Doctoral Dissertation
A Study on Mindfulness: The Role of Awareness and Acceptance

PHYU PHYU ZAWGraduate School for International Development and Cooperation
Hiroshima University

March 2023

A Study on Mindfulness: The Role of Awareness and AcceptanceD195858
PHYU PHYU ZAWA Dissertation Submitted to
the Graduate School for International Development and Cooperationof Hiroshima University in Partial Fulfillmentof the Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor of Philosophy
March 2023

Dissertation Abstract
A Study on Mindfulness: The Role of Awareness and AcceptanceDuring the last three decades, the topic of mindfulness has received a growing amount ofattention from researchers in both clinical and nonclinical settings. A wealth of evidence now
exists demonstrating the relationship between mindfulness and various kinds of psychologicaland behavioral outcomes. The main objective of the dissertation was to contribute to thecontinuing research efforts in the field by exploring the role of two important dimensions of
mindfulness, namely mindful awareness and mindful acceptance, influencing both
psychological outcomes such as emotion regulation and perceived stress, and behavioral
outcomes like contextual performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. To fulfill thisobjective, three different empirical studies were conducted in this dissertation.
The first study explores whether Mindful Self-Compassion (MSC) training intervention
have an influence on perceived stress while investigating the roles of mindful awareness andmindful acceptance in the relationship between training and perceived stress as a moderator
and a mediator, respectively. The research framework is based on the monitoring andacceptance theory (MAT) and the emotion regulation theory. This study used a randomized
controlled trial, where 25 voluntary participants from the alumni of the Ship for South-East
Asian Youth Program in Myanmar were randomly assigned to a treatment or a waitlist control
group. It was also found that mindful acceptance has a statistically significant full mediationon the relationship between training and perceived stress, with a negative indirect effect.
However, mindful awareness did not moderate the relationship between mindful acceptanceand perceived stress. The findings contribute to the literature from the perspectives ofpsychology and adult learning as it uses an experimental research design to investigate theunderlying mechanism of the effect of MSC online training on perceived stress, critical ininfluencing a variety of behaviors.
The second study aims to investigate the relationship between transformational
leadership and transactional leadership, as a job resource and contextual performance as a work
outcome, mediated by work engagement and moderated by trait mindful awareness as apersonal resource. Some researchers highlight work engagement as a mediating mechanism
between job resources and individual outcomes, while others suggest that personal resources
may improve employees’ awareness of the job resources around them and, in turn, improvetheir performance. Notably, empirical evidence shows that the moderation of trait mindfulii

awareness is not synergistic, but compensatory, along with the “substitutes for leadershiptheory.” Data were collected from employees in the United States via the online Amazon
Mechanical Turk platform. A total of 282 respondents were randomly assigned to one of two
vignettes—one reflecting transformational and one reflecting transactional leadership. The
findings revealed that the positive relationship between transformational leadership andcontextual performance is partially mediated by work engagement. Mindful awarenesssignificantly strengthens the relationship between transformational leadership and work
engagement. This study contributes to the literature by providing further empirical evidence on
the inconclusive contextualization of mindful awareness as a personal resource.
In the third study, the role of the emotion regulation (ER) as mediating mechanism on
the relationship between different facets of trait mindfulness and organizational citizenshipbehavior (OCB) was explored. There have been previous studies which analyzed mindfulness
as a predictor for enhancing OCB. However, to my understanding, there has been no previous
research on the mechanism of the relationship between trait mindfulness and OCB. The
significant contribution of this study was its distinction of different facets of trait mindfulness
in predicting ER and OCB. The results showed that all trait mindfulness facets excluding
observing significantly predicts OCB via the full or partial mediation of ER. A significant
contribution of the third study was exploring the mediation mechanism of ER on therelationship between five distant facets of trait mindfulness and OCB.
This dissertation, as a whole, contributes to the literature by empirically investigating
the role of the two key dimensions of mindfulness – awareness and acceptance – on both
psychological and behavioral outcomes of individuals in both community and organizational
samples.

iii

Acknowledgment
First and foremost, let me express my sincere gratitude to my academic advisor,
Professor TAKAHASHI Yoshi, who guides and supports me throughout this dissertation withhis extensive knowledge, insightful feedbacks, unwavering support, and great patience. I also
would like to extend my genuine gratefulness to Professor ICHIHASHI Masaru, Professor
KANEKO

Shinji,

Professor

MAHARJAN

Kashav

Lall,andProfessor Wiboon

KITTILAKSANNAWONG for their precious comments and suggestions to improve mydissertation.
In addition, special thanks should be given to Japanese Government for providing
financial support for both of my master and doctoral program through MEXT scholarship.
Moreover, this book is also benefited from all my teachers who taught me during thein-person and online mindfulness teaching training programs and all of my classmates in those
programs who shared their insights. Furthermore, I am also grateful to all participants who
agreed to participate in my training interventions, shared their ideas and opinions during thetraining period, and respondents who answered my questionnaires.
Thank should also go to all my friends in IDEC and Hiroshima University who lent agreat amount of emotional support during these years.
Last but not least, I am very much grateful to my mum who dedicated her life to lift
me up to this stage of my academic journey.

iv

Table of Contents
Page no.
Chapter 1: Introduction

1

1.1.

Background of the Study

1

1.2.

Theoretical Background2

1.3

Statement of the Problem

3

1.4.

Purposes of the Study3

1.5

Chapter Outline

5

Chapter 2: Mindful Self-Compassion Training Online and Perceived Stress: 8
Exploring Moderation of Awareness and Mediation of Acceptance
2.1.

Introduction

8

2.2.

Literature Review

10

2.2.1.

Mediation of Acceptance11

2.2.2.

Moderation Effect of Mindful Awareness on the Relationship between 12
Mindful Acceptance and Perceived Stress

2.3.

Methodology

14

2.3.1

Participants

14

2.3.2

Intervention

15

2.3.3

Ethical Consideration

16

2.3.4

Measures16

2.4.

Data Analysis

16

2.5

Results17

2.6.

Discussion

19

2.7

Implications

21

2.8

Limitations and Future Research Directions

21

2.9

Conclusion

22

Chapter 3: Effect of Transformational Leadership on Contextual Performance 23
Mediated by Work Engagement and Moderated by Mindful Awareness
3.1.

Introduction

23

3.2.

Literature Review

27

3.2.1

Relationship of Transformational Leadership and Contextual Performance 27
through Work Engagementv

3.2.2Moderation of Mindful Awareness

29

3.2.3

Conceptual Framework

30

3.3

Data and Methodology

31

3.3.1

Sample and Procedure

31

3.3.2

Measures32

3.4.

Data Analysis

33

3.5

Results34

3.5.1

Descriptive Statistics

34

3.5.2

Manipulation Check

35

3.5.3

Hypothesis Testing

36

3.6.

Discussion

39

3.6.1

Interpretation

39

3.6.2

Practical Implication

40

3.6.3

Limitations and Future Research Directions

40

3.7

Conclusion

41

Chapter 4: The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation on the Relationship 43
between Mindfulness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
4.1.

Introduction

43

4.2.

Literature Review

44

4.2.1

Mediation of Emotion Regulation on the Relationship between Mindfulness 45
and OCB and CWB

4.3.

Methods

48

4.3.1

Sample and Procedure

48

4.3.2

Measures

48

4.3.3

Data Analysis

49

4.4.

Results49

4.4.1

Descriptive Statistics

49

4.4.2

Late Response Bias Check

51

4.4.3

Model Fitness

51

4.4.4

Hypothesis Testing

52

4.5

Discussion

54

4.6

Practical Implications

55

4.7

Limitation and Future Research Direction

55

vi

Chapter 5: Conclusion

57

5.1.

Summary of the Empirical Study Results

57

5.2.

Implications

58

5.3.

Limitation and Future Research Directions

59

References

61

Appendix
Appendix A (Questionnaire of Chapter 2)

85

Appendix B (Vignettes and Questionnaire of Chapter 3)

88

Appendix C (Questionnaire of Chapter 4)

92

Appendix D (Research Ethical Approval)

96

vii

List of Tables
Table No.

Name of Tables

Page no.

Table 1.1

Self-reported Mindfulness Measures in the Dissertation in4

accordance with Bidimensional Measures of Mindfulness
Table 2.1

Descriptive Statistics for Chapter 2

17

Table 2.2

Mediation of Mindful Acceptance on the relationship between MSC 18
Training and Perceived Stress

Table 2.3

Conditional Effect of Mindful Awareness on the Relationship 19
between Mindful Acceptance and Perceived Stress

Table 3.1

Demographic Information for Chapter 3

34

Table 3.2

Descriptive Statistics for Chapter 3

35

Table 3.3

Independent Sample T-test for Manipulation Check36

Table 3.4

Conditional Direct and Indirect Effects of Transformational 37
Leadership on Contextual Performance Mediated by WorkEngagement and Moderated by Mindful Awareness

Table 4.1

Demographic Information for Chapter 4

49

Table 4.2

Descriptive Statistics for Chapter 4

50

Table 4.3.

Mediation of Adaptive Emotion Regulation on the Relationship 51
between Mindfulness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Table 4.4.

Mediation of Maladaptive Emotion Regulation on the Relationship 53
between Mindfulness and Counterproductive Behavior

viii

List of Figures
No.

Name of Figures

Page no.

Figure 1.1

Integrated Research Framework

7

Figure 2.1

Conceptual Framework of Chapter 2

14

Figure 2.2

Participant Flow Chart from the Pretreatment to Post-treatment 15
periodFigure 3.1

Conceptual Framework of Chapter 3

31

Figure 3.2

Process of Research for Chapter 3

32

Figure 3.3

Moderation of mindful awareness on the relationship between 38
transformational leadership vignettes and work engagement

Figure 3.4

Moderation of Age on the relationship between transformational 38
leadership vignettes and work engagement

Figure 4.1

Conceptual Framework of Study 3

47ix

List of Abbreviations
COR

Conservation of Resources theory

ER

Emotion Regulation

FFMQ

Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire

MAT

Monitoring and Acceptance Theory

MSC

Mindful Self-Compassion

OCB

Organizational Citizenship Behavior

PHLMS

Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale

TFL

Transformational LeadershipxChapter 1
Introduction
1.1.

