Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Consciousness and Cognition

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/concog

The protective effects of brief mindfulness meditation training

Jonathan B. Banks , Matthew S. Welhaf, Alexandra Srour
Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 15 August 2014
Available online 10 February 2015
Keywords:
Working memory
Mind wandering
Mindfulness meditation
Stress
Training

a b s t r a c t
Mindfulness meditation has gained a great deal of attention in recent years due to the variety of physical and psychological benets, including improved working memory, decreased
mind wandering and reduced impact of stress on working memory. The current study
examined a 1-week at home mindfulness meditation intervention compared to an active
control intervention. Results suggest that mindfulness meditation does not increase working memory or decrease mind wandering but does prevent stress related working memory
impairments. Mindfulness meditation appears to alter the factors that impair working
memory such that the negative impact of mind wandering on working memory was only
evident at higher levels of negative affect. The use of cognitive mechanism words in narratives of stressful events did not differ by condition but predicted poorer working memory
in the control condition. The results support the use of an at home mindfulness meditation
intervention for reducing stress-related impairments.
2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Mindfulness meditative practices focus on experiencing present-moment awareness without attempts to suppress, judge,
or emotionally react to any stimuli (Kabat-Zinn, 1994). A wide variety of practices can be considered mindfulness meditation. However, these practices can be classied in two major groups that attempt to improve awareness through increases in
focused attention and through open monitoring of sensations without reactivity to the sensations or thoughts (Davidson &
Goleman, 1977). Mindfulness meditation techniques designed to improve focused attention include instructing participants
to focus on their breath or bodily sensation. Techniques designed to improve open monitoring strategies focus on improving
the individuals ability to experience thoughts without attempts to suppress or react to unwanted thoughts (Lutz, Slagter,
Dunne, & Davidson, 2008). Mindfulness based meditation impacts a variety of cognitive functions, including reductions in
the impact of repetitive thoughts (Feldman, Greeson, & Seville, 2010), decreases in emotional interference on cognitive tasks
(Ortner, Kilner, & Zelazo, 2007), increases in sustained attention (Morrison, Goolsarran, Rogers, & Jha, 2014), mood and attention (Baer, 2009; Jha, Krompinger, & Baime, 2007), working memory (Jha, Stanley, Kiyonaga, Wong, & Gelfand, 2010; Mrazek,
Franklin, Phillips, Baird, & Schooler, 2013), and decreases in mind wandering (Morrison et al., 2014; Mrazek et al., 2013). Of
specic interest to the current study are changes in working memory (WM) and mind wandering.
Impairments in WM have been shown to occur following psychosocial stressors (Oei, Everaerd, Elzinga, Van Well, &
Bermond, 2006) and self-reported negative life stress (Klein & Boals, 2001). Psychological stress related WM impairments
may be due to intrusive thoughts regarding the negative life event (Klein & Boals, 2001). Intrusive thoughts or a more general
Corresponding author at: Division of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Nova Southeastern University, 3301 College Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33314,
United States. Fax: +1 954 262 3760.
E-mail address: jonathan.banks@nova.edu (J.B. Banks).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2015.01.016
1053-8100/ 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

