Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 154–158

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

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

The mindful personality: Associations between dispositional

mindfulness and the Five Factor Model of personality
Adam W. Hanley ⁎
Educational Psychology and Learning Systems, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: While curiosity about the correlates of mindfulness continues to grow, how mindfulness is related to personality
Received 30 August 2015 factors remains unclear. Indeed, the relationships between dispositional mindfulness (DM) and one of the most
Received in revised form 22 November 2015 common conceptualizations of personality, the Five Factor Model (FFM) have yielded mixed results. It may be
Accepted 27 November 2015
that these mixed findings have resulted from a lack of analytic specificity. This study explored the relationship
Available online xxxx
between DM and the FFM of personality, paying particular attention to the analysis of the mindfulness facets
Keywords:
with respect to the FFM using canonical correlation analysis. The total DM score was found to be signifi-
Mindfulness cantly correlated with each personality factor, with the strongest relationships observed between DM
Awareness and neuroticism (negatively associated) as well as DM and conscientiousness (positively associated).
Personality The canonical correlation analysis provided further evidence of the relationship between DM and the
Five factor personality model FFM at a finer level of specificity. Three clusters of association emerged between the DM facets and the
personality factors: 1) a self-regulation cluster, negatively associated with neuroticism and positively as-
sociated with conscientiousness, 2) a self-awareness cluster positively associated with openness, and
3) the conscientious confusion cluster, demonstrated a mixed relationship between conscientiousness
and the mindful self-regulation cluster.
© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