Background of the Study
During recent decades, there has been a surge of interest in the mindfulness-related research,and several studies have verified the link between mindfulness and various kinds of
psychological and behavioral outcomes in both community and organizational samples. A
wealth of evidence now exists, and a substantial body of research has already demonstrated asignificant association between trait mindfulness and a wide variety of psychological outcomes
including reduction of perceived stress, depression, anxiety, emotional reactivity, andenhancement of resilience, emotion regulation and positive state of mind (Bränström et al.,2011; Hill & Updegraff, 2012; Prakash et al., 2015; Wheeler et al, 2017). In addition, regarding
the behavioral outcomes, Brown et al. (2007) suggests that higher level of mindfulness may
induce controlling behaviors and making behavioral decisions engendering wellbeing and goal
attainment. There have been studies revealing the positive association between overall
mindfulness and workplace outcomes such as job performance, job satisfaction, empathy,
creativity, prosocial behavior, and organizational citizenship behavior (Askun Celik & Çetin,
2019; Chen et al., 2020, Cheung et al., 2020; Dane & Brummel, 2014; Hafenbrack et al., 2020,
Hülsheger et al, 2013; Jobbehdar Nourafkan et al., 2022; Mulligan, 2018; Petal, 2017; Reb etal., 2015).
Rooted in Buddhist psychology, the concept of mindfulness is the lateral translation of pali
word “Sati” which mean wakefulness of mind, intentness of mind, or lucidity of mind (Davids& Stede, 1959). Khang and Whittingham (2010) propose an operational definition ofmindfulness based on Buddhism. According to them, mindfulness refers to nonreactive,
nonelaborative, nonreified awareness that has meta-cognitive functions, monitoring ongoingawareness and discriminating wisely between aspects of awareness content so that awarenessand behavior can be directed according to the goals of genuine happiness, virtue and truth.
The authors argue that a significant difference in identifying mindfulness between Buddhist
and western psychology, is discernment. Mindfulness in western psychology = advocate an
accepting stance toward the present moment experiences, whereas Buddhist psychology clearlyencourage to offset negative psychological states (such as pride, anger, jealousy or lust) byusing mindful awareness and introspective vigilance (Khang & Whittingham, 2010).
In western psychology, one of the most widely used definition of mindfulness states that it1

is a way of paying attention to present moment experience with a mental stance of receptivity
and acceptance (John Kabat-Zin, 1994). Baer (2003) also defines mindfulness as thenonjudgmental observation of ongoing stream of internal and external stimuli as they arise.
Brown and Ryan (2003) suggest that mindful individuals who are aware of their physical andemotional experiences nonjudgmentally tend to be less vulnerable to the negative emotions
resulting from failures, opinions of others, and conflicts. The authors also claim that possessing
higher level of mindfulness help individuals to attend to prompts arising from their basic needs,
endowing them to regulate their emotions and behaviors accordingly. Klussman et al. (2022)
also states that self-awareness and self-acceptance based on this awareness can lead toalignment to one’s behaviors correspondingly. In fact, awareness and acceptance are two
widely accepted dimensions in mindfulness literature. In this sense, monitor and acceptancetheory (MAT) by Lindsay and Creswell (2017) which is a broad evidence-based theoreticalframework explaining both correlational studies of self-reported trait mindfulness andintervention studies measuring the changes in self-reported mindfulness can be used to provide
a better understanding of the above-mentioned dimensions.
1.2 Theoretical Background
Cardaciotto et al. (2008) propose that most definitions of mindfulness can be
categorized into two key dimensions. According to the authors, the first dimension (i.e.,
mindful awareness) reflects the behavioral component of mindfulness as it encompasses thecontinuous monitoring of the totality of experience. On the contrary, the second dimension(i.e., mindful acceptance) reflects the way in which that awareness is conducted, with anattitude of acceptance. Acceptance is defined as a mental attitude of nonjudgement, openness
and receptivity, and equanimity toward internal and external experiences (Baer et al., 2004;
Brown & Ryan; 2004; Lindsay & Creswell, 2017; Debordes et al., 2015). According to Lindsay
and Creswell (2017), acceptance skill modifies the way one relates to the present-moment
experience, regulating reactivity to affective experience. In the upcoming chapters, the term
mindful acceptance is used to illustrate this skill.
It is arguably stated that higher level of mindful awareness will not necessarily occur
with simultaneously higher level of mindful acceptance, and vice versa. In addition, someresearchers also claim that failure to embrace mindful acceptance when an individual is highly
aware of negative external and internal stimuli may lead to negative psychological outcomessuch as depression and perceived stress (Cardaciotto et al., 2008; Lindsay & Creswell, 2017).
2

Therefore, empirically examining mindful acceptance separately from mindful awareness isrequired, according to Cardaciotto et al. (2008).
1.3

Statement of the Problem
Despite Lindsay and Creswell’s (2017) argument on the important role of mindful

awareness and mindful acceptance as the distinct dimensions of mindfulness, to myunderstanding, there has been no previous empirical study differentiating the role of these twodimensions when analyzing their influence on different psychological and behavioral outcomes.
1.4

Purposes of the Study
Therefore, the overall purpose of the dissertation is to explore the roles of these twodifferent dimensions of mindfulness on particular psychological outcomes such as perceived
stress, emotion regulation, work engagement, and behavioral outcomes like contextual
performance, and organizational citizenship behavior. To fulfill this purpose, three different
empirical studies were conducted in this dissertation. The integrated framework of threeempirical studies of this dissertation is demonstrated in Figure 1.1. These three different
empirical studies are expected to fill the research gaps in the literature and by so doing
contribute to the advancement of the field of study.

3

Table 1.1
Self-reported Mindfulness Measures in the Dissertation in Accordance with the
Bidimensional Measures of Mindfulness (Lindsay & Creswell, 2017)
ScalesPhiladelphia
Mindfulness
Scale(PHLMS)(Chapter 2 and4)

Mindful awarenessPresent moment
awareness: continuous
monitoring of ongoinginternal and external
and internal stimuli; “I
notice changes inside
my body like my heart
beating faster or mymuscles getting tense.”

Mindful acceptance
Others
Acceptance:
Nonjudgmental stancetoward experiences; “Ifthere is something I
don’t want to think
about, I will try manythings to get it out of mymind.”

Five
FacetsMindfulness
Questionnaire(FFMQ)(Chapter 3)

Observe: the tendency
to notice and attend to
subtleperceptual
events; “I pay attention
to sensations, such as
the wind in my hair or
the sun on my face.”

Nonreactivity: ability tomaintain contact withexperiences,
watch
them from a distanceand allow them to passwithout
furtherreactivity; “I perceive
myfeelings
andemotions
without
having to react tothem.”
Nonjudgement:
acceptance of one’s
thoughts and feelings;“I think some of myemotions are bad or
inappropriate and I
shouldn’t feel them.”

Describing andActing with
Awareness skills do
not discretely
measure monitoringor acceptance.

For the current dissertation, two different questionnaires described in Table 1.1 wereused to measure mindfulness on the basis of two different skills namely mindful awareness andmindful acceptance. For Chapter 2 and 3, Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS) by
Cardaciotto (2005) was used, whereas Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) by Bearet al. (2006) was used for Chapter 4. Previous researchers have already provided empiricalevidence that both measures demonstrate good internal consistency and adequately measures
mindfulness and its two key dimensions, mindful awareness and mindful acceptance.

41.5 Chapter Outline
To address the research gap mentioned above, three different studies were conducted inthis dissertation. These three studies are described in Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and Chapter 4. The
whole dissertation is concluded in Chapter 5. An incorporated research framework for thewhole dissertation is shown in Figure 1.1.
Chapter 2 analyzes whether MSC training influences perceived stress and investigates
the roles of mindful awareness and mindful acceptance in the relationship between training andperceived stress as a moderator and a mediator, respectively. The research framework is basedon MAT and the emotion regulation theory. This study used a randomized controlled trial,
where 25 voluntary participants from the alumni of the Ship for South-East Asian Youth
Program in Myanmar were randomly assigned to a treatment and a waitlist control group. It
was also found that acceptance has a statistically significant full mediation on the negative
relationship between training and perceived stress. However, awareness did not moderate therelationship between acceptance and perceived stress. The findings contribute to the literaturefrom the perspectives of psychology and adult learning as it uses an experimental research
design to investigate the underlying mechanism of the effect of MSC online training on
perceived stress, which is critical in influencing a variety of behaviors.
Chapter 3 investigates the relationship between transformational leadership as a job
resource and contextual performance as a work outcome, mediated by work engagement andmoderated by trait mindful awareness as a personal resource. Data were collected online from
employees in the United States via Amazon Mechanical Turk. A total of 282 respondents wererandomly assigned to one of two vignettes – one reflecting transformational and one reflecting
nontransformational leadership. The findings revealed that the positive relationship between
transformational leadership and contextual performance is partially mediated by work
engagement. Mindful awareness significantly strengthens the relationship between
transformational leadership and work engagement. The findings contribute to the literature byproviding further empirical evidence on the inconclusive contextualization of mindful
awareness as a personal resource.
Chapter 4 explores the relationship between trait mindfulness and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) via the mediating mechanism of emotion regulation (ER). There
have been previous studies which analyzed mindfulness as a predictor for enhancing OCB.
However, to our understanding, there has been no previous research on the mechanism of therelationship between trait mindfulness and OCB. The results show that all the facets (excluding
5

observing) of trait mindfulness significantly predict OCB via ER. The significant contributionof this study was its distinction of five different facets of trait mindfulness in predicting OCB
via the mediating mechanism of ER.
Chapter 5 is the concluding chapter of this dissertation. The overall findings of thedissertation are summarized, and the implications, limitations, and future research directions
are discussed in this chapter.