278

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

form of task-unrelated thoughts (TUTs), mind wandering, impairs performance on WM (Klein & Boals, 2001) and sustained
attention tasks (Banks, Tartar, & Welhaf, 2014; McVay & Kane, 2009).
Negative affect may be responsible for impaired WM following a psychological stressor. Stressful events result in
increases in negative affect (Stawski, Sliwinski, Almeida, & Smyth, 2008). Increases in negative affect increase mind wandering (Smallwood, Fitzgerald, Miles, & Phillips, 2009) and impair WM (Curci, Lanciano, Soleti, & Rime, 2013). It is possible the
impact of mind wandering on WM is greatest when negative affect is high. Interventions that prevent increases in negative
affect or alter the impact of mind wandering on working memory may prevent impairment in working memory from
occurring.
Mindfulness meditation may help prevent stress related decreases in WM. Specically, mindfulness meditation that aims
to improve open monitoring of thought may provide a greater reduction in stress related decreases in WM. An 8-week brief
mindfulness meditation training with an active duty military cohort during a stressful pre-deployment period, demonstrated
improvements in WM in individuals that practiced the meditation intervention most (Jha et al., 2010). Cognitive benets
resulting from mindfulness meditation interventions may be due to reductions in mind wandering. A 2-week mindfulness
training with college students evidenced increases in WM, GRE reading comprehension scores and decreases in TUTs during
the GRE task compared to participants in a control condition who completed a nutrition class (Mrazek et al., 2013). WM performance improvements were mediated by reductions in TUTs. Similar increases in sustained attention and decreases in
TUTs were observed following a 7-week training, but no increases in WM occurred (Morrison et al., 2014).
Although prior work (Mrazek et al., 2013) has provided important clues as to the mechanism by which mindfulness meditation improves cognitive functioning, the control group did not sufciently control for participant expectancy. Controlling
participant expectancy is critical for studies examining cognitive benets of mindfulness meditation because the intervention stresses focus of attention and minimizing distractions. The use of an active control reduces participant expectancy concerns only when expectation of improvement is similar across conditions (Boot, Simons, Stothart, & Stutts, 2013). The current
study will address this concern by using an active control group that produces similar participant expectations.
The current study focused on examining the impact of a mindfulness meditation training (MMT) intervention on WM and
mind wandering. To this end, we examined the impact of an acute 15-min intervention on WM and TUTs, in comparison to a
relaxation training (RT) intervention designed to generate equivalent expectancy. The two interventions are similar in that
they both include focused attention meditation practices that instructed the individual to focus on their breath during the
training. However, the MMT extends beyond the breathing techniques and includes open monitoring meditation training.
Specically, participants were instructed to notice instances of mind wandering in a non-judgmental manner and redirect
attention rather than suppress the thought. We hypothesized that MMT condition participants would evidence increases
in WM and reductions in TUTs following the 15-min intervention but similar changes would not occur in the RT condition.
We were also interested in examining the impact of a 1-week MMT completed at home. We hypothesized MMT condition
participants would experience further increases in WM and decreases in TUTs, while similar changes would not occur in the
RT condition.
Finally, we examined the ability of a brief mindfulness meditation to prevent the negative impact of stress on WM. Participants engaged in a brief psychological stressor involving writing about a personal negative life event. We hypothesized
that MMT condition participants would not experience changes in WM or TUTs following the psychological stressor. However, we hypothesized that RT condition participants would experience decrements in WM and increases in TUTs following
the stress manipulation. Specically, we hypothesized that following the stressor, impairments in WM would be predicted
by rates of TUTs and negative affect in the RT but not MMT condition.
The written narratives produced during the stressor will be examined to determine if word use predicts changes in WM.
Narratives about stressful events include a greater percentage of cognitive mechanism words (e.g. words about cause and
insight) than narratives about less stressful events (Boals & Klein, 2005). It has been argued that higher levels of cognitive
mechanism word use reects an active search for meaning (Klein & Boals, 2010) and an attempt to engage in a meaning making process (Boals, Banks, Hathaway, & Schuettler, 2011). We believe the search for meaning will result in impaired WM due
to intrusive thoughts about the event rather than focus on a subsequent task. Therefore, we hypothesized that rates of cognitive mechanism words would be negatively related with WM following the writing in the RT but not the MMT condition.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Eighty meditation-naive undergraduate students from Nova Southeastern University participated for partial course credit
and were randomly assigned to the MMT condition (n = 40) or RT condition (n = 40). Sixteen participants failed to return
within the required 10-days between sessions and two participants Session 2 data was lost due to computer malfunction.
Resulting in a sample of 62 participants at Session 2 (48 Female) with 34 in the MMT condition (M = 21.91 years old,
SD = 7.89; 25 Female; 17 Caucasian, 10 Hispanic, 6 AfricanAmerican, 1 other) and 28 in the RT condition (M = 19.82 years
old, SD = 4.21; 22 Female; 13 Caucasian, 7 Hispanic, 5 AfricanAmerican, 2 AsianPacic Islander, 1 other). Participants who
failed to return did not differ from those who returned on any Session 1 measures, ps > .05. Procedures were approved by the
Nova Southeastern University Institutional Review Board. Two exclusion criteria were applied to the current sample.

