary engagement of the senses as a means of absolving mindless or automatic fear

patterns. Alan Watts (1951) writes:

It must be obvious, from the start, that there is a contradiction in wanting to be

perfectly secure in a universe whose nature is momentariness and fluidity. But

the contradiction lies a little deeper than the mere conflict between the desire for

security and the fact of change. If I want to be secure, that is, protected from the

flux of life, I am wanting to be separate from life. Yet it is this very sense of

separateness which makes me feel insecure. To be secure means to isolate and

fortify the ‘I’, but it is just the feeling of being an isolated ‘I’ which makes me

feel lonely and afraid. In other words, the more security I can get, the more I shall

want” (p. 76).

The nature of mindless experiential learning may include a lack of awareness of one’s

tendencies to shut oneself away from the physical world and into the world of thought.

Watts refers to the paradoxical nature of the separation and its counter productive cycle.

Examples of this in action include anxiety, rumination, and the other forms of

mindlessness that have been described throughout this discussion. These manifestations

of mindlessness may contribute to the neglect of contextual/sensory processes and could

hinder mindful experiential learning.

85



Furthermore, neglecting concrete experience and acting automatically tend to go hand in

hand. While acting automatically it is easy to assume that our senses are more accurate than they

are and as a result the rich environment around us is often neglected. For example, it is human

error to assume that as the same stimuli reappear in our lives and that they are received with

identical sensations. In fact our ideas of the sensation associated with stimuli are more likely to

remain constant than environmental stimuli. Thus, we forget that our descriptions of stimuli are

always relative, and that the backdrop from which we evaluate stimuli is just as much a part of

the actual sensation as the stimuli itself. The concepts of light and dark, sweet and sour, rough

and smooth, are all relative based on our access to stimuli. As we are mindless, we lose

precision of sensation. James (1890) writes:

The realities, concrete and abstract, physical and ideal, whose permanent

existence we believe in, seem to be constantly coming up again before our

thought, and lead us, in our carelessness, to suppose that our “ideas” of them are

the same ideas. [Later], we shall see how inveterate is our habit of not attending to

sensations as subjective facts, but simply using them as stepping-stones to pass

over to the recognition of the realities whose presence they reveal. The grass out

of the window now looks to me of the same green in the sun as in the shade, and

yet a painter would have to paint one part of it dark brown, another part bright

yellow, to give its real sensational effect. We take no heed, as a rule, of the

different way in which the same things look and sound and smell at different

distances and under different circumstances.” (p. 156)

In addition, from a neurobiological standpoint, James (1890) asserts, it is impossible for an

identical sensation to recur because this would require an unmodified brain. Since “every

86



sensation corresponds to some cerebral action” (James, 1890, p. 157), this is an impossibility.

This means that the mind does quite a bit of work so that we remain under the impression that we

do not need to use our senses to consciously reassess the environment.

Zull (2002) also explains that paying attention may be trickier than we assume. Firstly,

we may misunderstand what it means to attend to something. For example, while attention is

about focus, it is a myth that focusing should involve sitting still and looking hard at one thing.

This is because it only makes the brain work hard to focus on focusing rather than really helping

us focus. The reality is that, “our brain evolved to notice details by shifting its focus from one

area to another, by repeatedly scanning the surroundings” (Zull, 2002, p.142). Not only does the

brain notice details by shifting attention, but it also scans visual stimuli according to how it has

coded similar stimuli in the past. For example, during visual scanning, saccadic eye movements

of both humans and monkeys follow the detail of visual images to a striking degree (Yarbus,

1967). This suggests that visual cortical mechanisms responsible for coding stimulus form are

also actively involved in guiding eye movements to salient features of objects. Eye movements

automatically return to areas of greatest interest most often. This supports a sensory/contextual

conceptualization of mindful experiential learning. We tend to assume that complex categories

and schemas are removed from direct perception i.e. a racist person does not physically see

someone differently than a non-racist does, rather the difference between the two lies in the

prejudiced labels that the racist may apply that the non-racist does not apply. However, Yarbus’

(1967) research suggests this is not the case. Our thoughts influence how we physically see

things, and how we physically see things in turn reinforces our thoughts. It would seem that

encouraging learners to see from multiple angles can leverage the natural way the brain focuses

on details by scanning. Concrete experience then, is a dynamic process of attending and

87



scanning the environment for stimuli. High mindful experiential learners may be attending to the

environment by scanning for details while seeking and producing novelty in order to be context-

sensitive.