6

7

Transformational
Leadership

Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4

Mindful
Self-Compassion
Training

Interventions

EmotionRegulation

EmotionRegulation

Figure 1.1. Integrated Research Framework

Acting with
Awareness

Describing

Observe

MindfulAwareness

Nonreactivity
Nonjudgement

MindfulAcceptance

Mindfulness

Perceived
StressWork
Engagement

Psychological
Outcomes

Contextual
Performance

Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

Behavioral
Outcomes

Chapter 2
Mindful Self-Compassion Training Online and Perceived Stress:
Exploring Moderation of Awareness and Mediation of Acceptance2.1. Introduction
For decades, mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) have been broadly recognized as
the most promising type of cognitive behavioral intervention for enhancing the psychologicalwell-being of individuals in both clinical and non-clinical populations (Davis et al., 2015).
Diverse MBIs are used with non-clinical populations, such as mindfulness-based stress
reduction (MBSR) and the relatively unexplored mindful self-compassion (MSC).
To articulate the specific qualities of the two MBIs, and to explore the underlying
mechanism of MBIs’ effectiveness, definitions of mindfulness and its two major components
need to be elaborated. Mindfulness can be defined as a way of paying attention to the presentmoment experience with a mental stance of receptivity and acceptance (Kabat-Zinn, 1994).
The monitoring and acceptance theory (MAT) on mindfulness (Lindsay & Creswell, 2017)
proposes two components of mindfulness commonly described across its definitions andmeasures: (a) the use of attention to “monitor” one’s present-moment experiences and thereby
strengthening the “awareness” of these experiences, and (b) a mental attitude of “acceptance”
toward moment-to-moment experiences. Based on Rapgay and Bystrisky’s (2009) distinction
between attention monitoring and awareness, Van Dam et al. (2010) claimed that the former isa particular cognitive faculty (a specific aspect or domain of mental function, such as language,
object recognition, or face perception), and the latter is a directable but broader aspect ofconsciousness. Mindful awareness refers to the continuous monitoring of experiences with afocus on the current experience rather than a preoccupation with past or future events (Roemer& Orsillo, 2003). We will be using the construct of mindful awareness to operationalize as one
component of mindfulness, as it is more proximal to attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The
other component, acceptance, is an orientation of receptivity and noninterference with presentmoment experiences that contrasts with tendencies to suppress, avoid, alter, prolong, or fixate
on certain stimuli (Lindsay & Creswell, 2019). Lindsay and Creswell (2017) have argued that
acceptance skills are necessary to modify the way an individual relates to present-moment
experiences and to regulate reactivity to affective experiences.
Returning to features of MBSR and MSC training, both cover mindful awareness andmindful acceptance to develop positive outcomes, but their relative focuses are contrasting.
MBSR training, with more emphasis on mindful awareness, uses mindfulness meditation,8

mindful movements, and inquiries to train participants to relate differently to stressors and to
moment-to-moment experiences in their daily lives. On the other hand, MSC training, whilebased on and inspired by the MBSR, is a program created to provide participants with tools forcoping with difficult emotions that emphasizes self-compassion; mindful acceptance is one ofits main components. MSC training encompasses practices for responding to difficult thoughts
and emotions with self-kindness, openness, and curiosity. It is a protocol-standardized
intervention aimed at increasing mindfulness and compassion to self. Both attitudes promote
acceptance of experiences and reduction of suffering associated with experiential avoidance,
an antonym of experiential acceptance (Neff & Germer, 2013).
The distinction between the two types of training is important. This is because, in MBI,
the two components of mindfulness play different roles in achieving wellbeing outcomes.
Lindsay and Creswell (2017) argued that attention monitoring skill predicts cognitive
performance in affectively cold contexts whereas an extra acceptance skill is necessary to
reduce emotional reactivity in affectively hot contexts. Specifically, mindful acceptance is
expected to mediate the relationship between MBIs and wellbeing outcomes such as negative
affectivity, stress, and stress-related outcomes, according to the emotion regulation theory(Gross, 1998a) and the experiential learning cycle (Kolb, 1984) developed in the context ofadult learning studies. On the other hand, mindful awareness does not mediate such a
relationship. Instead, it acts as a moderator between mindful acceptance and outcomes assuggested by the MAT (Lindsay & Creswell, 2017). Stated differently, it is a conditional
application of the emotion regulation theory. The MAT, in contrast, interprets the function as
an interaction between mindful awareness and mindful acceptance rather than moderation.
MSC training was selected as the MBI for the analysis of the present study, as itemphasizes mindful acceptance over other components of mindfulness or self-compassion.
Particularly, MSC training includes the minimum necessary material related to mindful
awareness, such as affectionate awareness, only in the second of eight total sessions. In thisregard, analyzing MSC training may provide insights beyond the MAT, although the training
requires additional time to develop awareness.
Based on the discussion above, the objective of the present study (in line with the MAT
and the emotion regulation theory) is to examine how components of mindfulness, that is,
mindful awareness and mindful acceptance, play a role in the relationship between MSC
training and outcomes. Perceived stress was selected as the outcome variable, as it is a proximal
outcome of the emotion regulation process that improves various behavioral outcome variables
related to psychological wellbeing. Because of the potential applicability of mindfulness to a9

person’s experiences and the critical role played by stress in influencing a variety of outcomes,
we adopted perceived stress rather than specific behaviors as our outcome.
The contributions of the present study are threefold. Firstly, since the underlying
mechanism of MBI including MSC are underexplored, this study can contribute to the literatureby exploring this mechanism based on mindful awareness, and mindful acceptance according
to the MAT, as well as through the perspective of the emotion regulation theory (Gratz & Tull,2010) or modified emotion regulation theory as a whole. Secondly, our focus is not on thegeneral population but on the specific sample, that is, self-critical people, and this is how wejustifies our selection of MSC as an intervention. Such people are expected to improve theirmindful acceptance and in turn reduce their stress. Finally, our experimental research design
can be a contribution as well. Many studies have proven that MBIs enhance the psychologicalwellbeing of diverse individuals (Kotera & Van Gordon, 2021; van der Meulen et al., 2021).
Most of these studies are correlational, however, more researchers are examining MBIs using
randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These RCT studies focus mainly on MBSR training, andless so on MSC training. To date, only three empirical studies have investigated the effect of
MSC training using RCTs (Finlay-Jones et al., 2021; Friis et al., 2016; Neff & Germer, 2013),
which have found improvements in outcomes. Only the direct effect of MSC and not theunderlying mechanism that involved mindful awareness and mindful acceptance, however,were analyzed.
2.2 Literature Review
As mentioned in the introduction, MSC training aims to improve both mindful
awareness and mindful acceptance, although its main emphasis is on mindful acceptance, as it
is a critical part of self-compassion. In particular, an important part of the MSC training
curriculum involves developing the acceptance and willingness to experience fully pleasant orunpleasant psychological events. The training uses different approaches to support the gradualacceptance of emotional discomfort, adjusting to it over five stages: resisting, exploring,
tolerating, allowing, and befriending (Germer, 2009). Thus, individuals can change, avoid, or
control internal events without expending their attentional resources. Alternatively, they canincrease focus on proper decision-making without the interference of emotions and thoughts(Bond & Bunce, 2003).
Empirical studies support this argument. In their pilot study, Neff and Germer (2012)
showed that MSC training resulted in a significant increase in the overall level of mindfulness,as measured by the Cognitive Affective Mindfulness Scale (CAMS-R; Feldman et al., 2007)10

which covered awareness, acceptance, attention, and present focus. As the four-component
integrated scale had a Cronbach’s α of .89, we may expect that MSC training affects not only
mindful acceptance but also mindful awareness. Therefore, we propose the following
hypotheses for our study.
H1: MSC training has a significant positive influence on mindful awareness.
H2: MSC training has a significant positive influence on mindful acceptance.
The influence of MSC on more distal outcomes, including stress, is also expected.
Empirically, the effects of MSC on relevant outcomes have been investigated as asimple direct relationship without explicitly exploring the underlying mechanism. A metaanalysis of 27 RCT trials by Ferrari et al. (2019) provided support for self-compassion-based
interventions improving 11 diverse psychological outcomes, including perceived stress inclinical and non-clinical populations. For example, the Enhancing Self-Compassion (ESC)
program, an RCT study by Arimitsu (2016), found that seven weekly 1.5-hour sessions eachresulted in the significant reduction of negative thoughts and emotions in the treatment group.
Dundas et al. (2017) found that a two-week self-compassion course for university students
enhanced their personal growth self-efficacy, and reduced self-judgment, habitual negative
self-directed thinking, anxiety, and depression. Two other RCTs also found improvements inoutcomes due to the intervention. The first study was by Neff and Germer (2013), who are also
the founders of the MSC training. They conducted an RCT specifically for MSC training andconcluded that the training is effective in improving individual well-being. The second study
by Friis et al. (2016) showed a statistically and clinically significant reduction in depression
and diabetes distress in the treatment group after MSC training.
In the present study, perceived stress was selected as the outcome variable. It is anappropriate intermediate outcome variable that leads to various attitudinal and behavioral
outcomes related to individual well-being. The relationship between stress and such outcomeshas been supported by empirical evidence (Bader & Berg, 2013; Cohen, 1980; Hill et al., 2021;
McManus et al., 2004; Sandler, 2000) and therefore, we developed the following hypothesis.
H3: MSC intervention has a significant negative influence on perceived stress.
2.2.1 Mediation of Mindful Acceptance
As mentioned earlier, mindful acceptance is a critical component of MBIs (BlockLerner et al., 2009). It is considered a dynamic emotion regulation skill and an importantmechanism of MBI for improving stress-related health outcomes (Lindsay & Creswell, 2017).
The emotion regulation theory (Gross, 1998a) explicates this skill and the first three stages of11the emotion regulatory process by Gross (1998b) can be employed to explain this mechanism.
Participants of MBIs are encouraged to intentionally incline toward their present-moment
experiences without avoidance (at the situation selection stage), to explore the selected present
moment nonjudgmentally (in the selection modification stage), and to attend to that experiencein an accepting stance (the attentional deployment stage). According to Robins et al. (2004),
fully open acceptance is that which is without constriction, distortion, judgment, evaluation,
and attempts to retain an experience or get rid of it; therefore, mindful acceptance isexperiencing something without the haze of what one wants and does not want it to be. MBIs
that develop experiential acceptance through these stages can lead to a reduction in trainees’
stress levels. Along with presenting this argument, Holmes et al. (2006) also suggested that
mindful acceptance is the only way to regulate emotions in managing unwanted private events.
The mediating role of emotion regulation has been consistently presented as a central
process in mindfulness literature (Glomb et al., 2011; Hayes & Feldman, 2004; Mandal et al.,2011; Roemer & Orsillo, 2003; Shapiro et al., 2006). In particular, Chambers et al. (2009)
mentioned that, in mindful emotion regulation, all the mental events are simply allowed tocome and go and need not be acted upon (i.e., mindful acceptance). Further, Iani et al. (2019)considered acceptance as a crucial variable in the mindful emotional regulation process. Hayes
et al. (1999) argued that brief acceptance training, which involves an accepting and detachedlens, helps individuals regulate emotions. This means that mindful acceptance may mediate therelationship between training and outcomes. Even though there have been many empiricalstudies on mindfulness and MBIs, little or no experimental work has tested the mediation of
acceptance as an emotion regulation mechanism (Lindsay & Creswell, 2019) bridging MBIs,
including MSC training and wellbeing outcomes. Hence, the fourth hypothesis is as follows.
H4: Mindful acceptance mediates the relationship between MSC training interventions andperceived stress.
2.2.2 Moderating Effect of Mindful Awareness on the Relationship between Mindful
Acceptance and Perceived Stress
In contrast to mindful acceptance, mindful awareness does not have a direct effect on
individual outcomes. Mindful awareness enhanced by attention monitoring heightens affective
experience and reactivity, exacerbates negative symptoms, enhances positive experiences, andimproves cognitive functioning outcomes in affectively neutral contexts; thereby, mindful
awareness alone is not sufficient to balance attentional control with emotion regulation andimprove outcomes (Lindsay & Creswell, 2017). Although adopting trait mindfulness and not
12state mindfulness cultivated by MBI, Lindsay and Creswell (2019) found that the interaction
between mindful acceptance and mindful awareness had a positive effect on affectivefunctioning and stress-related health outcomes. In this regard, the role of mindful awareness issecondary, although we cannot ignore its role in developing positive outcomes. From theperspective of the emotion regulation theory, mindful awareness works as a boundary condition
that determines the effect of MBIs and MSC training. Therefore, the MAT may be understoodas a modified version of the emotion regulation theory.
This can be interpreted in the context of adult learning studies, more specifically, theexperiential learning cycle of Kolb (1984). The cycle consists of four stages: concrete
experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation.
After a concrete experience, reflective observation occurs as a combination of awarenessthrough observation and acceptance during the reflection process. Consequently, thecombination generates a “theory” (abstract conceptualization) on how to approach the learner’s
experience based on appropriately regulated emotion. The theory is applied (active
experimentation) to deal with further experiences (leading to the next round of concrete
experience).
Thus, the MAT predicts that the combination of mindful awareness and mindful
acceptance skills improves affective functioning and stress-related health outcomes (Lindsay& Creswell, 2017). According to Lindsay and Creswell (2019), mindful awareness (while theirargument started from its antecedent; attention monitoring) skills are associated with beneficial
mental and physical health outcomes only when accompanied by acceptance skills. This isbecause mindful acceptance skills, along with mindful awareness, modify the way one relates
to present-moment experience by regulating reactivity to affective experience (Lindsay &Creswell, 2017). We may interpret their argument based on the negative acceptance-perceived
stress relationship, which states that the higher the mindful awareness, the stronger the negative
relationship between mindful acceptance and perceived stress. This leads to our fifth
hypothesis:
H5: Mindful awareness positively moderates the relationship between mindful acceptance andperceived stress.
A conceptual framework of the study is presented in Figure 2.1.