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

279

Participants could not have prior meditation experience and had to be current students at Nova Southeastern University. All
participants reported being students and no prior meditation experience.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. Automated Operation Span Task (AOSPAN; Unsworth, Heitz, Schrock, & Engle, 2005)
To assess WM, participants completed the AOSPAN. During the AOSPAN participants verify the accuracy of a solution to a
math problem (e.g. (2 5) + 3 = ?; 7) and are presented with a capital letter (out of 12 possible letters). Following each trial, of
37 verication-letter pairs, participants identied, via mouse click, letters in the trial in serial order from a grid of 12 possible letters. The AOSPAN was scored by summing the number of letters recalled in correct serial position (Conway et al.,
2005).
2.2.2. Thought probes (McVay & Kane, 2009)
15 Thought probes were inserted into the AOSPAN following letter recall grids to measure task-unrelated thoughts
(TUTs). Participants responded to the prompt, What were you just thinking about, by selecting one of the response options:
a. Task-related thoughts pertaining to the current task of letter recall, b. Task-related evaluative thoughts-positive c.
Task-related evaluative thoughts-negative, d. Task-unrelated thoughts, neutral content, e. Task-unrelated thoughts,
positive content, and f. Task-unrelated thoughts, negative content, and g. Task-unrelated thoughts, about the writing
task. Percentage of TUTs was calculated by summing the number of off-task response choices (options dg) selected and
dividing by the number of probes.
2.2.3. Dundee Stress State Questionnaire (DSSQ; Matthews et al., 1999)
The DSSQ is a retrospective measure used to assess subjective states in response to stressful environments. Participants
completed the thinking content (TC) scale, retrospective measure of TUTs (DSSQTUTs), and the thinking style (TS) scales,
including Self-focused Attention, Self-esteem, Concentration, Control and Condence (Matthews et al., 2002). Participants
responded to questions in reference to thoughts during the AOSPAN (e.g. I thought about personal worries) on a 5 point
Likert-type scale, from 1 (Never) to 5 (Very Often). The Thinking Content and Thinking Styles demonstrated reasonable internal consistency in the current sample at all time points (a = .75.88 and a = .82.90, respectively).
2.2.4. Five-Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006)
The 39-item self-report measure of mindfulness is composed of ve subscales: observing, describing, acting with
awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and non-reactivity to inner experience. Participants responded to questions
(e.g. I watch my feelings without getting lost in them) on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (never or very rarely true)
to 5 (very often or always true). Internal consistency in the current sample was acceptable at both time points for all subscales
(a = .64.91).
2.2.5. Positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)
The 20-item questionnaire measures positive and negative affect. Participants rated their current mood in relation to
items on a 5-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (Very slightly or not at all) to 5 (Extremely). Separate scores for positive and
negative affect were calculated, with higher scores indicated greater affect. This scale yields high inter-item correlations,
in the current sample for positive affect (ranging from a = .90.94) and negative affect (a = .80.84).
2.2.6. Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (AAQ: Bond et al., 2011)
The 7-item AAQ was used to assess psychological exibility and self-regulation. Participants rated statements regarding
their level of psychological exibility (e.g. worries get in the way of my success) on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1
(Never true) to 7 (Always true). Scores were calculated by summing items; with higher scores indicate poorer psychological
exibility and self-regulation. The AAQ has been shown to have high reliability (.81.87; Bond et al., 2011) and demonstrated
high internal consistency (a = .86.87) in the current sample at both time points.
2.2.7. Cognitive mechanism words
Word use in participants narrative of the stressful event was examined using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count Program 2007 (LIWC2007; Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007). The LIWC program calculates percentage of cognitive mechanisms category words in the narrative.
2.2.8. Expectancy and compliance
Two expectancy items were completed. Items asked participants, To what extent [do/did] you expect that your performance on [a task or your ability to focus/the working memory task] [is likely to change/changed] as a result of participating
in the study? Participants responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (I expected it to decrease signicantly) to 7
(I expected it to increase signicantly). Items were completed by a subset of the sample (Expectancy Session 1, n = 65; Expectancy Session 2, n = 50). No differences were found between conditions on either expectancy item, ps > .05.

280

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

Two clarity and compliance questions (Feldman et al., 2010) were administered. The clarity prompt asked participants,
To what extent did you feel that the taped instructions were clear enough for you to understand what you were being asked
to do. The compliance prompt asked participants To what extent did you follow the taped instructions. Participants
responded on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Not at All) to 7 (A Great Extent). In general, participants found
the instructions clear (M = 6.47, SD = 0.74) and were able to follow them (M = 6.06, SD = 1.10), with no differences observed
by condition, ps > .05.
2.2.9. Visual analogue scale (VAS; Gaab, Rohleder, Nater, & Ehlert, 2005)
The visual analogue scale was used to assess subjective stress. Participants indicated their response by marking a line
with end points of Not at all anxious to Very anxious. Responses were calculated by measuring (centimeters) distance
from the Not at all anxious end to the participants mark, with higher scores indicating greater anxiety. Items in this scale
included The past situation was stressful for me and I found the past situation to be a challenge.
2.2.10. Demographics
Participants completed a demographics questionnaire, assessing age, sex, and ethnicity.
2.2.11. Mindfulness Meditation Training (MMT)
The MMT was based on previously used training scripts (Feldman et al., 2010) that were based on scripts used in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002). The goal of the MMT, consistent with open monitoring
meditation training, was to promote the awareness and acceptance of thoughts and emotions, rather than suppressing
unwanted thoughts. Participants were instructed to focus their attention on breathing techniques and to notice when they
experience any instance of mind wandering in an accepting and non-judgmental manner. Following the instance of mind
wandering, the training encouraged the participant to return the focus of attention to the breathing techniques rather than
actively suppressing the mind wandering. The training was delivered via a 15-min audio recording that guided participants
to become aware of thoughts and emotions from moment-to-moment without focusing on any single thought or emotion
(Feldman et al., 2010).
2.2.12. Relaxation Training (RT)
The RT included progressive muscle relaxation and body-scan exercises used in prior studies as active control techniques
(Feldman et al., 2010; Ortner et al., 2007). The 15-min RT audio recording guided participants through progressive muscle
relaxation and body-scan techniques that directed attention to the body, and progressively tensing and relaxing each body
part starting from the feet and ending at the head. The RT also includes instruction regarding focusing on breathing techniques to assist in the muscle relaxation and body-scan techniques. However, unlike the MMT, participants were not given
any instruction regarding the occurrence of mind wandering.
2.2.13. Writing stressor
To induce psychological stress participants nominated a current personal negative life event. Following the nomination,
participants completed a 10-min expressive writing description of the event (Boals et al., 2011). Participants received the
following instructions:
You will now have ten minutes to write about the event that you just nominated. In your writing, Id like you to really let
go and explore your deepest emotions and thoughts about this specic issue. You may write about more than one aspect
of the event. Some people nd it best to explore their emotions and then try to come to an understanding of the event(s).
Do your best to try to tie it all together at the end of your writing. We ask that you do not include any information that
could identify you as we want this writing to remain condential and for you to feel free to be able to write things you
would not want tied to you. Only the researchers involved in this project will have access to read your essays. Therefore,
your condentiality is assured and your name will never be linked to anything you write. The important thing is that you
really let go and dig down to your very deepest emotions and thoughts about the negative event and explore them in your
writing. You have ten minutes to write about the nominated event.
2.3. Procedure
Upon arrival, participants were randomly assigned to condition and completed informed consent forms. Participants
completed self-report measures, including the AAQ, PANAS, FFMQ, and Expectancy item. Participants then completed the
AOSPAN (with thought probes; AOSPAN Time 1) and DSSQ (TC and TS, Time 1) as baseline measures. Participants listened
to the 15-min guided training recording based on condition. Following the training, participants completed the AOSPAN
(with thought probes; AOSPAN Time 2) and DSSQ (TC, Time 2). Participants were given an audio recording of the training
based on condition and instructed to practice the training at home in a quiet, private room at least four times during the
week before the second session. Participants completed a daily time log to indicate the date and duration of each session
at home. No differences were found between conditions on the number of practice sessions completed (M = 4.62 sessions,
SD = 1.42), p > .05.