Learning Flexibility, Mindfulness, and ASI

Regarding learning flexibility, small negative relationships were found with novelty

seeking on the LMS, LMS total scores, and LMS/MAAS Total scores. This is interesting

because not only did flexibility as it was measured by the Langer Mindfulness Scale not load

cleanly in an exploratory factor analysis, but when we measured flexibility with straightforward

items, it negatively related to mindfulness on one LMS factor out of the three, as well as total

LMS and LMS/MAAS total scores. There are several potential explanations for this. One is that

flexibility is difficult to measure by self report measures. If this is the case, perhaps measuring

flexibility in an outcome-oriented laboratory activity would provide an alternative method.

Another explanation may be that items measuring flexibility are socially biased. Alternatively,

perhaps the degree to which one is flexible is an outcome of mindfulness rather than a direct

expression of the propensity to be mindful. A fourth explanation could be that flexibility is

neither a part of mindfulness nor an outcome of it. Yet another could be that people who seek

novelty do so in a consistent way and if they were flexible they would be less consistent in that

tendency. Clearly a need exists for scholars to explore and clarify the relationship between

mindfulness and flexibility.

Gender Differences

Finally there were slight differences in significant correlations among genders.

Interestingly the tendency to seek novelty is related to concrete experience for males but not

females. Novelty production and total LMS scores are more highly related to concrete

88



experience among males as compared to females as well. Furthermore while reflective

observation negatively correlates with novelty production among both genders, only in the

female group does RO also negatively correlate with LMS and LMS/MAAS total scores. Some

of this may be due to the fact that the sample size is twice as large within the female sample.

This same fact is what makes the noticeably strong relationship between novelty and concrete

experience among males so interesting. Perhaps males use concrete experience to seek novelty

while females use some other means for novelty seeking as well. Future research into gender

differences in mindful experiential learning is worth pursuing.

Mindful Experiential Learning in Practice

The prevalence of concrete experience in mindful experiential learning does not suggest

that the full cycle of learning is no longer important. Rather, it may suggest that concrete

experience is the opening by which learners can engage in experiential learning in a mindful

way. Acquiring information through concrete experience may disrupt predisposed learning

patterns that would otherwise be enacted automatically, for example, really listening to someone

speak without prematurely judging and planning a response. Once this is accomplished it is

easier to choose how we wish to learn, and to make sure that our style of learning fits the

learning scenario.

In practice, being aware of feelings through concrete experience can help us understand

the biases we have toward cognitive categories, routines, schemas, and the like. For example,

whether I am feeling comfortable or uncomfortable, my awareness of comfort level can stimulate

thought in a way that helps me better learn about myself and others. Only after being aware can I

begin thinking of changing my approach to learning. If I feel discomfort during a meeting, it

serves as a cue for me to change my mindset. What was a “terrible” meeting becomes a learning

89



opportunity, a precious chance to practice patience, understanding, and kindness. Or perhaps it

becomes a great exercise in self restraint. Awareness of my heart rate, thoughts, and how active

my sweat glands are, enable me to recognize when it is appropriate to re-conceptualize the

learning situation. It also allows me to notice that I am in a learning situation in the first place.

My learning mode shifts when I become aware of my body’s reaction to stress and I choose to

shift my focus away from an automatic rehearsal of why I do not like the meeting. At this point I

can choose active experimentation by asking a generative question that could shift the

conversation for example, rather than enacting an automatic routine of disengagement. This one

example of how concrete experience can help engage mindful experiential learning which can

lead to a more context sensitive experiential learning process.

Another way concrete experience can help engage us in a learning opportunity is by

focusing intently on the senses to engage more mindfully. Something as simple as listening to a

speaker with awareness and intent by seeking to hear a voice in a new way can be a tool for

seeking and creating novelty. Such experiments with the senses can create new bridges between

the mind and the learning opportunity. Try listening to someone as if it were the first time you

were hearing them speak, or the first time you were hearing a human speak at all, and the

resulting experience will be different than a conversation anchored in automaticity. While

creating ways to utilize concrete experience to engage in mindful experiential learning, it helps

to keep in mind that the purpose is to disrupt automaticity. This guideline can help us

experiment with engaging the senses in new ways. If it is difficult to remember to disrupt

automaticity, something as simple as marking one’s hand with a pen or tying a string around a

finger can provide the visual cues that serve as a reminder. This type of “reminder” is an

example of engaging novelty through the sense of sight.