13

Figure 2.1
Conceptual framework
Awareness

Mindful
Self-Compassion (MSC)
Training

Acceptance

Perceived
Stress

2.3 Methodology
2.3.1 Participants
The participants were alumni of the Ship for South-East Asian Youth Program from
Myanmar, a Buddhist dominant country where meditation methods have been commonly
utilized. The program has been implemented by member countries of the Association ofSoutheast Asian Nations and Japan. The aims of the program are to promote friendship andmutual understanding among the youth of Japan and the Southeast Asian countries, to broaden
their perspective of the world and to strengthen their spirit of international cooperation andpractical skills for international collaboration (Cabinet Office of Japan, n.d.). The participants
are selected as the sample because they are above-average and ambitious (and consequently
self-critical and stressed) young people for whom the MSC training is highly relevant. The
MSC training is intended especially for those people with a self-critical nature, toward
promoting increased self-acceptance among them. Therefore, the sample seems to match very
well with this type of training program. The program’s selection process is highly competitive,
and the alumni in Myanmar are typically above-average young individuals who are fluent in
the English language (with the IELTS band scores ranging from 7 to 8.5), and socially andacademically capable. Participants were recruited via a social media platform commonly usedby alumni. Program volunteers were randomly assigned to a treatment or a waitlist control
group. Altogether, 42 participants initially volunteered to participate in the program. Amongthem, 40 participants actually answered the online questionnaire at Time 0. They wererandomly assigned to two groups – 20 participants in the treatment group and 20 participantsin the waitlist control group. After delivering the eighth session, at Time 1, only 13 participantsin the treatment group and 12 participants in the waitlist control group answered the14questionnaire again and were included in the final analysis. Therefore, for both Time 0 andTime 1, only the responses of those participants were used for the purpose of data analysis.
Figure 2.2 depicts the participant flow chart.
Figure 2.2
Participant Flow Chart of Pretreatment and Post-treatment Periods
Agreed to participate in
the survey and enrolled
in the program (n = 42)

Responded to the survey
at Time 0 and wererandomized(n = 40)

Waitlist control group (n= 20)

No response to
the survey atTime 1(n = 8)

Responded tothe survey atTime 1(n = 12*)

No response to thesurvey at Time 0(n = 2)Treatment group(n = 20)

Responded tothe survey atTime 1(n = 13*)

Discontinued
the training(n = 7)Note. *Number of respondents considered in the analysis.

2.3.2 Intervention
The MSC training intervention developed by Neff and Germer (2013) was delivered
online by the first author (an authorized MSC trainer), with the third author as a facilitator. The
program involved both formal (sitting meditation) and informal (daily activities) mindful selfcompassion practices. The training was delivered by the first author who was also an authorized
MSC program trainer in the Myanmar language following standard MSC protocol in eight
weekly sessions of 2.5 hours each, plus a 3-hour silent retreat session. Training contents
including mindful self-compassion, mindfulness, how to practice loving kindness, how to
discover the participant’s own compassionate voice, how to meet difficult emotions, and how
15to explore challenging relationships etc. were provided didactically and experientially. The
training began in December 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the training was offered
online (in accordance with the Center for Mindful Self-Compassion (CMSC) Professional
Training Committee’s guidance about teaching MSC online) via Zoom sessions every week.
2.3.3 Ethical Consideration
Informed consent was obtained from all participants before the initial survey was
conducted. The ethical review board of the Graduate School for International Development andCooperation, Hiroshima University, reviewed and approved the study protocol (reference no.
6923).
2.3.4 Measures
The online questionnaire was offered in English language only as all the participants ofthe current study are fluent in it. The 20-item Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS;
Cardaciotto et al., 2008) was used to measure two components of mindfulness; mindful
awareness and mindful acceptance. All items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging
from never (1) to very often (5). Example items include “I am aware of what thoughts are
passing through my mind.” and “I try to distract myself when I feel unpleasant emotions.” The
full list of items is provided in the Appendix. Cronbach’s alpha values for awareness andacceptance were .80 and .85, respectively.
The 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) by Cohen et al. (1994) was used to assess
perceived stress. All items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from never (0) tovery often (4). Example items include “How often have you been upset because of somethingthat happened unexpectedly?” and “How often have you been angered because of things thatare outside of your control?” The Cronbach’s alpha for perceived stress was .80.
2.4 Data Analysis
For the statistical analysis, we used the following tests: the treatment and control groups
were compared using the t-test and chi-square test, in terms of demographic characteristics andthe outcome variables of mindful awareness, mindful acceptance, and perceived stress before
MSC training. The direct effect of MSC training on the outcomes were analyzed through a ttest. Moreover, the mediation of acceptance between the training and perceived stress as wellas the moderation of awareness on the relationship between acceptance and perceived stresswere tested using Hayes’ (2013) conditional PROCESS analysis.

162.5 Results
The effect of MSC on perceived stress and the role played by awareness and acceptance in therelation between training and outcome as a moderator and a mediator, was investigated in thisstudy. This section reports the results of the statistical analyses conducted.
Table 2.1 presents a correlational matrix and descriptive statistics of mindfulness,
perceived stress, and demographic variables. The results show that there was no significant
association between mindful awareness and acceptance. However, it was found that mindful
acceptance is significantly correlated with perceived stress.
Table 2.1
Descriptive statistics
Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Gender

1.72

0.46

2. Age

1.64

0.57

0.24

3. Marital status

0.04

0.20

1.27

.13

4. Education

2.12

0.67

0.25

.67**

-.04

5.Employment

4.12

1.36

0.12

.60**

.13

.63**

6. Awareness

3.57

0.55

-0.12

-.10

-.17

.01

-.13

7. Acceptance

2.82

0.67

-0.03

.08

.05

-.24

.13

-.00

8. Perceived stress

1.83

0.48

0.01

-.20

.20

-.04

-.30

-.20

7

status-.67**

Note. N = 25; SD = standard deviation; Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2); Age (18 to 24 = 1, 25 to 34 = 2, 35 to 44= 3); Marital status (Single = 0, Married = 1); Education (Undergraduate = 1, Graduate = 2, Master degree = 3,
Professional degree = 4, Doctorate = 5); Employment status (Student = 1, Unemployed not looking for a job = 2,
Unemployed looking for a job = 3, Employed part time = 4, Employed full time = 5). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p
< 0.001.

The likelihood ratio chi-square test was used for gender (χ2 = .33, p = .57), marital
status (χ2 = 1.51, p = .22), and employment status (χ2 = .71, p > .05), and an independent sample
t-test was used for age (t = 1.70, p = .10) and education (t = .94, p = .36). No significant
difference was found between the two groups in terms of demographic data, indicating that ourrandom assignment was successful in this regard.
The independent sample t-test showed no significant difference between treatment andcontrol groups for outcome variables at Time 0 (immediately before the intervention). Hence,
there was no significant difference between both groups for awareness (t = .37, p = .72),
acceptance (t = -.76, p = .45), and perceived stress (t = 0.26, p = .80) at Time 0, which indicatedthat the random assignment was successful. However, a significant difference was found17

between both groups for acceptance (t = -3.32, p = .00) and perceived stress (t (23) = 3.57, p =.00) at Time 1 (immediately after the intervention). Here, the treatment group had a higher
level of acceptance and a lower level of perceived stress than the control group. Therefore,
Hypotheses 2 and 3 were supported. On the other hand, there was no significant difference
between both groups for awareness (t = .37, p = .77) at Time 1. Hence, Hypothesis 1 was notsupported.
To test the mediation and moderation hypotheses, Hayes’s (2013) conditional
PROCESS analysis was conducted using SPSS 27. The results of the PROCESS analysis arepresented in Tables 2.2 and 2.3.
Table 2.2
Mediation of mindful acceptance on the relationship between MSC training and perceived
stress
Predictorb

SE

Total effect-.56**

Direct effect-.30
Boot IE

Indirect effect via mindful-.26*
acceptance

95% CI
LL

UL

.16

-.89

-.24

.17

-.65

.05

Boot SE

95% CI
LL

UL

.13

-.54

-.02

R2

.36**

.52***

Note. b = Unstandardized Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; Boot SE = Bootstrapped Standard Error; Boot IE =Bootstrapped Indirect Effect; CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Level; UL = Upper Level, *p < .05. **p < .01,***p < .001.

