Mindfulness can be defined as the degree of awareness that is achieved by purposefully paying attention to the present moment, without judging it (Kabat-Zinn, 1994). Since the launch of the first empirical research conducted on this topic (Kabat-Zinn, 1982) numerous studies have shown the positive effects of increased mindfulness - on life- satisfaction, vitality, self-esteem, empathy, optimism, integrity, or positive affect – and its contribution to reducing the difficulties with emotional dysregulation, depression, neuroticism, rumination, social anxiety, and wandering thoughts (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Dekeyser, Raes, Leijssen, Leysen, & Dewulf, 2008; Keng, Smoski, & Robins, 2011; Rasmussen & Pidgeon, 2011; Thompson & Waltz, 2007).
The topic of age-differences in mindfulness in general population has received little attention in research (e.g. McCracken, Gauntlett-Gilbert, & Vowles, 2007; Shapiro, Brown, & Biegel, 2007). According to Sturgess (2012), the strongest research with implications about mindfulness and gender differences was conducted by Mogilner, Kamvar, and Aaker (2011), who have found a positive relationship between age and participants’ focus on the present. Authors suggested that “as people get older, they become more present-focused” (Mogilner, Kamvar, & Aaker, 2011, p. 399).
There is also very little research looking at whether males and females report similar or different levels of mindfulness. In most of the existing studies gender differences in mindfulness are not found (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Catak, 2012; De Petrillo, Kaufman, Glass, & Arnkoff, 2009; Feldman, Hayes, Kumar, Greeson, & Laurenceau, 2007; MacKillop & Anderson, 2007; Malcoun, 2008). But, there is some research about gender differences on emotional intensity showing that women generally experience both more positive and negative emotions (e.g. Diener, Sandvik, & Larsen, 1985).
Mindfulness has not been the subject of empirical research in Bosnia and Herzegovina, although it is applied as a technique in psychotherapy practice. Due to the recent war, transition period, poverty, unemployment, poor socio-economic status, people from Bosnian general population are usually focused on events in the past or are burdened by concern for the future, which means that usually a large number of Bosnian residents are not aware of the present moment, which is at the core of mindfulness. Awareness of the present provides insight into persons emotional state, unmet needs, and thus the awareness of own responsibility and possible choices a person can make to improve the quality of life.
Due to the limited research that has been conducted in this area, the goal of this study was to examine age and gender differences in mindfulness on a Bosnian sample. We were interested in mindfulness as a specific type of attention that is non-judgmentally focused on the present moment.
Since past research has shown that older adults have a greater tendency to focus on the present moment (Mogilner et al., 2011; Sturgess, 2012), our prediction is that older participants in Bosnian sample will have higher level of mindfulness. We also hypothesize that females will show higher levels of mindfulness than males, according to the results of previous research (Bryant, 2003; Tamres, Helgeson, & Janicki, 2002).
Method [TOP]
Participants and Design [TOP]
The study was conducted on a sample of 441 participants from Bosnian general population (213 men and 228 women), from twelve cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The age range of participants was from 18 to 65 years, and the average age was M = 39.9 (SD = 13.33). We used a cross-sectional design in which we tested age differences in mindfulness between young (20-32), middle-aged (33-49) and older (50+) participants using one-way ANOVA.
Instruments [TOP]
Five Factor Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) was developed by Baer, Smith, Lykins, et al. (2008). FFMQ measures five components of mindfulness: observing (“I notice the aromas of things”), describing (“I am good at finding words to describe my feelings”), acting with awareness (“I find myself doing things without paying attention”), nonjudging of inner experience (“I think some of my emotions are bad and or inappropriate and I should not feel them”), and nonreactivity to inner experience (“I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them”). Participants give answer on 39 items on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (very rarely or never true) to 5 (very often or always true). Baer et al. (2008) found an acceptable level of internal consistency within each of the five subfactors, with alpha coefficients ranging from .75 to .91. Alpha coefficients for Bosnian version of FFMQ (see Appendix) that we have used in this research were also satisfactory, ranging from .68 to .84.
Procedure [TOP]
In collection of data we had assistance of psychology students who asked persons they know from general population (their friends, neighbours and family members) to complete FFMQ and a social-demographic questionnaire. Each student was asked to find eight persons from each age group of both sexes. Participation in the survey was voluntary and anonymous.
Results [TOP]
According to the results in Table 1, older participants (33-49 and 50+ age groups) scores were higher than for younger participants for all aspects of mindfulness.
For the total score on FFMQ there was no significant age difference F(2, 426) = 1.801, p = 0.166. There was statistically significant difference between the three age groups on subscales Acting with awareness F(2, 435) = 7.39, p < .01 and Nonjudging of inner experience F(2, 428) = 5.67, p < .01 (Table 2). Although there was statistically significant difference on this subscales, the amount of this difference between groups was small (eta-squared for both subscales was η2 = 0.03). These results showed that in general older participants scored higher on these scales (Table 1).