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

281

Seven to ten days following the rst session (M = 7.06 days, SD = 0.90), participants returned and listened to the training
recording to provide a brief booster. Participants then completed the AAQ, PANAS, FFMQ, and AOSPAN (with thought
probes; AOSPAN Time 3) followed by the DSSQ (TC and TS, Time 3). Participants were then given 10 min to complete the
writing stressor task. Finally, participants completed the AOSPAN (with thought probes; AOSPAN Time 4), DSSQ (TC, Time
4), PANAS, VAS, Expectancy, compliance, clarity and demographics measures.
3. Results
To examine the rst hypothesis, that mindfulness meditation training would increase WM and decrease mind wandering
following the brief exposure in Session 1, three ANOVAs were conducted. No effects of time, condition, or interactions were
found on the AOSPAN or TUTs, all ps > .05. An effect of time was found on the DSSQ-TC-TUTs, F (1, 76) = 19.21, p < .0001,
partial g2 = .25, but no effects of condition or interaction, ps > .05. DSSQ-TC-TUTs decreased from the start of Session 1
(M = 11.42, SD = 5.32) to the end of Session 1 (M = 10.03, SD = 4.28).
To examine the second hypothesis, that a 1-week mindfulness meditation training would increase WM and decrease
mind wandering, scores on the AOSPAN, TUTs and DSSQ-TC-TUTs were compared from baseline measurement in Session
1 (Time 1) to initial measurement in Session 2 (Time 3). As seen in Fig. 1, a signicant increase in AOSPAN scores was
observed, F (1, 60) = 8.79, p < .01, partial g2 = .15, but no effects of condition or interaction were found, ps > .05. No effects
of time, condition, or interaction were observed for the TUTs or DSSQ-TC-TUTs, all ps > .05.
To examine changes on self-report measures of mindfulness, the AAQ, FFMQ, and DSSQ-TS, scores from Session 1 to Session 2 were compared. As seen in Table 1, a signicant effect of time and a trend for a time by condition interaction, but no
effect of condition, p > .05, was observed on the AAQ. Decreases in AAQ scores were observed in the MMT condition, t
(34) = 3.94, p < .001, d = .40, 95% CI [1.12, 3.51] but not RT condition, t (27) = 0.63, p > .05, d = .008, 95% CI [ 1.12, 2.12]. A
trend for a time by condition interaction was found for the DSSQ-TS-Control and Condence subscale. MMT and RT conditions did not differ during Session 1, p > .05, however, during Session 2 DSSQ-TS-Control and Condence scores were higher
in the MMT condition than RT condition, t (61) = 2.60, p < .05, d = .66, 95% CI [1.05, 8.02].
Signicant time effects were observed on the FFMQ-Act with Awareness subscale, FFMQ-Nonjudging subscale, DSSQ-TSSelf-esteem subscale, and DSSQ-TS-Self-focused Attention subscale. However, no time by condition interactions were
observed on any of these measures, ps > .05. No effects of time, condition or interactions were observed on the FFMQObserving, FFMQ-Describing, FFMQ-Nonreactivity, or DSSQ-TS-Concentration subscales, ps > .05.
The stress manipulation was effective at increasing negative affect, F (1, 60) = 17.27, p < .0001, partial g2 = .29, and
decreasing positive affect. F (1, 60) = 8.60, p < .01, partial g2 = .14. No effects of condition or time by condition interactions
were observed for positive or negative affect, ps > .05. VAS item ratings did not differ by condition, ps > .05, suggesting
an equivalent perceived stress in each condition. Further, no differences were found by condition on cognitive mechanism
word use, p > .05.
To test the hypothesis the stress manipulation would impact the RT but not MMT condition, AOSPAN, TUTs, and DSSQ-TCTUTs prior to and following the stressor were examined. An effect of time, F (1, 60) = 6.53, p < .05, partial g2 = .34, condition, F
(1, 60) = 6.72, p < .05, partial g2 = .11, and time by condition interaction, F (1, 60) = 6.53, p < .05, partial g2 = .34, were found
for the AOSPAN. As seen in Fig. 1, the MMT and RT conditions did not differ prior to the stressor, p > .05, but AOSPAN scores
were higher in the MMT condition following the stressor (M = 62.47, SD = 9.77) than RT condition (M = 52.29, SD = 17.06), F
(1, 61) = 8.68, p < .01, partial g2 = .13. Increases in task-unrelated thoughts were observed on the DSSQ-TC-TUTs, F
(1, 60) = 8.30, p < .01, partial g2 = .14, and a trend for a similar effect on TUTs, F (1, 60) = 3.34, p = .07, partial g2 = .06. No
effects of condition or interactions were observed on the DSSQ-TC-TUTs or TUTs, ps > .05. As hypothesized a negative relationship was found between TUTs and AOSPAN in the RT condition following the stressor, r (28) = .42, p < .05, but not the
MMT condition, r (34) = .08, p > .05. These results suggest the MMT appears to have altered the relationship between WM
and TUTs.
To determine predictors of change in AOSPAN following the stress manipulation, we conducted a series of hierarchical
multiple regression analyses predicting AOSPAN Time 4 scores, controlling for AOSPAN Time 3 scores. As seen in Table 2,