90



Furthermore, organizational settings are rich with routines that may limit mindful

experiential learning. Mindfulness can be stimulated “when familiar situations require more

effortful processing, when situational factors disrupt the initiation or completion of automatic

routines, and when consequences differ substantially from expectations” (Bodner & Langer,

2001, p.2). Perhaps organization members would benefit from disrupting routines by asking

carefully crafted questions that lie outside of the norm. This begins with our own internal

novelty seeking and can extend to others through novel questioning.

7. 2 Study Limitations and Future Research Implications

Prior to discussing research implications, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of

the current study. This study was conducted via internet so although the external validity may

have increased due to generalizability of these findings to people in various geographical

locations, the internal validity of demographic data cannot be verified or controlled. As was

previously mentioned the phrasing distinctions between the MAAS and LSI should be taken into

consideration and future research should analyze data from the directly worded MAAS and the

LSI. Furthermore, this study was generally inclusive of participants of a variety of work

backgrounds. Future studies should examine specific types of work experiences within specific

types of work organizations in order to understand the effects that these variables might have on

mindfulness and learning styles. Long term controlled meditation studies among a variety of LSI

learners may demonstrate interesting findings regarding the relationship between meditative

mindfulness and experiential learning. As such, it would be worthwhile to administer the LSI to

participants of Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction programs in order to further understand how

learning styles and mindfulness interact in working adults.

91



Developing and integrating flexibility and metacognitive measures that can be integrated

into mindfulness measures is critical to better understanding the nature of mindfulness as well as

differences in people’s propensity to be mindful. The findings on reflective observation and

novelty production suggest that future research should focus on clarifying the relationship

between learning styles and the novelty production aspect of mindfulness. In addition, research

should aim at further understanding how learning through concrete experience relates to

mindfulness, and understanding the relationship between situational learning (or context specific

learning) and concrete experience as a means of knowledge acquisition in the learner. Future

studies should seek to legitimize the flexibility component of the LMS. Furthermore, it is

important that researchers use both the MAAS and LMS measurements on experimental and

control groups (i.e. trials with groups that participate in MBSR or other meditative interventions)

in order to better understand the impact of such programs and the various definitions of

mindfulness. Moreover, this study suggests that future research should seek validation of a

mindfulness scale using engagement, novelty producing, and novelty seeking LMS factors and a

selection of the strongest MAAS items to create an integrated mindfulness scale that measures

the revised integrated mindfulness definition proposed below. Finally, there is a clear need for

elaboration on the role of emotions in mindfulness. Emotions play such a paramount role in our

functioning, awareness, and ability to act mindfully. Future research should integrate and test

theories of emotion as they relate to mindfulness in order to better grasp mindfulness theories.

92



7.3 A Revised Mindfulness Definition

The integrated definition of mindfulness proposed earlier combines aspects of meditative

and social psychological mindfulness in an attempt to learn how to leverage the benefits of both

definitions of mindfulness. To revisit, the definition originally proposed in this thesis is:


1) Aware and accepting of changes in momentary experiences based on present centered

awareness

2) Flexible with cognitive patterns/categories

3) Purposefully attentive to scan for new information;


The following revised definition is being proposed based on the correlations between the MAAS

and LMS mindfulness scales and with the consideration that flexibility items did not cleanly load

as a measurable factor on the LMS:


1) Aware and accepting of changes in momentary experiences based on present centered

awareness

2) Engaged in seeking and producing novel cognitive patterns/categories3) Purposefully attentive to scan for new information;


This revised definition is measurable by a four factor construct of mindfulness when Engaging,

Novelty Seeking, and Novelty Producing LMS subscales are combined with select MAAS items.

Subsequent work to develop this mindfulness construct is worth pursuing.

93



7.4 A Revised Mindful Experiential Learning Definition

This thesis originally proposed the following definition of mindful experiential learning:

• Mindful experiential learning is a process of being aware of, flexible with, and purposeful

with one’s dominant modes of experiential learning when in a learning situation.

Given the findings the following revisions have been made:

• Mindful experiential learning is an engaged process of seeking and producing novel

opportunities to learn by being attentive to and aware of momentary concrete experience.

This new definition emphasizes concrete experience through processes of engagement, novelty

seeking, novelty producing, and present centered awareness. Finally, given this revised

definition a question to address in future research is: which learning scenarios are best addressed

using mindful experiential learning, versus some other dialectic-specific mode of learning? This

is beyond the scope of this study but it may be the key to optimizing the use of mindful

experiential learning.