1. Introduction 1.1. Dispositional mindfulness

How mindfulness is related to personality remains unclear, despite
mounting evidence of the benefits of mindfulness (e.g., Eberth &
Sedlmeier, 2012). Better understanding the relationship between dispo-
sitional mindfulness and personality is believed to have significant clin-
ical utility, potentially providing important predictive information with
respect to clinical concerns such as suicide (Tucker et al., 2014). How-
ever, the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and one of
the most common conceptualizations of personality, the Five Factor
Model (FFM), has yielded mixed, and sometimes conflicting, results
(Giluk, 2009). It has been suggested that these mixed findings may re-
sult from measurement concerns, such as differential construct validity
(Siegling & Petrides, 2014), or insufficiently detailed analyses (Giluk,
2009). This study will primarily address the second concern by extend-
ing previous analyses of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ) and the Five Factor Model of personality to more comprehen-
sively examine the relationships among each mindfulness facet and fac-
tor of personality using canonical correlation analysis.
⁎ Educational Psychology & Learning Systems, 3210 Stone Building, PO Box 3064453,
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4453, United States.
E-mail address: awh10d@my.fsu.edu.
Dispositional mindfulness in the West is commonly defined as
the tendency to “[pay] attention in a particular way: on purpose,
in the present moment, and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn,
1994, p. 4). Operationally, five facets are commonly taken to consti-
tute dispositional mindfulness: observing experience, describing
internal experiences, acting with awareness, being non-reactive,
and being non-judgmental (Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, &
Toney, 2006).
Vago and Silbersweig (2012) suggest that mindfulness encour-
ages greater self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence
(S-ART), a collection of capacities believed to support greater well-
being. Greater self-awareness is thought to promote greater self-
regulation, which in turn allows for the transcendence of maladap-
tive behavioral and cognitive patterns (Vago & Silbersweig, 2012).
Applying the S-ART framework to the FFMQ's mindfulness facets,
suggests that the facets could be conceptually grouped into self-
aware and self-regulatory clusters. The mindfulness facets of observ-
ing and describing could be taken to constitute the self-awareness
cluster, primarily reflecting attunement with internal and external
experiences. The acting with awareness, non-reacting and non-
judging facets could be taken to constitute the self-regulation clus-
ter, suggestive of the tendency to respond intentionally to internal
and external behavioral cues.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.054
0191-8869/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
 A.W. Hanley / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 154–158
1.2. Personality and dispositional mindfulness
The Five Factor Model (FFM), including 1) neuroticism, 2) extraver-
sion, 3) openness, 4) agreeableness, and 5) conscientiousness, is the
most thoroughly researched conceptualization of personality (John,
Naumann, & Soto, 2008). The only extant meta-analysis investigating
personality and dispositional mindfulness suggests neuroticism is nega-
tively associated with DM; conscientiousness and agreeableness are
positively associated with DM; and extraversion and openness demon-
strate only weak, positive relationships with DM (Giluk, 2009). While
these findings provide preliminary evidence of the broad relationships
between dispositional mindfulness and the FFM, the conflation of unidi-
mensional and multidimensional mindfulness measures as well as inat-
tention to the mindfulness subdomain scores may have resulted in
imprecise results. Indeed, Siegling and Petrides' (2014) investigation
of the associations between seven different DM scales and the FFM con-
cluded that, “differences in the breadth of these measures could lead to
divergent patterns of associations and uncertainty about the relation-
ships between mindfulness and the FFM” (Siegling & Petrides, 2014, p.
5). However, continued exploration of the relationship between the
mindfulness facets and personality factors has been lacking.
Two exceptions can be found in Tucker et al.'s (2014) and van den
Hurk et al.'s (2011) analyses of the relationships between the individual
mindfulness facets and the personality factors. Tucker et al. (2014) re-
ported basic correlational relationships, observing that all the mindful-
ness facets appeared related to the elements of personality, with
certain mindfulness facets (i.e., describing, non-judging, non-reacting)
more closely associated with the personality factors than others (i.e. ob-
serving). The majority of significant associations were positive. Neurot-
icism was the only personality factor evidencing negative associations
with the mindfulness facets. Van den Hurk et al. (2011) explored the in-
fluence of meditation practice on the relationship between DM and the
FFM. Using the KIMS, a multidimensional measure of mindfulness that
preceded the FFMQ, van den Hurk et al. (2011) found each of the mind-
fulness facets to mediate the relationship between meditation and per-
sonality factors. Similar to Tucker et al.'s (2014) findings, specific
mindfulness facets (i.e., describing, observing, acting with awareness)
were stronger mediators than others (i.e., accepting without judgment).
Broadly, van den Hurk et al.'s (2011) results, along with Tucker
et al.'s (2014) findings suggest that exploration at the facet level pro-
vides greater explanatory clarity, clarity they may be lost in analyses re-
lying solely on total scores. Specifically, both studies highlight the
relationship between the mindfulness facet of describing and the FFM.
However, Tucker et al. (2014) also found non-judging to be highly asso-
ciated with the FFM, while van den Hurk et al.'s (2011) analysis empha-
sized the importance of the observing and acting with awareness facets.
A more dedicated exploration of the relationships between the facets of
mindfulness and personality factors may provide insight into previously
reported inconsistencies in the observed relationships between disposi-
tional mindfulness and the FFM. Indeed, Giluk (2009) suggests that
exploring the relationship between dispositional mindfulness and per-
sonality at the dimensional level may be more illuminating. This sug-
gestion was more recently echoed with respect to exploring the
mindfulness facets in general (Baer, Lykins, & Peters, 2012). Ultimately,
as the nomological net surrounding mindfulness continues to ex-
pand, complimentary analyses of narrowing specificity are also
needed to more fully clarify the relationships between mindfulness
and established correlates. This study extends previous investiga-
tions of mindfulness and personality by, specifically attending to
the analysis of the mindfulness facets with respect to the FFM.
Most precisely, the relationship between conscientiousness and
the facets of mindfulness were attended to, as relatively few inves-
tigations of this relationship have been conducted (Giluk, 2009)
despite both constructs emphasizing self-regulatory tendencies
(Giluk, 2009) and attending to the present moment (Latzman &
Masuda, 2013).
155
2. Method
2.1. Participants and procedures
Participants (N = 458) were recruited online from the college of ed-
ucation subject pool at a large Southeastern university. Student partici-
pants were primarily female (78%) and Caucasian (72%) with a mean
age was 21 (SD = 2.89). The two measures in this study were part of
a larger research project in which a battery of surveys were adminis-
tered online in a single session for course credit. The completion rate
was 89% with a mean completion time of 27 min.
2.2. Measures
Dispositional Mindfulness was measured by the Five Facet Mindful-
ness Questionnaire (Baer et al., 2006), a well-validated, 39-item mea-
sure yielding a total dispositional mindfulness score (α = .88 in this
study) as well as scores for each of the five facets: observing (α =
.84), describing (α = .87), acting with awareness (α = .92), non-
reacting (α = .81), and non-judging (α = .93).
Personality was measured by the Big Five Inventory (John &
Srivastava, 1999), a well-validated measure using 44 items to assess
five personality factors: neuroticism (α = .85), conscientiousness
(α = .81), agreeableness (α = .79), extraversion (α = .86), and
openness (α = .76).
2.3. Bivariate correlation analysis
Basic bivariate correlations between the total dispositional mindful-
ness score, the dispositional mindfulness facets and the big five person-
ality traits are reported in Table 1.
2.4. Canonical correlation analysis
A canonical correlation analysis was conducted to investigate the
layers of relationship between the facets of dispositional mindfulness
(observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-reacting, non-
judging) and the five personality factors (openness, agreeableness,
extraversion, conscientiousness, neuroticism). Canonical correlation
analysis (CCA) provided an estimation of the multivariate, shared
relationship between the dispositional mindfulness facets and the per-
sonality factors. CCA is a useful statistical approach when exploring
groups of variables as it reduces type I error while honoring multiple
levels of association between two variable groups. A CCA creates multi-
ple synthetic variables for both variable groups that maximize the de-
gree of association between the variable groups, allowing for distinct
patterns of relationship to emerge that may more accurately capture
the complexity of relationship existing between two variables. The full
model was statistically significant (Wilks's λ = .36, F(25,1766.05) =
22.49, p b .001), explaining 64% of the variance between dispositional
mindfulness and the FFM.
The CCA generated five distinct functions. However, only the first
three functions explained a significant proportion of the variance be-
tween the two variable sets and were interpretable. The first significant
function was termed the self-regulation cluster, F(25,1766.05) = 22.49,
p b .001, and yielded a squared canonical correlation of .46. The second
significant function was termed the self-awareness cluster, F(16,
1454.84) = 13.00, p b .001, and yielded a squared canonical correlation
of .19. The third significant function was termed the conscientious con-
fusion cluster, F(9,1161.04) = 10.95, p b .001, and yielded a squared ca-
nonical correlation of .15. Standardized canonical function coefficients,
structure coefficients, and squared structure coefficients for both func-
tions are provided in Table 2.
In function 1, the self-regulation cluster, the relevant dispositional
mindfulness facets were acting with awareness, non-judging and non-
reacting. These three mindfulness facets, representing the mindful
156 A.W. Hanley / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 154–158