Fig. 1. AOSPAN scores by condition as a function of time. Error bars indicate SEM and asterisks indicate a signicant difference between the conditions
(p < .05).

282

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

Table 1
Self-report measures of mindfulness across session by condition.
MMT
Session 1
M (SD)
AAQ
FFMQ-Act
FFMQ-Nonjudging
FFMQ-Observing
FFMQ-Describing
FFMQ-Nonreactivity
DSSQ-TS-Control and
Condence
DSSQ-TS-Self-focused
DSSQ-TS-Self-Esteem
DSSQ-TS-Concentration
+
**
****

15.97
(5.70)
25.37
(6.79)
27.63
(5.70)
26.11
(4.63)
27.74
(6.53)
23.40
(4.39)
25.60
(6.46)
16.54
(6.56)
13.29
(5.72)
16.89
(3.20)

RT
Session 2
M (SD)

Session 1
M (SD)

13.66
(5.14)
26.86
(6.58)
28.91
(6.44)
26.26
(5.25)
27.71
(8.07)
22.63
(4.93)
26.86
(6.97)
13.46
(5.32)
16.49
(5.15)
17.09
(4.42)

Session 2
M (SD)

16.93
(5.48)
26.68
(5.78)
26.71
(6.67)
24.25
(4.55)
26.82
(6.24)
19.68
(4.88)
24.11
(6.48)
14.89
(5.64)
15.52
(3.43)
16.74
(4.36)

F (effect of
time)

16.43
(6.15)
27.35
(4.97)
28.61
(7.26)
23.93
(5.42)
26.46
(4.80)
19.61
(4.56)
22.32
(6.74)
13.79
(5.71)
18.00
(3.29)
15.82
(6.17)

Partial

g2

F
(time  condition)

Partial

g2

8.52

**

.14

3.51

.06

9.13

**

.15

1.27

.19

0.41

0.04

0.27

0.19

0.14

0.84

0.58

0.18

3.76+

.06

.13

1.70

.37

0.32

0.91

11.36

**

7.67**
22.21

****

0.44

p < .07.
p < .01.
p < .0001.

the rst step included only AOSPAN Time 3. Cognitive mechanism words, post-stressor positive and negative affect, TUTs,
and an interaction between TUTs at Time 4 and post stressor negative affect were entered in step 2. Cognitive mechanism
words and negative affect predicted poorer AOSPAN performance in the RT condition but not the MMT condition. Positive
affect predicted AOSPAN performance in the MMT condition. The interaction between TUTs and negative affect was a significant predictor in the MMT but not the RT condition. As seen in Fig. 2, the impact of TUTs on AOSPAN at Time 4 was plotted
for a hypothetical participant in the MMT condition, 1 SD above and below the mean negative affect. AOSPAN scores declined
as TUTs increased when negative affect was high but not when it was low.
4. Discussion
The current study examined the impact of mindfulness meditation on WM and mind wandering. Results suggest MMT did
not improve WM or decrease mind wandering compared to the RT, following the training in Session 1 or as a result of the