Table 2.2 shows that acceptance fully mediates the relationship between MSC training
and perceived stress, with a significantly negative indirect effect via mindful acceptance (b =-.26, p < .05). Therefore, our hypothesis 4 is supported. Furthermore, it was also found that themediation model explained greater variance (52%) in perceived stress when compared to thetotal effect model (37%).

18

Table 2.3
Conditional effect of mindful awareness on the relationship between mindful acceptance andperceived stressb

SE

MSC intervention-.29

Mindful acceptancePredictor

95% CI
LL

UL

.16

-.62

.04

-.26

.13

-.53

.01

Mindful awareness

-.05

.13

-.33

.23

Mindful acceptance x mindful awareness

-.31

.16

-.66

.03

Boot

95% CI

SE

LL

UL

F (20,4) = 8.28***
Effect on perceived stressConditional effect of mindful awareness

Boot IE-1SD (-0.55)

-.09

.18

-.47

.30

Mean (0)

-.26

.13

-.53

.01

.13

-.70

-.17

+1SD (+0.55)

Note. b = Unstandardized Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; Boot SE = Bootstrapped Standard Error; Boot IE =Bootstrapped Indirect Effect; CI = Confidence Interval; LL = Lower Level; UL = Upper Level; *p < .05. +1SD =one standard deviation above the mean; -1SD = one standard deviation below the mean.

According to Table 2.3, the interaction term of mindful awareness and mindful
acceptance (b = -.31, p > .05) on perceived stress was not found to be significant at the 5%
level for the current sample. Hence, it can be said that our hypothesis 5 was not supported,though the moderation was significant at the 10% level. However, the conditional effect of
mindful awareness on the relationship between mindful acceptance and perceived stress wasfound to be significant (b = -.43, p < .05) when the level of awareness was high (+1SD) andwas not significant when the level was mean and low (-1SD). This result may suggest anoteworthy change, which is discussed in detail in the next section.
2.6 Discussion
Contrasting results were found between the hypotheses, including for mindful
awareness and other variables (not including awareness). Specifically, the former (H1, H5) was
not supported, while the latter (H2, H3, H4) was supported. Based on this, we argue that thedirect application of the emotion regulation theory was supported, but the MAT as a modified
version of the emotion regulation theory and the experiential learning cycle framework in thecontext of adult learning studies were not supported. We will focus on the possible reasons why
the MAT was not supported in the present study.
19

In our sample, MSC training did not have a significant positive effect on mindful
awareness (H1). This result does not align with the results of Neff and Germer (2013), in which
overall mindfulness including awareness was significantly increased after MSC training. Neffand Germer (2013) also found that the effectiveness of training is significantly related to thenumber of days per week in which participants engaged in formal sitting meditation. In thecurrent study, the trainer strictly followed the MSC agenda of providing in-class didactic andexperiential learning for the participants. However, one limitation is that the trainer did notprovide participants with guided recordings for home practice, which may lessen theeffectiveness of the intervention. Further, participants in the treatment group admitted that they,
most of the time, failed to engage in the home practice sitting meditation that enhances mindful
awareness between each session. In addition, participants voluntarily agreed to join the
research-oriented type of training free-of-charge. Therefore, their motivation to practice thesitting meditation home practices appears to be lower than those who usually have to join the
training program with a fee. Moreover, conducting therapeutic training such as MSC training
online may decrease the potency of the program when compared to in-person training. Even
though the participants were strictly advised to join the session from a private space, they may
have experienced various distractions as they joined the training from home, which could havebeen prevented during in-person sessions. These may be the reasons for the failure to obtainsignificant results.
In contrast, we found a positive effect of MSC training on mindful acceptance (H2). As
mentioned earlier, training depends on both the didactic and experiential learning ofparticipants. In class, didactic and experiential learning topics appear to be potent enough forthe participants to cultivate and embrace mindful acceptance. However, in the case of mindful
awareness, it is more dose-dependent (altering with the number of days and hours of sitting
meditation practices every week).
It was also found that mindful awareness did not moderate the relationship between
mindful acceptance and perceived stress, although it was significant at the 10% level (H5).
However, the different results based on the specific level of mindful awareness is noteworthy.
Specifically, it was found that the relationship between mindful acceptance and perceived stressis significant in cases of high mindful awareness (+1SD) and non-significant in the other cases(mean and -1SD). We could interpret this difference in terms of a non-linear type of moderationin which after reaching a threshold level just above the mean value of mindful awareness level(+0.06SD), moderation would be activated. Training participants with low to middle levels ofawareness may face relatively limited experiences necessitating emotion regulation. At the20

same time, such experiences are manageable by other means without acceptance-based
emotion regulation. In this case, seemingly higher ambitions may work effectively. For
example, they may be more likely to change their thoughts about negative experiences by reframing them as challenge stressors (Cavanaugh et al., 2000), using them as good learning
opportunities or expecting more appreciation from others for suppressing negative feelings.
Hence, the availability of mindful acceptance does not affect the stress level. However, thiscognitive change may not be sufficient for the management of more overwhelming experiences.
Such experiences require acceptance-based emotion regulation and tend to be more available
when awareness is higher than the threshold. Consequently, acceptance enables participants to
reduce their perceived stress. Moreover, the statistically insignificant moderating effect might
have derived from the relatively large standard error of each coefficient, potentially due toindividual differences and the small sample size.
2.7 Implications
As discussed above, the MAT was not applicable because of the specific conditions in
our study. However, we should be cautious in criticizing the theory as the results have provided
a case to show the boundary conditions of its applicability.
Through this study, we have come to understand that even though mindful awarenesswas not given much attention, MSC training can still reduce perceived stress, by the
improvement of acceptance. We appreciate MSC training but also recommend caution for two
reasons. First, our sample had specific features that may not be found in the general adult
population. Second, the role of mindful awareness suggested by the MAT was not significant
in our analysis, which may imply that training programs with more emphasis on mindful
awareness will produce better results in stress reduction.
2.8 Limitations and Future Research Directions
The major limitation of this study was that we could not confirm the causal effect of
mindful acceptance on perceived stress, as there was no direct acceptance intervention. Due tothe small sample size, causal mediation analysis, including sensitivity analysis of the effect ofthe mediator (Imai et al., 2010) may be too strict to diagnose the mediation. One more limitation
to address in this study is relying on self-reported questionnaires which add additional concern
on making causal conclusion. Using additional methods or sources of data can help control
some sources of method variance in future studies.
The small sample size might also have caused unexpectedly non-significant results.
Generalizing the results is not advised due to the specific characteristics of the sample. Further
research with a larger and more representative sample is necessary to confirm the results of the21

current study. Finally, the number of days per week and the number of hours per day in which
participants engaged in formal and informal practices were not recorded, which may havecontributed to the statistically insignificant effect of MSC training on awareness. Future studies
could employ research design and data collection methods to address these limitations.
2.9 Conclusion
This study investigated the influence of online MSC training on voluntary participantsin Myanmar during the COVID-19 period, specifically examining the relationship between
online MSC training and perceived stress, and the role played by mindful awareness andmindful acceptance as a moderator and mediator respectively. The participants are aboveaverage ambitious, and consequently self-critical youths who are experiencing stress similar toyoung people all over the world because of the conditions and limitations resultant fromCOVID-19 restrictions. After eight weeks of online MSC training, it was found that the training
had a positive effect on mindful acceptance, a negative effect on perceived stress, and no effecton awareness. It was also found that acceptance played a mediating role in the relationshipbetween training and perceived stress. However, mindful awareness did not moderate therelationship between mindful acceptance and perceived stress. The theoretical framework used
included the MAT and the emotion regulation theory.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been little or no research on the effect of online
MSC training to date, and this study may be one of the first to provide empirical data on theeffect of MSC training on perceived stress with an experimental research design. Furthermore,this study is the first to empirically identify mindful acceptance as a mediator in the relationshipbetween MSC training and perceived stress by incorporating the role of mindful awareness inthe process. The indirect path indicating the influence of the intervention on perceived stressvia mindful acceptance was found to be statistically significant, as suggested by the emotion
regulation theory. However, mindful awareness was neither improved by the training nor
moderated the relationship between mindful acceptance and perceived stress, which wascontrary to what was expected from the MAT.