The world is in need of context sensitive learning now more than ever. Being mindful

experiential learners, we can turn regular scenarios into novel learning opportunities. Perhaps in

this state we can create educational innovations. Conceivably through mindful experiential

learning we can create music from social resources that are so abundant yet neglected.

94



Appendix

A. Consent Form

Background Information on the Study

The purpose of this study is to learn more about the relationship between experiential learningstyles and mindfulness. Should you choose to participate, the information you provide will beused to inform research that will result in the researcher’s dissertation, which exploresmindfulness and experiential learning.

Confidentiality You are being asked to participate in this study because you work are an employed adultprofessional. You may have been asked by a supervisor, colleague, or stranger to complete thissurvey via email or other means. Any report published as a result of this research will not includeany information that will make it possible to identify you. Only the researchers will have access

to the data collected and all results will be anonymous. Case Western Reserve University’sInstitutional Review Board (IRB) may review the research to ensure that the rights of humansubjects are adequately protected.

Should you agree to participating you will complete short surveys from two different websites.To maintain anonymity, you are being asked not use your own name. In order to identify theinformation for comparison purposes between the two different surveys being distributed, youare being asked to create an identification code which will be any word followed by any twodigits from 1-10, ex. “dog42” or “wheel94”. You are being asked to write this code on a piece

of paper so that you have it to reference because you will need to enter it into anotherwebsite half way through the survey. If this code is lost, the data is no longer useful for the

research. Writing the identification code on a piece of paper will help ensure that it is enteredinto both websites accurately.

Procedures

The first part of this online survey includes several subsections. After these are completed, therewill be a website link that needs to be clicked to bring up a final survey on another webpage.The total time required to participate is 18-30 minutes max, but depends on how pace of theparticipant. The first part of the survey process will ask questions about mindfulness, awareness,and flexibility. The second part entails completing a learning style inventory (LSI). The LSI is aself-report instrument designed as a self-diagnostic tool to assess learning along the four

dimensions of experiential learning. The benefit of participation is an opportunity to reflect onyour learning style and you have an option of receiving a full Learning Styles Inventory profileinstantly upon completion of the surveys, which is educational, developmental and retails at$15.00, provided to you free of charge. Participation in this study contains no risks. Becauseyour participation is voluntary, you may choose to end this survey at any time. If you choose notto participate, there will not be any negative consequences. If you end the survey prematurely,you will not receive an LSI profile, because the full set of information required to generate theprofile online will not have been submitted.

95



If you are a student, neither participation nor lack of participation, nor the type of data enteredcan affect your grade in any way.

Contact and Questions

The researchers conducting this study are Dr. David Kolb and Bauback Yeganeh. You may ask any questions you have by contacting Bauback Yeganeh at (216) 533-8026/ [email protected] Professor David Kolb at (216) 368-2050.

If the researchers cannot be reached, or if you would like to talk to someone other than theresearchers about: (1) questions regarding this study, (2) research participation rights, (3)research-related inquiries, or (4) other human subjects issues, please contact Case WesternReserve University’s Institutional Review Board at (216) 368-69-25 or write: Case WesternReserve University; Institutional Review Board; 10900 Euclid Ave.; Cleveland, OH 44106-7230.

Statement of Consent

I have read the above information and understand that agreeing to participate in this studyinvolves completing survey items.

I understand that findings from this study may be used as part of a dissertation paper andresearch publications. I understand that my name will remain anonymous.

I understand that if I have further questions or concerns, I may contact Bauback Yeganeh at(216) 533-8026 or Professor David Kolb at (216) 368-2050.

Based upon this information:______ Yes, I agree to participate in this research study.

______ No, I do not agree to participate in this research study.

96



B. Questionnaire Protocol

Case Western Reserve University Questionnaire Protocol

To maintain your anonymity, please to create a participant identification code which will be anyword followed by any two digits from 1-10. Examples include “bliss23” or “train49”. PLEASE

WRITE THIS IDENTIFICATION CODE DOWN ON A PIECE OF PAPER, AS YOU

WILL BE ASKED TO ENTER IT AGAIN LATER IN THIS PROCESS. ONCE YOU

FILL IN THIS PAGE, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RETURN TO IT TO VIEWYOUR PARTICIPANT IDENTIFICATION CODE. Furthermore, this survey is designed tobe completed entirely at one time. There will be no data-saving options, nor an option to return ata later time to complete unfinished surveys. Therefore, if you choose to participate, you arebeing asked to complete the entire survey in one sitting.