Table 2
Hierarchical regression models for AOSPAN performance at Time 4.
B

SE

Adjusted R2

Mindfulness meditation training condition

Step 1:
AOSPAN T3
Step 2:
AOSPAN T3
TUT T4
Cognitive Words
PANAS-NEG
PANAS-POS
TUT  PANAS-NEG Interaction

0.83
0.75
6.54
0.38
0.25
0.20
2.79

0.15
0.12
4.02
0.36
0.16
0.09
0.84

.69
.62
.16
.11
.16
.22
.34

5.42****
6.03****
1.63
1.06
1.56
2.18*
3.31**

29.38****
14.09****

.46
.71

Relaxation training condition

Step 1:
AOSPAN T3
Step 2:
AOSPAN T3
TUT T4
Cognitive Words
PANAS-NEG
PANAS-POS
TUT  PANAS-NEG Interaction

1.15
1.35
3.17
1.67
0.90
0.18
1.87

0.15
0.16
7.83
0.59
0.42
0.17
2.16

.84
.99
.04
.28
.21
.10
.09

7.79****
8.45****
0.40
2.85**
2.14*
1.03
.86

60.64****
17.03****

.70
.78

*
**
****

p < .05.
p < .01.
p < .0001.

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

283

Fig. 2. The relationship between working memory and Task-Unrelated Thoughts as a function of negative affect in the Mindfulness Meditation Condition.
Lines depict slopes for a hypothetical participant at the mean and 1 SD above and below the mean for negative affect following the stress manipulation.

1-week training. We were interested in determining if MMT prevented stress related changes in mind wandering and WM.
Decreases in WM were observed following the stressor in the RT but not MMT condition. MMT did not reduce mind wandering following the stressor.
The lack of improvements in WM and decreases in mind wandering as a result of the MMT are important due to the differences in control groups between the current study and prior work (Morrison et al., 2014; Mrazek et al., 2013). The active
control group in the current study produced equivalent expectation of changes in WM. Ensuring equivalent expectations are
critical for active control groups to ensure that any effect of training is not due to participant expectancy (Boot et al., 2013).
In light of the contradictory ndings, the benets of mindfulness meditation must be examined cautiously. It is important to
note the duration of the current intervention, 1 week, was shorter than prior work (Morrison et al., 2014; Mrazek et al.,
2013). Therefore, a longer intervention could produce improved WM and decreased TUTs. The MMT condition demonstrated
greater improvements in one self-report measure of mindfulness, the AAQ, than RT condition, suggesting the MMT did alter
mindfulness. Despite the successful use in prior work (Feldman et al., 2010) it is possible the delivery of the intervention, via
audio-recording, caused the differences in results. Prior training studies have relied on a trained meditation leader to guide
participants through the intervention in small groups (Jha et al., 2010; Morrison et al., 2014; Mrazek et al., 2013). One benet
to this approach is that the meditation leader can adjust the delivery of the intervention based on the individuals responses
and training programs make focus on different techniques during each training session, providing for a gradual building of
the techniques required to engage in mindfulness meditation. While we do not argue that this may be benecial, indeed,
training programs using this approach may provide more robust effects, we were interested in the efcacy of a brief at home
intervention. Following similar logic as work examining a self-administered, mild exposure therapy (Boals, Banks, & Hayslip,
2012), we wanted to provide an alternative method of training that could work for individuals who were unable or unwilling
to attend a meditation training lead by an instructor.
These results provide additional support for the prophylactic effects of mindfulness following stress (Jha et al., 2010), such
that impairments in WM were observed in the RT but not MMT condition. Although MMT did not reduce mind wandering
frequency compared to the RT, MMT altered the relationship between TUTs and task performance. TUTs were correlated with
AOSPAN task performance following the stressor in the RT but not MMT condition. The stressor produced similar changes in
both conditions on negative and positive affect and similar ratings on the VAS measure of perceived stress. However, working memory did not decrease as a result of these changes in the MMT condition, suggesting the intervention altered the
impact of these factors. Reduced reaction to repetitive thoughts following a mindfulness intervention, demonstrated previously (Feldman et al., 2010), appears to be responsible for protective effects of mindfulness interventions. The decreases
reactivity of TUTs is critical for cognitive functioning because the suppression of TUTs may be responsible for impaired cognitive performance. Suppression of TUTs consumes cognitive resources required for ongoing task performance (Klein & Boals,
2001; Wegner, 1994). The open monitoring techniques included in the MMT encourage individuals to redirect attention following TUTs rather than suppressing TUTs (Kabat-Zinn, 1994). The nonjudgmental acceptance of TUTs may be responsible
for increases in executive control and emotion regulation (Teper, Segal, & Inzlicht, 2013) and may be the critical component
of protective effects of mindfulness meditation.
Cognitive mechanism words provide a novel way to examine this hypothesis. Cognitive word use did not differ between
conditions in the writing task since the goal of the writing is to think about the event. However, higher rates of cognitive
mechanism words, indicating greater engagement in meaning making (Boals et al., 2011), should require more effort to suppress during the AOSPAN, resulting in poorer AOSPAN performance. Cognitive mechanism words predicted poorer AOSPAN
task performance in the RT condition, supporting this hypothesis. Further, rates of cognitive mechanism word use did not
predict change in AOSPAN performance in the MMT condition, reecting an acceptance of TUTs and lack of attempts to
actively suppress the thoughts. This supports the idea that acceptance and lack of suppression of TUTs may be responsible
for the protective effects of mindfulness meditation. Thus, mindfulness meditation training that employs only focused attention techniques, such as the breathing techniques used in the RT condition are unlikely to produce the same benets
observed in the current study using open monitoring techniques.