22

Chapter 3
Effect of Transformational Leadership on Contextual PerformanceMediated by Work Engagement andModerated by Mindful Awareness
3.1 Introduction
Researchers and practitioners consistently agree that constructively administering
employee performance is crucial for generating positive organizational outcomes. Along withthe upheaval of teleworking as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, self-disciplined, motivatedacts of employees or their contextual performance have become vitally important. Contextual
performance is defined as the behaviors that support the organizational, social, andpsychological environment in which the technical core functions (Borman & Motowidlo,1993). More specifically, it is a form of extra-role behavior that inclines cooperation andfollowing rules, voluntarily participating in additional work responsibilities that are beyond an
employee’s formal obligations, and persisting with extra enthusiasm, when necessary, tocomplete the tasks successfully (Han et al, 2015).
Considering the importance of contextual performance, we were motivated to investigate
its antecedents. In compliance with a resource-based approach of Hobfoll (1989), Bakker &Demerouti, 2008 claim that the availability of resources is vital for improving employee
performance in the workplace. Resources can be classified into two types, based on their
origins —job and personal resources. Job resources refer to those physical, social, ororganizational aspects of the job that are functional in achieving work goals, reducing job
demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs and stimulating personal
growth and development (Nachreiner et al, 2001). On the contrary, personal resources refer tothe psychological characteristics or aspects of the self that are generally associated withresilience and the ability to control and impact one’s environment successfully (Schaufeli &Taris, 2014).
Among job resources, scholars consistently state that leadership is an essential antecedentof employee outcomes. Iqbal et al. (2015) state that different types of leadership style havedifferent levels of influence on employee performance. Moreover, among various leadershiptypes, transformational leadership, in particular, is inferred as a contextual structural (i.e.,
durable) resource that affects performance, because leaders are an integral part of employees’social context at work (Hildenbrand & Sacramento, 2018).
23

Transformational leadership is defined as the process of building commitment toorganizational objectives and then empowering employees to accomplish those objectives(Yukl,1998). The role of transformational leaders who can motivate their employees to work
toward common goals and ensure autonomy to make independent decisions to improve
performance, becomes integral, especially so given that the COVID-19 pandemic is reshaping
the workplace, inevitably leading many organizations to shift to a work-from-homearrangement. A better understanding of transformational leadership can be reached bycontrasting it with transactional leadership. Transactional leadership is usually described as theexchange of valued outcomes between leaders and employees. Transactional leaders are
influential in such a way that employees can obtain their best interest and meet their
expectations by following what the leaders want them to complete (Kuhnert & Lewis, 1987).
A transactional leader motivates employees to perform as expected, whereas a transformational
leader inspires followers to achieve more than expected (Den Hartog et al., 1997). Empiricalstudies also find positive relationships between transformational leadership and various
outcomes; some of these outcomes are proximal, whereas others are distal to thetransformational leadership variable. Regarding proximal outcomes, such as job or work
engagement, a positive relationship between transformational leadership and job engagement
was found in a sample of Spanish employees working in high-tech and knowledge-based small
and medium-sized enterprises (Vila-Vázquez et al., 2018). This leadership style was also foundto be associated with work engagement in a sample of Spanish employees in the tourism sector(Amor et al., 2020), as well as in a sample of employees in a finance and event managementcompany in Singapore (Chua & Ayoko, 2021). With respect to distal outcomes such as
performance, researchers found a significant positive relationship between transformational
leadership and outcomes such as employee performance in a sample of firefighters in the
United States (Geier, 2016). It was also found to be associated with sustainable employee
performance among respondents in the construction industry in China (Jiang & Zhao, 2017),
task performance and organizational citizenship behavior among employees in the UnitedStates (Carter et al., 2013), task performance in a sample in the United Kingdom (Wills et al.,2017), task and contextual performance in a sample of frontline employees in five-star hotels
in China (Chen & Shao, 2022), and contextual performance (Yang et al., 2019). In addition,some researchers argue that transformational leadership is more closely associated with
contextual performance, while transactional leadership is more closely associated withindividual task performance, in which employees perform activities that contribute to theorganizational core (Chen & Shao, 2022). Transformational leaders’ tendency to clarify
24

expectations and goals and encourage cooperation, plus their fair and equal treatment,
empowerment, and active interaction with their employees create high-quality relationshipsthat can be reciprocated with contextual performance (Wang et al., 2011).
The mechanism of the relationship between transformational leadership and contextual
performance requires further investigation, as the relationship is distal, rather than proximal(Dvir et al., 2002). For example, by using metanalytic path modeling, existing research
provides evidence on the effect of work engagement on the relationship between distal
antecedents (job characteristics, leadership, and dispositional characteristics) and job
performance (such as task performance and contextual performance) (Christian et al., 2011).
In this regard, numerous ways by which transformational leadership can affect contextual
performance through individual-level mediators such as psychological safety, self-efficacy,
personal identification, and intrinsic motivation, have been proposed (Reilly & Aronson,2009). For example, a meta-analysis of 185 independent studies reveals that trust plays amediating role in the leadership–performance relationship (Legood et al., 2021). In addition,
an existing study shows that transformational leadership has a positive influence on employees’
proactive work behaviors, in such a way that leadership—at a different hierarchical level—
influences the outcome variable via different mediators, such as the employees’ commitment
and their confidence to initiate change (Strauss et al., 2009).
The motivational process of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model states that job
resources (such as transformational leadership) stimulate work engagement, which in turnenhances positive work outcomes (such as performance) (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Work
engagement is a positive, fulfilling, and work-related state of mind, characterized by vigor,
dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2002). It should be investigated because it reflectsa more comprehensive work-related affective–motivational state encompassing both healthrelated outcomes—such as affective wellbeing—and motivation-related outcomes, such as
intrinsic motivation (Schaufeli et al., 2006). In addition, work engagement, which is a form ofheavy work investment and reflects an employee’s dedication to the organizational activities,
becomes questionable, particularly in times of upheaval caused by a work-from-homeapproach. Further, a previous empirical study found that teleworking was associated with alower level of work engagement during the COVID-19 pandemic (Parent-Lamarche, 2022).
Likewise, transformational leaders who can empower and inspire employees to take on
self-managed responsibilities even if they are not under surveillance seem to be a relevant
predictor of their subordinates’ work engagement, particularly during the pandemic period. An
existing empirical study also shows the mediating role of work engagement in the relationship25

between transformational leadership and job performance among frontline hotel employees(Buil et al., 2019). Researchers are also interested in personal resources as boundary conditionsof the transformational leadership–contextual performance relationship (Kroon et al., 2017). In
the literature, self-efficacy, organization-based self-esteem, and optimism are found to becommon personal resources (Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Previous researchers indicate that
personal resources may act as moderators that govern the way employees realize, formulate,and react to the environment’s goals (Xanthopoulou et al., 2013). In addition, the roles ofcognitive processes and individual characteristics in realizing the work environment aresupposedly essential factors to consider when predicting work-related individual outcomes(Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). An empirical study indicates that personal resources (e.g., intrinsic
work value orientation) can be integrated into the JD-R model in such a way that theystrengthen the positive effect of job resources (e.g., job autonomy) on work engagement (Vanden Broeck et al., 2011).
Researchers suggest that personal resources such as hope, optimism, and self-efficacy
relate to resiliency and the positive core self-concept, whereas mindful awareness is moreconcerned with how people use their attentional resources to cope with job resources((Xanthopoulou et al., 2013; Grover et al., 2017). The present study focuses on trait mindful
awareness as possessing a higher level of present-moment awareness that enables individuals
to allocate their limited attentional resources (i.e., individuals select a limited number of
sensory inputs to process while other sensory inputs are neglected) to utilizing available job
resources and enhances their ability to deal with and/or deploy the available job resources
around them (Grover et al., 2017; Wahn & König, 2017). Based on the JD-R model, we assume
that employees with a relatively higher level of personal resources—mindful awareness, inparticular—are more aware of and open to the full potential of job resources—with the twoworking together synergistically. However, one existing study discovered the compensatinginteraction effect of transformational leadership and mindful awareness on intrinsic motivationin the Netherlands (Kroon et al., 2017), which concurs with the “substitutes for leadership”
theory (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). Some researchers argue that mindful awareness can makeindividuals more resilient to the inadequacy of job resources and cognizant of alternative job
resources, considering the ever-changing nature of the work environment (Janssen et al., 2020).
Based on the JD-R model, other researchers state that, as a personal resource, mindful
awareness buffers the link between emotional demands and psychological stress (Kerr &Jermier, 1978). An empirical study provides evidence that mindful awareness significantly
strengthened the negative relationship between work pressure and work engagement within its
26

sample (Janssen et al., 2020). Since the study adopted the narrower scope of intrinsic
motivation as an outcome, we should be cautious to avoid simply comparing this compensating
moderation with the strengthening moderation. Nevertheless, when it comes to empiricalevidence concerning specific personal resources, the literature appears to be inconclusive, andwe should further investigate the results empirically.
Based on the argument above, the present study is expected to contribute to the literatureby identifying the underlying mechanism (mediation of work engagement) and boundary
condition (moderation of mindful awareness) of the relationship between transformational
leadership and contextual performance. The required data were collected online from 282
individuals in the United States via Amazon Mechanical Turk. The respondents were randomly
assigned to two vignettes—one reflecting transformational leadership and the other reflecting
transactional leadership. The results demonstrated that the positive relationship between
transformational leadership and contextual performance is partially mediated by work
engagement. Moreover, mindful awareness was found to significantly enhance the relationshipbetween transformational leadership and work engagement. This study contributes to theliterature by providing further empirical evidence on the inconclusive contextualization ofmindful awareness as a personal resource, and the inconclusive discussion on the role ofpersonal resources as a boundary condition.
Along with the research scope mentioned above, we reviewed the literature below tojustify our hypotheses regarding 1) the relationship between transformational leadership andcontextual performance, mediated by work engagement and 2) the moderating effect of mindful
awareness on the relationship between transformational leadership and work engagement.
3.2 Literature Review
3.2.1. Relationship of Transformational Leadership and Contextual Performancethrough Work Engagement
First, we reviewed the literature to justify the proposed main relationship between
transformational leadership and contextual performance. Existing evidence reveals thattransformational leadership has a positive influence on contextual performance. In Westerncountries, a study found a positive relationship among the employees of a restaurant chain in
the United States (Detert & Burris, 2007), while another found the same among employees
from different companies in Germany (Rank et al., 2009). These findings were in agreementwith a study on employees from different industries and professional backgrounds in the
Netherlands (Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). Evidence has also been collected from Asia,
27