Please enter your identification code below:Participant Identification Code _______________________________

Introduction

Thank you for agreeing to participate in the mindfulness and experiential learning study. Thepurpose of these surveys is to learn about your learning style and how it might relate to yourtendency to be mindful. The information you provide me will be used to inform research onmindfulness and experiential learning. In addition, it will also form the basis of my Dissertation.In exchange for your time and willingness to help, I hope to provide you with an opportunity toreflect on your learning style and a copy of your Learning Style Profile, free of charge.

Before we begin I would like to reiterate that what you share will be held anonymous. You willnever be identified by the information you provide.

As a participant in this survey process, which should take approximately 18-30 minutes, you arefree to decline answering any questions. You may also end this process at any time should youfeel the need to do so. If at any point to stop participating, please feel free to close your webpagebrowser. Again, in order for the data to be useful to the study, and for you to receive acustomized learning style inventory report, you need to complete the entire survey process in onesitting, as there are no data saving mechanisms that would enable you to complete part of thesurvey and return to complete the rest at a later time. Thank you very much for contributingyour time and reflection to this research study!

97



Section I.

Demographic Information

1. Gender: ___Male ___Female

2. Age: ___20-30 ___ 30-40, ___40-50, ___60-70, __80-90, __90+3. Type of work: __Administrative, __Project Leader, __Manager, __Executive, __ Other4. Sector: ___Private, ____Non-Profit, ___Self Employed, ___Other5. Race: ____Caucasian (descendants of Europe, North Africa, and Middle East),

____African American, ____Latino, ____Asian, ____Native American/Pacific Islander

Mindfulness Scales

Langer Mindfulness Scale

Instructions: Below are a number of statements that refer to your personal outlook. Please rate

the extent to which you agree with each of these statements. If you are confused by the wordingof an item, have no opinion, or neither agree nor disagree, use the “4” or “NEUTRAL” rating.Thank you for your assistance.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7StronglyDisagree

DisagreeSlightlyDisagree

NeutralSlightlyAgree

AgreeStrongly

Agree

1. I like to investigate things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 72. I generate few novel ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 6 73. I am always open to new ways of doing things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

4. I “get involved” in almost everythingI do.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I do not actively seek to learn newthings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. I make many novel contributions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 77. I stay with the old tried and true waysof doing things.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8. I seldom notice what other people areup to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

9. I avoid thought provokingconversations.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. I am very creative. 1 2 3 4 5 6 711. I can behave in many different waysfor a given situation.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. I attend to the “big picture.” 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

98



13. I am very curious. 1 2 3 4 5 6 714. I try to think of new ways of doingthings.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

15. I am rarely aware of changes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 716. I have an open-mind about

everything, even things that challengemy core beliefs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. I like to be challenged intellectually. 1 2 3 4 5 6 718. I find it easy to create new andeffective ideas.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

19. I am rarely alert to newdevelopments.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20. I like to figure out how things work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 721. I am not an original thinker 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

99



Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale

Day-to-Day Experiences

Instructions: Below is a collection of statements about your everyday experience. Using the1-6 scale below, please indicate how frequently or infrequently you currently have eachexperience. Please answer according to what really reflects your experience rather than

what you think your experience should be. Please treat each item separately from every

other item.


VeryFrequently

SomewhatFrequently


VeryInfrequently

AlmostNever

I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until some time later. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I break or spill things because of carelessness, not payingattention, or thinking of something else. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in thepresent. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I tend to walk quickly to get where I’m going without paying

attention to what I experience along the way. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I tend not to notice feelings of physical tension or discomfortuntil they really grab my attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I forget a person’s name almost as soon as I’ve been told itfor the first time. 1 2 3 4 5 6

It seems I am “running on automatic,” without much awarenessof what I’m doing. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I rush through activities without being really attentive to them. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I get so focused on the goal I want to achieve that I lose touchwith what I’m doing right now to get there. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I do jobs or tasks automatically, without being aware of whatI'm doing. 1 2 3 4 5 6

100



I find myself listening to someone with one ear, doingsomething else at the same time. 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2 3 4 5 6Almost

Always

Very

Frequently

Somewhat

Frequently

Somewhat

Infrequently

Very

Infrequently

Almost

Never

I drive places on ‘automatic pilot’ and then wonder why I wentthere. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I find myself preoccupied with the future or the past. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I find myself doing things without paying attention. 1 2 3 4 5 6

I snack without being aware that I’m eating. 1 2 3 4 5 6


VeryFrequently

SomewhatFrequently


VeryInfrequently

AlmostNever

When I learn I modify my style based on what I am learning

1 2 3 4 5 6

When I learn I am very consistent in my style of learning

1 2 3 4 5 6

I am generally flexible as to how I go about learning something.