Table 1
Dispositional mindfulness and personality correlation matrix.

Variable Dispositional mindfulness Observing Describing Acting with awareness Non-reacting Non-judging

Neuroticism −.44*** .11* −.18*** −.38*** −.36*** −.42***

Extraversion .22*** .03 .18*** .14** .06 .20***
Openness .31*** .36*** .30*** .08 .15** .05
Agreeableness .31*** .02 .21*** .31*** .01 .26***
Conscientiousness .38*** −.06 .21*** .53*** .06 .27***
*
p b .05.
**
p b .01.
***
p b .001.

self-regulation skills, were most closely associated with the personality
traits of neuroticism and conscientiousness. Examination of the struc-
ture coefficient signs suggests that conscientiousness is positively relat-
ed to the identified mindful self-regulation facets and neuroticism is
inversely related to the facets in the self-regulation cluster.
In function 2, the self-awareness cluster, the relevant dispositional
mindfulness facets were observing and describing. These two mindful-
ness facets, representing the mindful self-awareness skills, demonstrat-
ed a strong relationship with the personality trait of openness. Unified
structure coefficient signs indicate a positive relationship between the
two mindfulness facets constituting the self-awareness cluster and
openness.
In function 3, the conscientious confusion cluster, the relevant dis-
positional mindfulness facets were non-reacting and acting with aware-
ness. These two mindfulness facets reflect the most behavioral elements
of mindful self-regulation and were most closely related to the person-
ality trait of conscientiousness. However, examination of the structure
coefficient signs revealed a differential relationship between the mind-
fulness facets and conscientiousness. Acting with awareness was
positively associated with conscientiousness, while non-reacting
was inversely related to conscientiousness.
Broadly, the communality coefficients suggest that across the three
significant functions, all five facets of dispositional mindfulness contrib-
ute significantly to the big five personality traits. Comparatively, neurot-
icism, conscientiousness and openness appear to be the personality traits
most related to the dispositional mindfulness facets. Only marginal rela-
tionships were observed between the personality traits of agreeableness
and extraversion and the facets of dispositional mindfulness (Fig. 1).
3. Discussion
This study investigated the relationship between dispositional
mindfulness as a multidimensional construct and the Five Factor
Model of personality using both bivariate correlation analysis and ca-
nonical correlation analysis.
Results from the bivariate correlation analysis support previous
analyses investigating the relationships between DM and the FFM
(e.g., Tucker et al., 2014). The total DM score was found to be significant-
ly correlated with each personality factor, demonstrating the strongest
relationships between DM and neuroticism as well as conscientious-
ness. With respect to the mindfulness facets, results broadly suggest
that each of the DM facets, except observing, are associated with re-
duced negative emotionality. Results further suggest that the mindful
tendencies to use language in the description internal and external ex-
periences, to act intentionally, and to remain non-critical of experience
are associated with the conscientious, agreeable, and extraverted per-
sonality factors. The personality factor characterized by openness to ex-
perience appears to be most closely associated with the mindful
tendencies to observe and describe experience. However, notable con-
sistencies as well as inconsistencies in this study's findings compared
with Tucker et al.'s (2014) results highlight the need for continued ex-
ploration of the relationship between the facets of mindfulness and
the personality factors, specifically with respect to the acting with
awareness, non-reacting and observing mindfulness facets.
The canonical correlation analysis provided further evidence of the
relationship between DM and the FFM at multiple levels of specificity,
suggesting that the DM facets are strongly correlated with the FFM.
The strength of this relationship appears to emerge from three clusters
of association. Function one, the self-regulation cluster, accounts for the
majority of the co-variance between the two variable sets. The DM
facets identified in the self-regulation cluster, acting with awareness,
non-reacting and non-judging, reflect the mindful tendencies to adap-
tively regulate both behavior and thoughts. These adaptive regulation
characteristics appear to be linked simultaneously with lower reports
of negative emotionality (i.e., neuroticism) and higher reports of inten-
tional, goal directed behavior (i.e. conscientiousness). It may be that
better self-regulation allows for engagement with activities or pursuits
that are more consistent with personal values. Such pursuits are likely
to encourage greater psychological well-being, inconsistent with nega-
tive emotionality (Wenzel, von Versen, Hirschmüller, & Kubiak, 2015),