among MBA students from China (Liu et al., 2010), and among IT professionals in India(Pradhan et al., 2018). Moreover, an existing meta-analysis validates transformational
leadership as being positively related to contextual performance (Chiaburu et al., 2014).
However, as mentioned earlier, the relationship is likely to be distal, so as to understand themechanism. Some researchers argue that distal antecedents, such as transformational
leadership, might influence contextual performance via the mediating mechanism of proximal
motivational factors predicting how an individual experiences a desire to self-invest theirenergy into performing their work at a high level, indicating that work engagement is apromising mediator (Christian et al., 2011). Another study shows a positive association
between work engagement and contextual performance (Meyers et al., 2019).
Transformational leaders typically communicate clear expectations, manage employees
fairly, and identify good performers, thereby encouraging their employees’ work engagement
by fostering a sense of attachment to the job (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Regarding therelationship between work engagement and contextual performance, both individual andorganizational factors affect the psychological experience of work, and this experience maylead to certain work behaviors (Kahn, 1990). Some studies also empirically confirm themediating role of work engagement; a meta-analysis confirms the mediating role of work
engagement in the relationship between transformational leadership and contextual
performance (Christian et al., 2011). More recent studies provide evidence of the abovementioned relationship in a sample of 195 project team members in 39 teams from different
contractors in Malaysia (Shokory & Suradi, 2018). Furthermore, in a sample of Taiwanesehospital staff, it was found that work engagement mediates the positive relationship between
transformational leadership and helping behaviors that are considered to cover an aspect ofcontextual performance (Lai et al., 2020).
The studies mentioned above aimed to investigate the effect of transformational
leadership. One important issue to be clarified is what the expression “low in transformational
leadership” means in these studies. The issue stems from the fact that “low in transformational
leadership” may not mean a specific type of leadership. Some respondents, as well as someresearchers, are more likely to expect laissez-faire leadership, while others may expect
transactional leadership, as it is perceived to be a contrasting type of leadership, which makes
the discussion confusing. To pose a clearer argument, a “baseline” should be established. For
this purpose, transactional leadership is appropriate as the baseline, because it is similar totransformational leadership in its necessity of deliberate intention for implementation,compared to laissez-faire leadership. In fact, both transformational and transactional leaders28

actively dedicate their time and effort and attempt to inhibit problems, which is in directcontradiction to the extremely passive laissez-faire leaders who avoid decision making andsupervisory responsibilities (Den Hartog et al., 1997). A previous study used transactional
leadership vignettes as a baseline to analyze the “effect of transformational leadership,”
although they called the baseline vignette “non-transformational” (Kovjanic et al., 2013). In
line with the above argument, we hypothesized the following:
Hypothesis 1: The positive relationship between transformational leadership, in contrast
to transactional leadership, and contextual performance is mediated by work engagement.
3.2.2 Moderation of Mindful Awareness
Next, we focused on a potential contingency for a part of the main relationship; that is,
between transformational leadership and contextual performance. Specifically, the abovementioned mediated relationship is likely to be contingent. Some researchers propose thattransformational leadership affects work engagement to various degrees, and under different
conditions (Bakker et al., 2011). As previously mentioned, existing research investigated therelationship between transformational leadership and contextual performance via work
engagement. However, little attention has been paid to the conditional effect of mindful
awareness on the indirect positive relationship between transformational leadership andcontextual performance through work engagement, acting as a mediator with a comprehensive
perspective.
As mentioned earlier, studies on the role of mindful awareness as a boundary condition in
the relationship between transformational leadership and contextual performance wereinconclusive. As extensively discussed earlier, the JD-R model suggests positive moderation
or a strengthening effect of personal resources on the relationship between job resources andwork engagement (Schaufeli & Taris, 2014). Although they are not specifically defined as
mindful awareness, other personal resources have been found to offer positive moderation (Vanden Broeck et al., 2011). In contrast, some researchers argue that mindfulness can act as a
substitute for low levels of transformational leadership in enhancing intrinsic motivation and,in turn, extra-role behavior (equivalent to contextual performance) (Kroon et al., 2017).
(However, it is noteworthy that, mindful acceptance, another variable of interest of thisdissertation, is not expected to create this kind of moderation as there is no theoreticalbackground supporting the path with mindful acceptance as a moderator.)

29

Considering the inconclusiveness of the theoretical discussion and empirical findings, asolution may exist in the moderation’s boundary condition. Accordingly, to set the signcondition of our moderation hypothesis, we focused on the cultural differences between theprevious study conducted in the Netherlands (Kroon et al., 2017) and our study in the UnitedStates. More specifically, we address the two countries’ cultural differences in masculinity andlong-term orientation, according to the cultural dimensions of Hofstede (2005). We proposethat people from the Netherlands, who present low masculinity and a high long-termorientation, may be more likely to consider the team’s long-term maintenance and developmentfrom a mutual cooperation perspective. Therefore, those who have higher mindful awarenessand can thus be transformative by themselves tend to motivate themselves to compensate forthe lack of transformational leadership. In contrast, people in the United States, who arecharacterized by high masculinity and low long-term orientation, may be more likely to value
straightforward recognition from their leaders with relatively short-term-oriented decisions.
Hence, those with higher mindful awareness tend to enhance their own transformative nature
under a higher level of transformational leadership. Therefore, we set our second hypothesis asfollows:
Hypothesis 2: Mindful awareness moderates the indirect effect of transformational
leadership on contextual performance through work engagement; the higher the level ofmindful awareness, the stronger the effect.
3.2.3 Conceptual Framework
With the two hypotheses developed above, a conceptual framework was developed, as
shown in Figure 3.1. As transformational leadership would be interrogated by the hypotheticalvignettes, the variable was described in a box. Other variables are expected to be latent.

30

Figure 3.1.
Conceptual Framework.

3.3. Data and Methodology
3.3.1. Sample and Procedure
To test the hypotheses, an online survey was conducted with the Amazon Mechanical Turk
platform, “an increasingly popular source of experimental participants due to its convenienceand low cost (relative to traditional laboratories)”, although it “presents challenges related tostatistical power and reliability” (Bentley, 2021). A total of 342 individuals responded using
the Qualtrics XM survey software. Among them, 58 and 2 respondents were found to beunqualified and outliers, respectively, after a studentized residuals analysis was performed.
After removing these participants, 282 respondents with 40-plus working hours in the UnitedStates were finally selected for analysis. Due to this data collection approach, we could notaccess the information of non-participants who registered for the platform and met our criteria.
Instead, we assessed the late response bias and found that the early and late participants were
not statistically different in terms of gender, age, or educational background. Independent
sample t-tests were used for age (t (140) = 1.02, p > 0.05) and education (t (140) = –0.30, p >0.05), while a chi-squared test was used for gender (χ2 (1) = 1.26, p >0.05); the results showedthat there was no major late response bias. The study design was a randomized controlled trial(RCT) in which participants were randomly assigned (by the Qualtrics XM software) to two
different vignettes, one on transformational leadership, and the other on transactional
leadership (Appendix B). The two different vignettes were constructed based on items oftransformational and transactional leadership from the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire(MLQ)’s 28-item scale (Bass et al., 2005). In compliance with the developer’s request, the31items of the MLQ may not be published. Instead, the factor level information is provided inAppendix B.II. The overall procedure, including sampling, is shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2
Process of research.

3.3.2. Measures
For the main analysis, we used the transformational versus transactional leadershipvignettes (Appendix A), as well as the established scales to measure mindful awareness, work
engagement, and contextual performance. Moreover, for the purpose of confirming
manipulation by the vignettes, another established scale to measure transformational leadership
was adopted.
Regarding the intervention, transformational versus transactional leadership was coded
based on the assigned vignette—1 for the former and 0 for the latter.
Mindful awareness was measured using the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS)’s
10-item scale of awareness (Appendix B.II) (Cardaciotto et al., 2008). Items were rated on a 5point scale ranging from never (0) to always (4). Example items were “I am aware of whatthoughts are passing through my mind” and “When talking with other people, I am aware of
the emotions I am experiencing.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.80, indicating good reliability.
32

Work engagement was measured using a 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES9; Appendix B.III) (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Items were rated on a 7-point scale, ranging fromnever (0) to always (6). Example items included “At my work, I feel bursting with energy” and“I am enthusiastic about my job.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97.
Contextual performance was measured using a 12-item scale (Appendix B.V) (Koopmans
et al., 2014). Items were rated on a 5-point scale, ranging from seldom (1) to always (5).
Example items were “I take on extra responsibilities” and “I actively participate in work
meetings.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.97.
For the manipulation check, the respondent’s perceived transformational leadership for theassigned vignette was measured using the MLQ’s 20-item scale regarding transformational
leadership (Bass et al., 2005). We excluded the eight items regarding transactional leadershipthat were used to make the respective vignette, as our purpose here was to measure theperceived transformational leadership based on each vignette. Items were rated on a 5-point
scale, ranging from not at all (0) to frequently (4). Example items included “The leader talks
optimistically about the future” and “The leader spends time teaching and coaching.”
Transformational leadership had an acceptable reliability coefficient, with a Cronbach’s alphaof 0.98.
Each scale has been utilized previously by researchers and they represent establishedmethods of measurement that have been confirmed as reliable and valid.
3.4. Data Analysis
We first reviewed the descriptive statistics, including demographic data of the respondents
and means, standard deviation (SD), and correlations among variables. Second, themanipulation check was carried out with an independent sample t-test, to confirm if ourintervention was successful. Third, the hypotheses were tested, and some additional analyticalresults were found. More specifically, a conditional process analysis (Hayes, 2013) was
conducted to test the path model, which comprises mediation (H1) and moderated mediations(H2). The conditional indirect effect was analyzed with Model 7 in the Process Macro of IBM
SPSS 27. Conditional process analysis has the advantage of analyzing the moderated mediation
process as a whole, although we should also be cautious to argue the effect of a mediator on an
outcome as the mediator does not intervene. Lastly, simple slope analyses were performed
regarding the hypothesized moderation of mindful awareness and that of demographic
characteristics.

33

3.5 Results
3.5.1 Descriptive Statistics
The demographic data are shown in Table 3.1, while mean, SDs, and correlations among
the study variables are presented in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 shows that transformational leadershipand work engagement are associated with contextual performance. The results revealed noassociation between mindful awareness and transformational leadership.
Table 3.1
Demographic Information.
No. of respondents%
Gender

Male

177

62.8%

Female10537.2%

20 – 24 years

6

2.1%

25 – 29 years

19

6.7%

30 – 34 years

52

18.4%

35 – 39 years

61

21.6%

40 – 44 years

57

20.2%

45 – 49 years

29

10.3%

50 – 54 years

24

8.5%

55 – 59 years

23

8.2%

60 years and above

11

3.9%

Education diploma or equivalent including 27

9.6%

Age

High school graduate (high school
GED)
Some college but no degree

48

17.0%

Associate degree in college (2-year) 26

9.2%

Bachelor’s degree in college (4year)
Master’s degree or higher

133

47.2%

48

17.0%

Note. N = 282, GED = General Education Development test.