1 2 3 4 5 6

I consistently learn things a particular way

1 2 3 4 5 6

101



Adaptive Style Inventory

Form S

Instructions

Below you will be asked to complete 8 sentences that describe different learning situations. Each has endings. To respond to these sentences, consider recent learning situations in your life described

each item description. Rank the endings for each sentence according to how you learn in each situatUsing the spaces provided, type 4 next to the sentence ending that best describes how you learned, an1 for the sentence ending that seems least like the way you learned. Be sure to rank all the endings foreach sentence unit.

Some people find it easiest to decide first which phrase best describes them (eg. 4 ) and then to

decide which phrase is least like them (1 ). Then they give a 3 to that word in the remaining pair thatis most like them and 2 to the word that is left over.

1. When I start to

do something new,

______I rely on my feelingsto guide me.

______I set priorities.

______I try out differentways of doing it.

_____I observe thesituation.

2. When I decide

between two

alternatives,

______I carefully considerthe implications of each.

______I rely on what feelsRight to me.

______I establish criteriaFor evaluating them

______I try one out and seewhat happens.

3. When I develop

an idea,

______I study the

basic concepts.

______I need concrete

examples.

______I consider its

practical application

______I imagine different

possibilities.4. When I consider

my feelings,

______I trust my instinctsabout them.

______I analyze why I feelthe way I do.

______I decide what to doabout them.

______I reflect about them.

5. When I try to

complete a task

on time,

______I plan

systematically.

______I take things asthey come.

______I reflect oneach step.

______I work hard andget it done.

6. When I evaluate

an opportunity,

______I am willingto take risks.

______I consider itcarefully.

______I trust my sense of what is best.

______I weigh the costsagainst the benefits.

7. When I analyze

somethingsystematically,

______

Intuition is often mybest guide.

______

I think about howthe basic principlesrelate to each other.

______

I focus on the resultI need to achieve.

______

I take time toconsider differentperspectives.

8. When I try to

see the world as

another person

sees it,

______I do thingswith them.

______I observe them.

______I focus on

their feelings.

______I consider how theyare similar to otherpeople

102



Thank you! You have completed the first section of this survey. All there is left is a12 item shortsurvey. Please proceed and have your Participant ID Code available.

Learning Style Inventory

Please click on the following website link. If it does not open automatically, simply highlight itwith your mouse, copy it by clicking “Ctrl” and “c” at the same time, and paste it into the webaddress bar at the top of your webpage browser by clicking “Ctrl” and “v” at the same time.

Thank you for participating!

103



Mindful Experiential Learning104

References

Abbey, D. S., Hunt, D. E., & Weiser, J. C. (1985). Variations on a theme by Kolb: A newperspective for understanding counseling and supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 13(3),477-501.

Baer, R.A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: a conceptual and empiricalreview. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 125-143.

Bargh, J. A. (1992). The ecology of automaticity: Toward establishing the conditions needed toproduce automatic processing effects. American Journal of Psychology, 105(2),181–199.

Bell, A. (2005). The Adaptive Style Inventory: Revealing Person-Environment Interactions.Unpublished.

Bodner, T.E. (2000). On the assessment of individual differences in mindful information

processing. Unpublished Dissertation, Harvard University.

Bodner, T.E. (2001). Individual Differences in Mindfulness: The Mindfulness/MindlessnessScale. Poster presented June 15th, 2001, at the 13th Annual Psychological Society Conference,Toronto, Canada.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1993a). Adaptive Style Inventory. Boston: Hay/McBer TrainingResources Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1993b). Adaptive Style Inventory: Scoring sheet and profiles.Boston: Hay/McBer Training Resources Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1993c). Adaptive Style Inventory: Scoring instructions and

interpretive notes. Boston: Hay/McBer Training Resources Group.

Boyatzis, R. E., & Kolb, D. A. (1991). Learning Skills Profile. Boston: TRGHay/McBer, Training Resources Group.

Braza,J. (1997). Moment by moment: the art and practice of mindfulness. Boston, MA. Tuttle,1997.

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, 822-848.

Brown, K.W., & Ryan, R.M. (2003).Why we don’t need self-esteem: On fundamental needs,contingent love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 27-82.