Table 2
Canonical solution for dispositional mindfulness and personality, functions 1, 2 and 3.

Variable Function 1 Function 2 Function 3

Self-regulation cluster Self-awareness cluster Conscientious confusion cluster

Coef rs r2s (%) Coef rs r2s (%) Coef rs r2s (%) h2 (%)

Observing .25 .18 3.10 .80 .80 63.36 .08 .29 8.53 75
Describing .05 −.33 10.89 .45 .69 47.61 .12 .12 1.42 60
Acting with awareness −.62 −.78 60.22 .18 .25 6.40 −.95 −.56 31.02 98
Non-reacting −.63 −.45 20.34 −.30 .09 .75 .56 .61 37.33 58
Non-judging −.32 −.65 42.51 −.04 .07 .44 .70 .13 1.74 45
R2c 46.13 18.93 14.83
Neuroticism .78 .90 81.72 .30 .14 1.88 −.62 −.40 15.60 99
Conscientiousness −.46 −.67 45.29 .17 .28 8.07 −.92 −.68 45.97 99
Openness .02 −.08 .64 .88 .94 87.42 .34 .26 6.76 95
Agreeableness .03 −.40 15.84 .12 .36 13.25 −.05 −.19 3.76 33
Extraversion −.02 −.25 6.30 .16 .26 6.60 .20 .17 3.03 16

Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.45| are underlined. Communality coefficients (h2) greater than 45% are underlined. Coef = standardized canonical function coefficient; rs =
structure coefficient; r2s = squared structure coefficient; h2 = communality coefficients; R2c = squared canonical correlation.
 A.W. Hanley / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 154–158
Fig. 1. Bolded lines represent the facets and factors in the self-regulation cluster. Dashed lines represent the facets and factors in the self-awareness cluster. Triple lined boxes represent
the conscientious confusion cluster. Dotted lines indicate the factors not significantly associated with any function. R2c = squared canonical correlation, shared variance between the
mindfulness and personality variables. R2 = shared variance between the mindfulness and personality variables across all functions.
and enhanced self-efficacy beliefs, which have also been linked to psy-
chological well-being (Deci, Ryan, Schultz, & Niemiec, 2015).
Functions two and three also accounted for significant proportions
of the variance between the DM facets and the FFM, although less
than function one. Function two, the self-awareness cluster, suggested
a relationship between the mindful tendencies to be observant and de-
scriptive of experience and the openness to experience personality fac-
tor. This relationship makes intuitive sense, with individuals evidencing
greater attunement with internal and external phenomena more likely
to experience life with greater “breadth, depth, originality, and com-
plexity” (John et al., 2008), as characterized by the open personality.
The tendency to attend to the present moment, drawing awareness
into the here-and-now, would be expected to allow for a richer engage-
ment with daily life.
Where as functions one and two suggest relatively clear, conceptual
channels of association between the DM facets and the FFM, function
three, the conscientious confusion cluster, is a bit more opaque. In this
cluster, the two primary behavioral regulation DM facets, acting with
awareness and non-reacting, are associated with conscientiousness.
However, acting with awareness is positively associated with conscien-
tiousness while non-reacting is inversely associated. It may be that non-
reacting, as “the tendency to allow thoughts and feelings to come and
go, without getting caught up in or carried away by them” (Baer et al.,
2008, p. 300) undermines the goal directedness that characterizes
conscientiousness. In other words, holding onto thoughts and feel-
ings as planning tools or motivational guides may support the
“task- and goal-directed behavior” (John et al., 2008) characterizing
the conscientious personality. However, the unexpected nature of
this finding supports previous calls for a more directed investigation
of the relationship between DM and conscientiousness (Giluk,
2009). Moreover, this finding highlights the importance of investi-
gating the relationship between DM and conscientiousness at the
facet level.
Continued study of the relationship between DM and the FFM is also
encouraged given specific limitations in the current study. Fundamen-
tally, the W.E.I.R.D. sample (Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), com-
posed disproportionately of females, may limit generalizability. As such,
investigating the relationship between DM and the FFM in more diverse
populations is an important next step. Also, the correlational nature of
157
this study precludes causal claims. However, as DM is believed to
be influenced by mindfulness practices (Carmody & Baer, 2008), fu-
ture studies may wish to explore the impact of mindfulness training
on personality or, more simply, investigate changes in both DM and
the FFM longitudinally.
Ultimately, much remains to be done to identify the mindful person-
ality. However, continued pursuit of this relationship appears rewarding
given the range of benefits associated with mindfulness and the poten-
tial clinical applications of more thoroughly understanding the relation-
ship between mindfulness and personality with respect to clinical
concerns, such as suicidality (Tucker et al., 2014). Importantly, how
DM, as an emerging personality construct, fits with more traditional
personality conceptualizations is beginning to be better understood.
This study contributes to this literature base, providing further evidence
of the link between DM and the FFM and offering three distinct clusters
of relationship providing a more nuanced understanding of mindfulness
and personality.
References
Baer, R. A., Lykins, E. L., & Peters, J. R. (2012). Mindfulness and self-compassion as predic-
tors of psychological wellbeing in long-term meditators and matched nonmeditators.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 7(3), 230–238.
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, 27–45.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Lykins, E., Button, D., Krietemeyer, J., Sauer, S., ... Williams, J. M.
(2008). Construct validity of the five facet mindfulness questionnaire in meditating
and nonmeditating samples. Assessment, 15, 329–342.
Carmody, J., & Baer, R. A. (2008). Relationships between mindfulness practice and levels of
mindfulness, medical and psychological symptoms and well-being in a mindfulness-
based stress reduction program. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 23–33.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Schultz, P. P., & Niemiec, C. P. (2015). Being aware and functioning
fully: Mindfulness and interest-taking within self-determination theory. Handbook of
mindfulness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 112–129). New York: Guilford.
Eberth, J., & Sedlmeier, P. (2012). The effects of mindfulness meditation: A meta-analysis.
Mindfulness.
Giluk, T. L. (2009). Mindfulness, big five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis.
Personality and Individual Differences, 47(8), 805–811.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.
van den Hurk, P. A., Wingens, T., Giommi, F., Barendregt, H. P., Speckens, A. E., & van Schie,
H. T. (2011). On the relationship between the practice of mindfulness meditation and
personality—An exploratory analysis of the mediating role of mindfulness skills.
Mindfulness, 2(3), 194–200.
158 A.W. Hanley / Personality and Individual Differences 91 (2016) 154–158
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement,
and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personal-
ity: Theory and research. 2. (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative big five
trait taxonomy. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3, 114–158.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday
life. New York: Hyperion Books.
Latzman, R. D., & Masuda, A. (2013). Examining mindfulness and psychological inflexibil-
ity within the framework of big five personality. Personality and Individual Differences,
55(2), 129–134.
Siegling, A. B., & Petrides, K. V. (2014). Measures of trait mindfulness: Convergent validity,
shared dimensionality, and linkages to the Five-Factor Model. Frontiers in Psychology,
5, 1–8.
Tucker, R. P., O'Keefe, V. M., Cole, A. B., Rhoades-Kerswill, S., Hollingsworth, D. W., Helle, A.
C., ... Wingate, L. R. (2014). Mindfulness tempers the impact of personality on suicidal
ideation. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 229–233.
Vago, D. R., & Silbersweig, D. A. (2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-
transcendence (S-ART): A framework for understanding the neurobiological mecha-
nisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6(296), 1–30.
Wenzel, M., von Versen, C., Hirschmüller, S., & Kubiak, T. (2015). Curb your
neuroticism—Mindfulness mediates the link between neuroticism and subjec-
tive well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 80, 68–75.