284

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

The impact of negative affect on WM replicated prior ndings (Curci et al., 2013), such that negative affect predicted
poorer AOSPAN performance following the stressor in the RT condition. Further, higher positive affect resulted in positive
changes in AOSPAN performance in the MMT condition, consistent with prior ndings (Yang, Yang, & Isen, 2013). The only
predictor for poorer AOSPAN performance following the stressor in the MMT condition was the interaction between TUTs
and negative affect. Although mindfulness meditation should prevent the impact of TUTs and negative affect (Feldman
et al., 2010), the relationship may be present because of the short duration of the intervention. The 1-week training appears
to have been sufcient to reduce the impact of TUTs at low to moderate levels but not the highest levels of negative affect,
suggesting the impact of mind wandering is greatest when negative affect is high. Longer training studies have shown
greater benets for those that engage in the most practice (Jha et al., 2010). Future research should determine if the impact
of the interaction between TUTs and negative affect on WM occurs with increased training time.
The current study has several limitations worth noting. First, due to the at home nature of the intervention it is not possible to ensure that participants completed all of the training sessions. However, the MMT intervention did produce the
expected protective results suggesting participants completed the training. Further, examining this alternative delivery of
the MMT is helpful due to the ability to easily deliver it to a larger population. Second, the lack of a waitlist control group
means that increases in WM across sessions must be interpreted with caution. It is not possible to determine if increases are
due to practice effects or benecial effects of the RT. Finally, the duration of the training period, 1 week, and each training
session, 15 min, may have limited the impact of the intervention on working memory and mind wandering. Training studies
demonstrating an effect on working memory and mind wandering have used 78 week durations (Jha et al., 2010; Morrison
et al., 2014). These studies have also relied on longer single training session, ranging from 20 min sessions (Morrison et al.,
2014), 45 min sessions (Mrazek et al., 2013) to studies that include day long retreats (Jha et al., 2010). However, improvements following mindfulness meditation interventions of as little as 8 (Mrazek, Smallwood, & Schooler, 2012), 15 (Feldman
et al., 2010), and 20 min (Zeidan, Johnson, Diamond, David, & Goolkasian, 2010) have been demonstrated. Future studies
should determine if a longer training period would produce increases in working memory or decreases mind wandering
observed previously.
Understanding the effect of mindfulness meditation on WM and mind wandering is critical given the importance of preventing stress related impairment in academic and real world settings. Current ndings suggest a novel approach to delivering a brief mindfulness meditation intervention to a wide audience. Although methodological differences between the
current study and prior work (Morrison et al., 2014; Mrazek et al., 2013) exist, current results suggest that further investigation of the impact of mindfulness mediation on WM is warranted. Reduced reaction to mind wandering, rather than
reduced mind wandering appears to be responsible for the prophylactic benets of mindfulness meditation.
Acknowledgment
We would like to thank Michael Kane for assistance with the study design.
References
Baer, R. A. (2009). Self-focused attention and mechanisms of change in mindfulness-based treatment. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 38(S1), 1520. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/16506070902980703.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self- report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment,
13, 2745. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504.
Banks, J. B., Tartar, J. L., & Welhaf, M. (2014). Wheres the impairment: An examination of factors that impact sustained attention following a stressor.
Cognition and Emotion, 28, 856866. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.857643.
Boals, A., Banks, J. B., Hathaway, L. M., & Schuettler, D. (2011). Coping with stressful events: Use of cognitive words in stressful narratives and the meaningmaking process. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 30, 378403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2011.30.4.378.
Boals, A., Banks, J. B., & Hayslip, B. (2012). A self-administered, mild form of exposure therapy for older adults. Aging & Mental Health, 16, 154161.
Boals, A., & Klein, K. (2005). Word use in emotional narratives about failed romantic relationships and subsequent mental health. Journal of Language and
Social Psychology, 24, 252268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X05278386.
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., et al (2011). Preliminary psychometric properties of the acceptance and action
questionnaire II: A revised measure of psychological exibility and experiential avoidance. Behavioral Therapy, 42, 676688. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.beth.2011.03.007.
Boot, W. R., Simons, D. J., Stothart, C., & Stutts, S. (2013). The pervasive problem with placebos in psychology: Why active control groups are not sufcient to
rule out placebo effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(4), 445454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691613491271.
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D. Z., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and
users guide. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12(5), 769786. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03196772.
Curci, A., Lanciano, T., Soleti, E., & Rime, B. (2013). Negative emotional experiences arouse rumination and affect working memory capacity. Emotion, 13(5),
867880. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032492.
Davidson, R., & Goleman, D. J. (1977). The role of attention in meditation and hypnosis: A psychobiological perspective on transformations of consciousness.
International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis, 25, 291308.
Feldman, G., Greeson, J., & Seville, J. (2010). Differential effects of mindful breathing, progressive muscle relaxation, and loving kindness meditation on
decentering and negative reactions to repetitive thoughts. Behavior Research and Therapy, 48, 10021011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2010.06.006.
Gaab, J., Rohleder, N., Nater, U. M., & Ehlert, U. (2005). Psychological determinants of the cortisol stress response: The role of anticipatory cognitive
appraisal. Psychoneuroimmunology, 30, 599610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2005.02.001.
Jha, A., Krompinger, J., & Baime, M. J. (2007). Mindfulness training modies subsystems of attention. Cognition, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 7,
109119. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/CABN.7.2.109.
Jha, A., Stanley, E. A., Kiyonaga, A., Wong, L., & Gelfand, L. (2010). Examining the protective effects of mindfulness training on working memory capacity and
affective experience. Emotion, 10, 5464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018438.