Chanowitz, B. & Langer, E. (1981). Premature cognitive commitment. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 41, 1051-1063.

104




Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York:HarperCollins.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Dror, I., Langer, E. & Houlette (in press). The danger of knowing too much: Cognitive plasticityand knowledge.

Freedman, R. D., & Stumpf, S. A. (1980). Learning Style Theory: Less than meets the eye. Academy of Management Review, 5, 445-447.

Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Reviewof General Psychology, 2, 300-319.

Geller, L. (1979). Reliability of the Learning Style Inventory. Psychological Reports. 44, p.

555-561.

Germer, C.K. in Germer, C. K., Siegel, R. D., Fulton, P.R. (2005). Mindfulness andPsychotherapy.Guilford Press. New York.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R.E., McKee, A. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing the Power of

Emotional Intelligence.Boston, MA. Harvard Business School Press.

Good, D.J. & Yeganeh, B. (2006). Mindfulness in Moments of Monotony. Presentation inManagerial and Organizational Cognition. Academy of Management Annual Meeting, 2006,Atlanta, GA.

Goodenough, U. & Woodruff, P. (2001). Think pieces mindful virtue, mindful reverence.Zygon, 36, 585-595.

Gouldner, A. (1970). The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology. Basic Books, New York.

Greer, T., & Dunlap, W. P. 1997. Analysis of variance with Ipsative measures. Psychological

Methods, 2, 200-207.

Gunaratana, H. (1991). Mindfulness in Plain English. Wisdom Publications, Boston, MA.

Hanh, T.N. (1987). The miracle of mindfulness. Boston, Ma. Beacon Press.

Hayes, S.C. (2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy and the new behavior therapies:Mindfulness, acceptance, and relationship. In S.

Hayes, S.C. in Hayes, S. C., Follette, V. M., Linehan, M. M. (2004). Mindfulness andAcceptance. Guilford Press. New York

105




Hickcox, L. K. (1991). An historical review of Kolb's formulation of experiential theory.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, Corvallis.

Hunt, D. E. (1987). Beginning with ourselves in interpersonal relations. In D. E. Hunt (Ed.), Beginning with ourselves. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Press.

Iliff, C. H. (1994). Kolb's Learning Style Inventory: A meta-analysis. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Boston University.

James, William (1890). The Stream of Consciousness. Reprinted from The Principles of

Psychology, I, 224-290, (Dover, 1950)

Kabat-Zinn J, Lipworth L, Burney R. (1985). The clinical use of mindfulness meditation for theself-regulation of chronic pain. Journal of Behavioral Medicine 8:163-190.

Kabat-Zinn J, Lipworth L, Burney R, Sellers W. (1987). Four-year follow-up of a meditation

based program for the self-regulation of chronic pain: Treatment outcomes and compliance. TheClinical Journal of Pain; 2:159-173.

Kabat-Zinn J, Massion AO, Kristeller J, Peterson LG, Fletcher DE, Pbert O et al. (1992).Effectivenes of a meditation-based stres reduction program in the treatment of anxiety disorders.American Journal of Psychiatry 149(7):943-963.

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go there you are. Hyperion: New York, NY.

Kabat-Zinn, J.(2003). Mindfulness-based Interventions in Context: Past, Present, and Future.Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,10,144-156.

Kaplan KH, Goldenberg DL, Galvin-Nadeau M. (1993). The impact of a meditation-based stressreduction program on fibromyalgia. General Hospital Psychiatry; 15(5):284-289.

Kayes, C. D. (2001). Experiential Learning in Teams: A Study in Learning Style, Group Processand Integrative Complexity in Ad Hoc Groups. Dissertation.

Kayes, C. D. (2002). Experiential learning and Its Critics: Preserving the Role of Experience inManagement Learning and Education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, (1),137-149.

Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experientiallearning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education. 4(2): 193-212.

Kolb, A. Y. & Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory—version 3.1: 2005

Technical Specifications. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.

Kolb, D. A. (2005). The Kolb learning style inventory—version 3.1: self scoring and

interpretation booklet. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct

106




Kolb, D. A. (1999). Learning Style Inventory, TRG Hay/McBer, Training Resources Group. 116

Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02116, [email protected]. U.S.A.

Kolb, D. A. (1981). Experiential Learning Theory and the Learning Style Inventory: A Reply to

Freedman and Stumpf. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 289-296.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning. Prentice-Hall.

Kolb, D. A. (1971). Individual learning styles and the learning process (Working paper #535-71). Cambridge: MIT Sloan School of Management.