Table 1
Scale | Age group | N | M | SD | Min | Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FFMQ_total | 20-32 | 147 | 127.86 | 15.09 | 90.00 | 167.00 |
33-49 | 140 | 130.89 | 13.58 | 84.00 | 168.00 | |
50+ | 140 | 130.46 | 15.32 | 98.00 | 172.00 | |
Total | 427 | 129.70 | 14.72 | 84.00 | 172.00 | |
Observing | 20-32 | 149 | 24.36 | 5.64 | 11 | 38 |
33-49 | 146 | 22.90 | 5.06 | 8 | 37 | |
50+ | 143 | 23.10 | 6.14 | 10 | 38 | |
Total | 438 | 23.46 | 5.66 | 8 | 38 | |
Describing | 20-32 | 149 | 28.53 | 6.07 | 8 | 40 |
33-49 | 146 | 28.96 | 5.32 | 15 | 40 | |
50+ | 143 | 28.91 | 5.68 | 12 | 40 | |
Total | 438 | 28.80 | 5.69 | 8 | 40 | |
Acting with awareness | 20-32 | 148 | 28.57 | 5.65 | 15 | 40 |
33-49 | 146 | 31.01 | 5.00 | 16 | 40 | |
50+ | 144 | 30.14 | 5.85 | 17 | 40 | |
Total | 438 | 29.90 | 5.59 | 15 | 40 | |
Nonjudging | 20-32 | 148 | 24.77 | 5.80 | 12 | 39 |
33-49 | 142 | 26.65 | 5.09 | 14 | 39 | |
50+ | 141 | 26.49 | 4.90 | 14 | 39 | |
Total | 431 | 25.95 | 5.35 | 12 | 39 | |
Nonreactivity | 20-32 | 149 | 21.87 | 4.52 | 7 | 35 |
33-49 | 144 | 21.39 | 4.57 | 7 | 31 | |
50+ | 144 | 21.90 | 4.47 | 8 | 33 | |
Total | 437 | 21.72 | 4.52 | 7 | 35 |
Table 2
Scale | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FFMQ_total | 777.827 | 2, 426 | 388.913 | 1.801 | .166 |
Observing | 184.524 | 2, 437 | 92.262 | 2.910 | .056 |
Describing | 16.230 | 2, 437 | 8.115 | .250 | .779 |
Acting with awareness | 449.401 | 2, 437 | 224.701 | 7.391 | .001 |
Nonjudging | 317.557 | 2, 430 | 158.779 | 5.672 | .004 |
Nonreactivity | 23.764 | 2, 436 | 11.882 | .581 | .560 |
We also calculated Tukey HSD post hoc test for multiple comparisons of age groups (Table 3). Results suggested that there was statistically significant difference for the subscale Acting with awareness between 20-32 age group (M = 28.57, SD = 5.66) and 33-49 age group (M = 31.01, SD = 5.00, p < .001), and between 20-32 age group and 50+ group (M = 30.14, SD = 5,86, p < .05). Also, there was a significant difference for the subscale Nonjudging between 20-32 age group (M = 24.77, SD = 5.80) and 33-49 age group (M = 26.65, SD = 5.09, p < .01), and between 20-32 age group and 50+ group (M = 26.49, SD = 4.90, p < .05).
Table 3
Dependent Variable | Age (I) | Age (J) | Mean Difference (I-J) | Std. Error | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FFMQ_total | 20-32 | 33-49 | -3.02857 | 1.73531 | .190 |
50+ | -2.60714 | 1.73531 | .291 | ||
33-49 | 20-32 | 3.02857 | 1.73531 | .190 | |
50+ | .42143 | 1.75634 | .969 | ||
50+ | 20-32 | 2.60714 | 1.73531 | .291 | |
33-49 | -.42143 | 1.75634 | .969 | ||
Observing | 20-32 | 33-49 | 1.458 | .656 | .068 |
50+ | 1.258 | .659 | .138 | ||
33-49 | 20-32 | -1.458 | .656 | .068 | |
50+ | -.201 | .662 | .951 | ||
50+ | 20-32 | -1.258 | .659 | .138 | |
33-49 | .201 | .662 | .951 | ||
Describing | 20-32 | 33-49 | -.429 | .664 | .795 |
50+ | -.379 | .667 | .837 | ||
33-49 | 20-32 | .429 | .664 | .795 | |
50+ | .050 | .671 | .997 | ||
50+ | 20-32 | .379 | .667 | .837 | |
33-49 | -.050 | .671 | .997 | ||
Acting with awareness | 20-32 | 33-49 | -2.439* | .643 | .000 |
50+ | -1.565* | .645 | .042 | ||
33-49 | 20-32 | 2.439* | .643 | .000 | |
50+ | .875 | .648 | .368 | ||
50+ | 20-32 | 1.565* | .645 | .042 | |
33-49 | -.875 | .648 | .368 | ||
Nonjudging | 20-32 | 33-49 | -1.885* | .622 | .007 |
50+ | -1.719* | .623 | .017 | ||
33-49 | 20-32 | 1.885* | .622 | .007 | |
50+ | .166 | .629 | .963 | ||
50+ | 20-32 | 1.719* | .623 | .017 | |
33-49 | -.166 | .629 | .963 | ||
Nonreactivity | 20-32 | 33-49 | .477 | .528 | .639 |
50+ | -.037 | .528 | .997 | ||
33-49 | 20-32 | -.477 | .528 | .639 | |
50+ | -.514 | .533 | .600 | ||
50+ | 20-32 | .037 | .528 | .997 | |
33-49 | .514 | .533 | .600 |
In Table 4 we presented the results of t-test for examining gender differences for FFMQ. According to the results, there was statistically significant gender difference for the subscale Observing (t(432) = -2.259, p < .05) and for the subscale Acting with awareness (t(432) = 2.197, p < .05). Women scored higher than man on the subscale Observing, while men had higher scores on the subscale Acting with awareness.
