The Ethical and Emotional Benefits of Reducing Self-Focus Through Mindfulness

This proposed study was inspired by the concept in Aristotle’s virtue ethics theory that a good life is necessarily an ethical one. The following work intends to expand previous literature on this topic by exploring an accessible potential method through which ethicality (and thus, wellbeing) can be increased, and also a possible explanation of how this process might occur. Past research has indicated that mindfulness training can increase both prosociality and well-being, and additionally that higher ethicality is connected to higher well-being. Reduced self-focus has been found to mediate these relationships. The proposed 30 day study makes use of a daily mindfulness training app to explore its effects on participants’ ethicality and well-being, and examines whether reduced self-focus mediates these potential relationships. Results are expected to show that that, first, increased mindfulness leads to increased ethical behavior, mediated by reduction in self-focus; and second, that increased mindfulness leads to an increase in wellbeing, mediated both by increased ethical behavior and by reduction in self-focus. Ultimately, the intention of this study is to find support for the benefits of cultivating a more loving and interconnected world, as well as the means by which to do so. SELF-INTEREST, MINDFULNESS, MORALITY, & WELL-BEING 3 The Ethical and Emotional Benefits of Reducing Self-Focused Attention through Mindfulness Why bother being ethical? This question has concerned philosophers and psychologists alike for thousands of years. It may seem obvious that everyone ought to be a good person, and indeed there are many similarities in the ethical behavior of people across the world (Gibbs, Basinger, Grime, & Snarey, 2007). However, when the question is considered from a practical point of view, it begins to seem odd that humans have developed a system that is specifically other-serving and often conflicts with self-interest. For instance, giving one’s life to save strangers is considered to be highly ethical by many people, yet it is not in one's best interest to do so. And examples need not be so drastic to illustrate the point. Arguably, simply living a life of under-the-radar amorality wherein one appears ethical to one's peers but actually acts in a selfinterested manner would provide the best possible outcome for the individual. However, the vast majority of people fail to do this. The question of what reason the individual might have to be ethical likely has many answers, but the following proposed study examines the possibility that a truly good life requires ethicality. But if this is the case, how might one increase their ethicality in order to enhance well-being? One potential mechanism to consider is that of mindfulness, which may be positively connected to these constructs. From a psychological perspective, the theory of moral evolution can provide at least a partial answer to the contradiction of human morality. Tomasello and Vaish (2013) argue that the primary function of morality lies in its ability to facilitate cooperative behavior in group settings. As they explain, given the fact that all individuals are selfish to some degree, morality regulates SELF-INTEREST, MINDFULNESS, MORALITY, & WELL-BEING 4 the individual’s social behavior so that they are generally cooperative. They note that in ethical situations, the individual is either placing the well-being of others above their own self-interest (as with sharing, for instance) or aligning their self-interest with others (as with justice, equality, and other forms of ethical norm-enforcement). This allows for a society in which all individuals are better off, because cooperative groups can achieve significantly more than the individual is capable of. In addition, shared resources are distributed more equitably and less violence occurs within the group. But how is it possible that cooperation in group settings, while objectively useful for all, could have evolved at the individual level? After all, evolution is not about designing an ideal society, but it is instead an automatic phenomenon driven by whatever genes or gene mutations happen to be most effective for an individual to survive, given their particular environment. So it is reasonable to question how a cooperative gene could have started to propagate itself, as one might assume that cooperative acts without guarantee of reciprocation wouldn’t be evolutionarily beneficial to the individual. However, this is not necessarily the case. Prior to the presence of modern day ethicality, certain capacities emerged in humans that allowed for the eventual emergence of today’s morality. One of the most directly influential capacities is that of altruism (Fitzpatrick, 2017). Although true altruism is defined as acting purely to benefit another with no expectation of reciprocation (Khalil, 2004), the following theories of its evolution occasionally use the term more loosely