Relationships between mindfulness, self-control, and aggression

The primary purpose of the current study was to investigate the dynamic of interaction between individual differences in mindfulness, self-control, and aggression. The plausible interaction was explored by examining two different perspectives, whether (i) self-control mediated any relationships between mindfulness and trait aggression (ii) mindfulness accounted for incremental validity over self-control in predicting trait aggression, and therefore might moderate any relationships between self-control and aggression. Preliminary analysis indicated that mindfulness was associated with reduced trait aggression, and that higher levels of mindfulness were strongly associated with higher levels of self-control. However, the strengths of the predictions of mindfulness and self-control on the aggression measures were varied.

The proposed mediation of self-control on the link between mindfulness and general trait aggression was supported in the current study, even after controlling for relevant demographic factors (i.e., current educational status, sex, age, race/ethnicity, and current mindfulness practice). This finding provides empirical evidence that self-control may be the potential mechanism by which mindfulness reduces aggression. Further examination of the proposed mediation model on the four aggression subscales revealed that self-control mediated the impact of mindfulness on physical aggression, anger, and hostility, but not on verbal aggression. Verbal aggression appears to be more related to sex (i.e., higher levels of verbal aggression amongst male participants).

Recently, to demonstrate the incremental validity of mindfulness over self-control on psychological functioning, Bowlin and Baer (2012) used hierarchical regression analyses, in which trait self-control (Tangney et al.’s SCS, 2004) was entered prior to trait mindfulness (as measured by the FFMQ: Baer et al., 2006) at the regression steps. With this approach, significant variance of mindfulness would be established if the total variance of the outcome increases after the inclusion of mindfulness. Comparable results were obtained when we rerun the analysis following the Bowlin and Baer’s (2012) analysis (Note that in the current study, the unique contribution of mindfulness was estimated directly with bootstrapping method, through the c’ path [the direct effect of mindfulness on aggression]). Specifically, mindfulness showed incremental validity over self-control in predicting trait aggression, anger, and hostility, but not physical aggression. This finding highlights the unique role of mindfulness in the emotional or affective component of aggression (i.e., anger) as well as the cognitive one (i.e., hostility). The impact of mindfulness on physical aggression, however, appears to be largely attributable to self-control mechanism. As a comparison, one correlational study (Borders et al., 2010) found no support for the mediating role of rumination on the link between mindfulness and physical aggression, even though rumination mediated the link between mindfulness and verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. Altogether, self-control may be the primary mechanism through which mindfulness influences physical aggression.

Given that mindfulness accounted for significant variance in some of the aggression measures after the inclusion of self-control, it was reasonable to expect that mindfulness might moderate the link between self-control and aggression. No support was found for the proposed moderation models, either on general trait aggression or on any of the four trait aggression subscales. Higher self-controlled individuals would be less physically aggressive and less hostile regardless of their levels of mindfulness, whereas more mindful individuals would be less angry and hostile despite their self-control levels. This inconclusive pattern of results implicates the necessity to directly compare the effect of mindfulness and self-control through experimental studies, while controlling for individual differences in aggression. To this end, studies reported in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the current thesis do just this, comparing the impact of induction in mindfulness vs. training in self-control on aggressive behaviour (Chapter 3) and the moderating effect of mindfulness on aggressive behaviour following self-control depletion (Chapter 4 and 5).

No differences were found either in mindfulness or self-control as a function of current mindfulness experience.It is possible that these non-significant correlations

were due to the characteristics of our sample. In the original study of the

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), Brown and Ryan (2003) recruited meditation practitioners a Zen monastery, finding significant relationships between the MAAS and experience with meditation. Compared to Brown and Ryan’s sample, our meditation sample reported much lower MAAS scores (M = 3.65, SD = .91 vs. M

= 4.38, SD = .65 in our sample and the development scale sample, respectively). Additionally, Brown and Ryan’s sample was also much older (M age = 41.08, range 22 – 62 years) than our sample (M age = 23.87, range 18 – 41), which may be a relevant factor, as age showed positive correlation with trait mindfulness and self- control in the current study. A recent validation study of the MAAS also suggested for “caution in presuming experience with meditation is associated with greater mindfulness in a general sample” (MacKillop & Anderson, 2007, p.292).

Interestingly, current mindfulness experience was inversely associated with trait aggression and verbal aggression. One possible explanation is that those who have undertaken mindfulness meditation might have done so in order to deal with some

negative emotions or similar psychological distresses, including anger and aggression. While mindfulness practice may have helped them by reducing their aggression levels, we have no data to assess their levels of aggression before and after they engaged in such practice. Experimental studies could help address this possibility by examining the differences in aggression between those who have received mindfulness training compared to those who have not. It should also be noted that although we have provided a clear definition of mindfulness experience in the survey (i.e., “a specific meditational practice in directing attention without making any judgment”), participants were only asked to rate the amount of time of their current practice (i.e., daily, weekly, monthly, once in a year). Other crucial indicators may have been overlooked, such asthe duration of the practice history, or the extent to which they perceived that the practice was employed into daily life (Brown &Ryan, 2003). In addition, is also plausible that the unequal sample size (11.2% vs. 88.8% for “experienced” and no experience groups, respectively) may have compromised the conclusions we obtained.

Higher levels of trait aggression and anger were also reported by Asian participants compared to White participants, whereas no ethnic differences were found in overt aggression. This finding appears to contradict literature on the influence of cultural values on aggression. Asian cultures are typically associated with collectivism values, which emphasise the maintenance of social harmony and conflict avoidance, therefore should display less tendency to aggress than societies with stronger individualistic values (e.g., Forbes et al., 2009; Li et al., 2010; Magnis-Suseno, 1997). Nevertheless, our data were obtained online from anonymous participants. It is unclear whether those who classified as Asian would in reality adopt the collectivistic or individualistic values (e.g., some might have been born and raised within Western cultures). Hence a further cross-cultural comparison is warranted (see Chapter 6).