J.B. Banks et al. / Consciousness and Cognition 33 (2015) 277285

285

Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, & future. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(144), 156. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bog016.
Klein, K., & Boals, A. (2001). The relationship between life event stress and working memory capacity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 565579. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.727.
Klein, K., & Boals, A. (2010). Coherence and narrative structure in personal accounts of stressful experiences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29,
256280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.3.256.
Lutz, A., Slagter, H. A., Dunne, J. D., & Davidson, R. J. (2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Science, 14, 163169.
Matthews, G., Joyner, L., Campbell, S. E., Gilliland, K., Huggins, J., & Falconer, S. (1999). Validation of a comprehensive stress state questionnaire: Towards a
state big three? Personality Psychology, 7, 335350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154193120404801107.
Matthews, G., Campbell, S. E., Falconer, S., Joyner, L. A., Huggins, J., Gilliand, K., et al (2002). Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance
settings: Task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion, 2, 315340.
McVay, J., & Kane, M. (2009). Conducting the train of thought: Working memory capacity, goal neglect, and mind wandering in an executive-control task.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35, 196204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014104.
Morrison, A. B., Goolsarran, M., Rogers, S. L., & Jha, A. P. (2014). Taming a wandering attention: Short-form mindfulness training in student cohorts. Frontiers
in Human Neuroscience, 7, 112. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00897.
Mrazek, M., Franklin, M., Phillips, D. J., Baird, B., & Schooler, J. W. (2013). Mindfulness training improves working memory capacity and GRE performance
while reducing mind wandering. Psychological Science, 5, 776781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797612459659.
Mrazek, M. D., Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2012). Mindfulness and mind wandering: Finding convergence through opposing constructs. Emotion, 12,
442448. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026678.
Oei, N. Y. L., Everaerd, W., Elzinga, B., Van Well, S., & Bermond, B. (2006). Psychosocial stress impairs working memory at high loads: An association with
cortisol levels and memory retrieval. Stress, 9, 133141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10253890600965773.
Ortner, C., Kilner, S., & Zelazo, P. (2007). Mindfulness meditation and reduced emotional on a cognitive task. Motivation and Emotion, 31, 271283. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-007-9076-7.
Pennebaker, J. W., Booth, R. J., & Francis, M. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC 2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for depression: A new approach to preventing relapse. NY: Guilford
Press.
Smallwood, J., Fitzgerald, A., Miles, L. K., & Phillips, L. H. (2009). Shifting moods, wandering minds: Negative moods lead the mind to wander. Emotion, 9(2),
271276. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014855.
Stawski, R. S., Sliwinski, M. J., Almeida, D. M., & Smyth, J. M. (2008). Reported exposure and emotional reactivity to daily stressors: The roles of adult age and
global perceived stress. Psychology and Aging, 23(1), 5261. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.23.1.52.
Teper, R., Segal, Z. V., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Inside the mindful mind: How mindfulness enhances emotion regulation through improvements in executive
control. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 449454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413495869.
Unsworth, N., Heitz, R., Schrock, J., & Engle, R. W. (2005). An automated version of the operation span task. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 498505. http://
dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03192720.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10631070. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/022-3514.51.6.1063.
Wegner, D. (1994). Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological Review, 101, 3452. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.1.34.
Yang, H., Yang, S., & Isen, A. M. (2013). Positive affect improves working memory: Implications for controlled cognitive processing. Cognition and Emotion,
27(3), 474482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2012.713325.
Zeidan, F., Johnson, S. K., Diamond, B. J., David, Z., & Goolkasian, P. (2010). Mindfulness meditation improves cognition: Evidence of brief mental training.
Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 597605. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.03.014.