to mean acts that are intended to help another with the possible goal of personal gain. Hamilton's Rule (Bourke, 2013), which explains how altruism expanded beyond direct parent-child helping, does discuss true altruism as individual benefits were only present insofar as DNA was propagated. Hamilton put forth the concept of inclusive fitness, wherein a gene is evolutionarily useful if it can increase either the SELF-INTEREST, MINDFULNESS, MORALITY, & WELL-BEING 5 direct fitness of the individual, or the individual's 'inclusive fitness'meaning, propagation of one's DNA regardless of whether it comes as a result of one's offspring or the survival of family members. As Bourke (2013) explains, Hamilton's rule led to the concept of 'kin altruism', wherein an altruistic gene propagated itself through people helping their family in increasing degrees dependent on the amount of DNA shared. In this way, it was possible for the gene to exist at least in some manner. This, however, does not account for altruistic acts towards non-family members. In 1971, Robert Trivers coined the term 'reciprocal altruism' in his explanatory model of altruism's evolution. The idea is that in a long-living, relatively small group, it is more likely that individual's genes will be passed on if they help a fellow group member who may remember their kindness and repay them later (Trivers, 1971). The helped individual may also spread word of the helper’s good deeds, leading to a reputation of good-doing awk that may increase the chances of someone else helping them in the future. Fehr and Fischbacher (2003) discuss how evidence for this theory exists today through studies finding that individuals who have a known history of generosity in a public goods game are significantly more likely to receive help, even from those who they have never directly helped. Although there is not yet a consensus on how capacities such as altruism developed into modern-day morality, Fitzpatrick (2017) argues that morality may not have evolved per se, but rather that because humans were bestowed with qualities such as evaluative reasoning and altruism, cultures naturally began to develop theories about the most rational way to treat other people. The emergence of morality on a species-wide scale is now clearer. But what of the development of individual ethicality? Today, Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral stages theory remains perhaps the most well-known and well-regarded theory of personal moral development (Sanders, SELF-INTEREST, MINDFULNESS, MORALITY, & WELL-BEING 6 2018). Kohlberg’s (1977) theory focuses on the reasoning process behind a person’s response to a moral dilemma, creating a model of increasingly developed morality. The model consists of six increasingly complex and morally competent stages, which are further organized into three levels. Individuals typically advance in levels according to their age, although Kohlberg notes that not everyone develops to stage 6. Some have argued that the theory measures ethical judgment rather than development, as people may have high-level ethical reasoning but fail to act accordingly (White, 1999). However, Blasi’s (1980) meta-review found that 57 out of 75 studies indicated significant correlation between developmental stage and behavior. Kohlberg (1983) addresses these concerns and others in a detailed defense of the theory. In the pre-conventional level (stages 1 and 2), most often occupied by babies and young children, one’s ethical choices are based purely on ego-oriented consequences (Sanders, 2018). Stages 1 and 2 focus on punishment-avoidance and reward-seeking, respectively. In the conventional level (stages 3 and 4), ethicality begins to become more other-oriented and society’s generally agreed-upon moral and social rules dictate moral reasoning. Adolescents and younger adults typically inhabit this level. Stage 3 is related to the individual’s motivation to maintain good relationships with others. In order to be viewed as good, inhabitants of this stage will follow the rules set forth by parents and other authority figures. In Stage 4, behavior is determined by laws, and mindsets reorient to believe one should be good not only to maintain personal ties, but also because social order is inherently important. Finally, in the postconventional level (stages 5 and 6), the individual begins to use abstract principles and reasoning that is based not merely on the local society, but rather from a universal person-based perspective. Stage 5 contextualizes laws as changeable constructs that are not inherently ethical, but rather are based on social contracts that aim to create the greatest good for the greatest SELF-INTEREST, MINDFULNESS, MORALITY, & WELL-BEING 7 number of people, with an acknowledgement that everyone has differing values that ought to be considered in this endeavor. In Stage 6, the individual uses abstract reasoning to reach decisions in a manner that is rooted not in consequences (as in social contracts, where an action’s