Table 4
Subscale | Gender | N | M | SD | t | df | p | ΔM | SEΔM |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Observing | Male | 208 | 22.78 | 5.687 | -2.259 | 432 | .024 | -1.221 | .541 |
Female | 226 | 24.00 | 5.568 | -2.257 | 427.345 | .025 | -1.221 | .541 | |
Describing | Male | 207 | 28.48 | 5.513 | -1.020 | 432 | .308 | -.561 | .550 |
Female | 227 | 29.04 | 5.911 | -1.023 | 431.775 | .307 | -.561 | .548 | |
Acting with awareness | Male | 207 | 30.50 | 5.420 | 2.197 | 432 | .029 | 1.176 | .535 |
Female | 227 | 29.32 | 5.701 | 2.202 | 431.242 | .028 | 1.176 | .534 | |
Nonjudging | Male | 204 | 26.27 | 5.431 | .999 | 425 | .318 | .517 | .517 |
Female | 223 | 25.76 | 5.252 | .998 | 418.699 | .319 | .517 | .518 | |
Nonreactivity | Male | 206 | 21.69 | 4.862 | -.239 | 431 | .811 | -.104 | .434 |
Female | 227 | 21.79 | 4.169 | -.237 | 405.892 | .813 | -.104 | .437 | |
FFMQ_total | Male | 200 | 129.6450 | 14.23877 | -.063 | 421 | .950 | -.09043 | 1.44450 |
Female | 223 | 129.7354 | 15.34519 | -.063 | 420.506 | .950 | -.09043 | 1.43863 |
Discussion [TOP]
According to the results of this research, we found that older participants’ scores on FFMQ were higher than for younger participants. Results also showed that there was small but statistically significant difference for the subscales Acting with awareness and Nonjudging of inner experience for 20-32 and 33-49 age groups, and between 20-32 and 50+ age groups.
Results reflect previous research suggesting that older adults demonstrate a higher degree of emotional control (Gross et al., 1997), as well as a greater tendency to focus on the present moment (Mogilner et al., 2011; Sturgess, 2012). Possible explanation for our results concerning the age differences is maturational change/developmental interpretation which posits that as individuals age, they develop increasingly adapt ways of managing their emotions, and therefore are less judging about themselves and others. It means that older adults are able to be more present “here and now”, because they are not interrupted by intensity of their emotions. This is also supported by the results of a longitudinal study of 2.704 participants in four generations of families (Charles, Reynolds, & Gatz, 2001) where they found that negative affect decreased with age, and that older people had a tendency to regulate their emotions more effectively. Savouring is another psychological construct that can be used to explain mindfulness (Sturgess, 2012): because older adults have greater tendency to savour the moment, control emotions, and remain focussed on the present, they tend to be more mindful, which can be one of explanations for our results.
In this research we also wanted to examine gender differences in mindfulness. Results of t-test showed that there was small but statistically significant gender difference for the subscales Observing, where females scored higher than men, and Acting with awareness, where males had higher scores than their counterparts. This result is consistent with previous data (for example, Sturgess, 2012). Gender differences could be explained with different cognitive functioning of females and males. According to the previous research, women in general are much better in observing details than men, and also in multitasking - doing several things at the same time, while men in general having a tendency to focus on one task at the time, and be more aware while doing it (Stoet, O’Connor, Conner, & Laws, 2013).
Our study was the preliminary research about age and gender differences in mindfulness in Bosnia and Herzegovina, so we hope that it will be only the beginning of empirical research about this topic. This study also has some limitations. For example, we collected self-report measures of mindfulness. Despite this, our study showed for the first time in our country some important evidence about age and gender differences in mindfulness that should be considered in future research. Our results revealed that in Bosnian general population, older adults were more mindful and that there were gender differences in mindfulness. These results provide basis for more extensive future research about mindfulness not only in general but also in clinical population.