Kolb, D. A., Boyatzis, R., & Mainemelis, C. (2001). Experiential learning theory: Previous

research and new directions . In R. Sternberg and L. Zhang (Eds.) Perspectives on cognitivelearning, and thinking styles. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kolb, D. A., & Wolfe, D. M. (1981). Professional education and career development: A crosssectional study of adaptive competencies in experiential learning. (NIE Publication No. NIG-G-77-0053). Department of Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University. (ERIC No.ED209493.)

Langer, E. (2002). Well being: Mindfulness vs. Positive Evaluation. In C.R. Snyder, (Ed.),Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University.

Langer, E.J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2000). The construct of mindfulness. Journal of SocialIssues, 56, 1-9.

Langer, E.J. (2000)b. Mindful Learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 220-223.

Langer, E.J. (1992), Interpersonal mindlessness and language. Communication Monographs, 59,324-327.

Langer, E.J. (1997). The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Persesus Publishing.

Langer, E.J. (1989). Mindfulness. Cambridge, MA: DeCapo Press.

Langer, E.J., Hefferman, D., & Kiester, M. (1988). Reducing burnout in an institutional setting:

an experimental investigation. Unpublished manuscript, Harvard university, Cambridge,MA.

Langer, E. J., & Bodner, T. (1995). Mindfulness and attention. Unpublished manuscript, HarvardUniversity, Cambridge, MA.

Langer, E. J., & Piper, A. (1987). The prevention of mindlessness. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 53, 280-287.

107




LeBel, J. L., & Dube´, L. (2001, June). The impact of sensory knowledge and attentional focuson pleasure and on behavioral responses to hedonic stimuli. Paper presented at the 13th annualAmerican Psychological Society Convention, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Linehan, M., Schmidt, H., Dimeff, L., Craft, J., Katner, J., & Comtois, K. (1999). Dialectical

behavior therapy for patients with borderline personality disorder and drug-dependence.American Journal on Addiction, 8, 279-292.

Lord, R.G., & Kernan, M.C. (1987). Scripts as determinants of purposeful behavior inorganizations. Academy of Management Review, 12, 267-277.

Mainemelis, C., Boyatzis, R., and Kolb, D. (2002). Learning Styles and Adaptive Flexibility:Testing Experiential Learning Theory. Management Learning, Vol. 33 (1): 5-33.

Marlatt, G.A., Kristeller, J.L.. (1999). Mindfulness and meditation. In W. R. Miller (Ed.).Integrating Spirituality in Treatment. American Psychological Association Books. pp. 67-84.

Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing andstereotyping in children. Child Development, 52, 1119-1134.

Miller, J.J., Fletcher, K., Kabat-Zinn J. (1995). Three-year follow-up and clinical implications of a mindfulness meditation-based stress reduction intervention in the treatment of anxietydisorders. General Hospital Psychiatry; 17:192-200.

Perls, L. (1976). Aspects of Gestalt therapy. Unpublished manuscript presented at the AmericanOrthopsychiatric Association.

Pinder, C.C. (1998). Work Motivation in Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, Inc., UpperSaddle River, New Jersey.

Ryan, R.M. & Brown, K.W. (2003). Why We Don’t Need Self-Esteem: On Fundamental Needs,Contingent Love, and Mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, Vol. 14, No. 1.

Saxe G, Hebert J, Carmody J, Kabat-Zinn J, Rosenzweig P, Jarzobski D, Reed G, Blute R.(2001). Can diet, in conjunction with mindfulness-based stress reduction, affect the rate of increase in prostate-specific antigen after biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer? Journal of Urology, 166(6), 2202-2207, 2001.

Skinner, B. F. (1948). Walden II. New York: Macmillan.

Teasdale, J., Segal, Z., Williams, J., Ridgeway, V., Soulsby, J., & Lau, M.A.( 2000). Preventionof relapse/recurrence in major depression by mindfulness based cognitive therapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 68, 615-623.

Thera, N. (1962). The Heart of Buddhist Meditation. London: Rider & Co.

108




Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Watts, A. W. (1951). The Wisdom of Insecurity: A Message for an Age of Anxiety. PantheonBooks.

Yahya, I. (1998). Willcoxson and Prosser’s factor analysis on Kolb’s (1985) LSI data: reflectionsand re-analyses. British Journal of Educational Psychology; 68: 281-6.

Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye Movements and Vision. Plenum Press, New York.

109

Documents

Yeganeh Bauback