34

Table 3.2 Descriptive Statistics

Mean SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Gender

1.37

0.48

1

Age

4.80

1.91

Education

4.45

1.23

–0.10

0.01

1

Transformational
Leadership

2.31

1.16

–0.05

–0.00

0.05

1

Mindful Awareness

3.55

0.54

0.21**

0.04

0.11

0.08

Work Engagement

4.05

1.48

0.03

–0.01

0.10 0.77**

0.15* 1

Contextual Performance

3.08

1.08

0.02

–0.00

0.03 0.79**

0.12* 0.86*** 1

0.18** 1

1Note. N = 282, SD = standard deviation, Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2), Age (20 to 24 = 1, 25 to 29 = 2, 30 to 34= 3, 35 to 39 = 4, 40 to 44 = 5, 45 to 49 = 6, 50 to 54 = 7, 55 to 59 = 8, 60 years and above = 9), Education (Lessthan high school degree = 1, High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent including GED) = 2, Somecollege but no degree = 3, Associate degree in college (2-year) = 4, Bachelor degree in college (4-year) = 5, Master
degree or higher (4-year) = 6, Likert scales (for transformational leadership) not at all = 0 to frequently if notalways = 4, (for Mindful awareness) never = 1 to very often = 5, (For Contextual performance) seldom = 1 toalways = 5, (for Work engagement) almost never = 1 to always = 6, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

3.5.2. Manipulation Check
Before conducting the main analysis, we needed to confirm that our intervention throughthe hypothetical vignettes was successful. For this purpose, we implemented a manipulation
check. The authors created the transformational and transactional leadership vignettes(Appendix A) for this study, based on the MLQ items (Bass et al., 2005). As a preliminary
check, an independent sample t-test was conducted by comparing the transformational vignette
and transactional vignette groups in terms of participants’ perception of the level oftransformational leadership utilizing the original 20-item MLQ. A significant difference wasnoted in the mean scores of MLQ between the respondents reading the two different vignettes(Table 3.3), in that respondents perceived a stronger transformational leadership behavior in
the transformational leadership vignette than that on transactional leadership.
35

Table 3. 3
Independent sample t-test for manipulation check.

Intervention

No.

Transformational leadership (TFL) vignette

148

Transactional leadership vignette

134

Mean of

SD

t

3.227

0.584

2.070*

1.295

0.704

perceived TFL

Note. *p < 0.05, SD = Standard Deviation.

3.5.3 Hypothesis Testing
Because of the successful manipulation, we could proceed to the main analysis for
hypothesis testing. Table 4, showing the main analysis results, delineates the findings of theprocess analysis for (1) the mediating effect of work engagement on the relationship between
transformational leadership and contextual performance and (2) the moderating effect of
mindful awareness on the relationship between transformational leadership and work
engagement.
Transformational leadership was related to work engagement as indicated by a significant
unstandardized regression coefficient (B = 1.92, p < 0.001). Work engagement wassignificantly related to contextual performance (B = 0.57, p < 0.001), as transformational
leadership was (B = 0.27, p < 0.01), indicating that work engagement partially mediates therelationship between transformational leadership and contextual performance. Hypothesis 1
was thus supported.
The interaction term of transformational leadership and mindful awareness was
significantly related to work engagement (B = 0.96, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 2. The
index of moderated mediation was 0.79, with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals [0.26,
0.83], suggesting that the strength of the hypothesized indirect effect is conditional on the valueof the moderator, mindful awareness.
Model 1 explained a significant proportion of variance in work engagement (R2 = 0.48, p< 0.001). Similarly, Model 2 explained a significant proportion of variance in contextual
performance (R2 = 0.73, p < 0.001). The variance inflation factor values for the variables in thetwo models fall within the acceptable limits (less than 2.5) and indicate no serious
multicollinearity problems (Hair et al., 1995).
36

Table 3.4
Conditional direct and indirect effects of transformational leadership on contextual
performance mediated my work engagement and moderated by mindful awareness.
SE

T

R2

Transformational leadership (TFL, vs.
1.93***
transactional leadership)

0.13

15.08

0.48***

Mindful Awareness

–0.04

0.17

–0.20

0.95***

0.24

3.95

Predictor Variable

B

Model 1: F (3,278) = 84.91***
Effect on the mediator variable: Work Engagement (WE)

Mindful Awareness x TFL
Model 2: F (2,279) = 405.70***

Effect on the dependent variable: Contextual Performance (CP)Work Engagement (WE)

0.57***

Transformational leadership (TFL, vs.
transactional leadership)

0.00

0.26**

19.61
0.09

0.74***

3.03

Moderated Mediation Analysis
Bootstrap results for the conditional indirect effect of TFL on CP at values of the moderator (Mindful
Awareness)
Boot indirect effect

Boot SELL 95% CI

UL 95% CI-0.54 (-1SD)

0.81*

0.11

0.59

1.03

0.00 (0SD)

1.10*

0.08

0.93

1.26

0.54 (+1SD)

1.39*

0.11

1.16

1.61

Index of moderated mediation

0.54*

0.15

0.25

0.83

Note. N=282, Bootstrap sample size= 5000, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, SD = Standard Deviation, Boot
SE = bootstrapped standard error, LL 95% CI = lower level 95% confidence interval, LL 95% CI = upper level
95% confidence interval.

To assess whether the interaction term followed the hypothesized pattern, a simple slope
analysis was performed at one SD above and below the mean of the mindful awarenessmeasure. Figure 4.3 illustrates the conditional effect of mindful awareness on the relationshipbetween the two different leadership vignettes and work engagement: the higher the mindful
awareness, the stronger the main relationship.

37

Figure 3.3
Moderation of mindful awareness on the relationship between transformational leadership andwork engagement.

Figure 3.4
Moderation of gender on the relationship between transformational leadership and work
engagement.

In addition, among the demographic variables of the current study, gender was found tomoderate the relationship between the intervention variable and work engagement, as shown38

in Figure 3.4 (B = 0.62, p < 0.05, male = 1, female = 2). The result shows that female
respondents were more sensitive to the availability of transformational leadership.
3.6 Discussion
3.6.1. Interpretation
We now discuss the results and their relationship with the theoretical foundations of thestudy and provide our interpretation of unexpected results.
Based on the results, both hypotheses were supported; thus, the theoretical foundation for
the two hypotheses—the JD-R model for the mediation of work engagement and themoderation of mindful awareness—is applicable to our sample from the United States.
Regarding Hypothesis 2, we found the literature to be inconclusive, thus requiring further
examination. Mindful awareness is a valuable personal resource to help employees become
cognizant of the existing social aspect of contextual resources, such as the instances oftransformational leadership around them (Kroon et al., 2015). Such open awareness contributes
to a psychological connection with their work and performance. Consistent with this definition,
the findings revealed that a higher level of mindful awareness strengthens the indirect positive
relationship between transformational leadership and contextual performance via work
engagement. More specifically, according to the simple slope analysis results (Figure 3.3),
among the transactional leadership vignette respondents, work engagement appeared fairly
similar at the three levels of mindful awareness. In contrast, for the transformational leadership
respondents, work engagement was considerably different at different levels. Overall, mindful
awareness did not predict work engagement statistically, as shown in Table 3.4 (B = -0.04, p >0.05), although some researchers find that personal resources are directly related to work
engagement (Kroon et al., 2017). One possible explanation is that mindful awareness is not
activated when facing transactional leadership; therefore, one does not improve their work
engagement in this case. We can argue that mindful awareness is considered the antecedent of
typical personal resources such as self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem andoptimism, and that the activation process is necessary to link mindful awareness to the personal
resources that are, in turn, related to work engagement.
In addition, the result shows that female respondents were more reactive to the availabilityof transformational leadership. This result is, to some extent, in line with a previous study
which shows that female employees are predicted to show a higher effect of trait-based
authentic leadership (which originated from process- or behavior-based transformational
leadership) when compared to male employees (Daraba et al., 2021; Tonkin, 2013). Female
39employees, unlike their male counterparts, are more likely to play a care-giving role in theirfamily contexts, and thereby are more prone to quick resource depletion. Consequently, they
may appreciate the positive support they receive from transformational leaders (who cancapture employees’ trust, faith, respect, and appreciation) better than their male counterparts.
This constitutes a possible reason for their increased sensitivity to the availability oftransformational leadership observed in the current study.
3.6.2. Practical Implications
Our results provide some notable practical implications. First, based on the significantly
positive effect of transformational leadership on contextual performance, organizations should
enhance such leadership among current managers and prioritize the recruitment and selectionof individuals with transformational leadership tendencies, especially for managerial positions,to promote employees’ contextual performance. Second, the finding that mindful awarenessstrengthens the effect of transformational leadership on work engagement can imply thatorganizations should recruit employees with high mindful awareness, so that managers astransformational leaders can more effectively enhance work engagement and, in turn,contextual employee performance. Moreover, especially for those with higher mindful
awareness, organizations should emphasize developing their managers’ transformational
leadership to enhance employees’ work engagement.
Additionally, to cope with issues such as quiet quitting that emerged along with theunprecedented changes in workplace contexts since the COVID-19 pandemic, recruiting andmaintaining transformational leaders is also vital, as quiet quitting is less about employees andrather more about the leadership that shapes the particular nature of the relationship with those
employees (Harvard Business Review, 2022).
3.6.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Although this study successfully provides empirical evidence on the effect oftransformational leadership (as a contextual resource) on contextual performance, mediated bywork engagement and moderated by mindful awareness (as a personal resource), certain
limitations should be noted.
The first limitation the usage on self-reported questionnaires for both dependent andindependent variables. To address this limitation, future studies should explore longitudinal
data collection method and or collecting data from other sources (such as coworkers, friends
and family members) other than the respondents himself/herself.
40

Second, although we conducted an RCT and used transformational and transactional
leadership to obtain the experimental data, the mediator (work engagement) was not randomly
assigned; therefore, we cannot argue for the effect of work engagement convincingly. A causal
mediation analysis can validate the causal effect of work engagement on contextual
performance (Imai et al., 2010). Third, a generalization issue exists. Due to the conveniencesampling method applied, our participants did not represent the whole population but only the
Amazon Mechanical Turk registrants who work 40 plus hours per week in the United States.
Thus, the present study should be regarded as a “case study” of a specific sample. Random
sampling is the solution; however, we need to find a different source of survey respondents, as
Amazon Mechanical Turk is not sufficient due to its restrictions in terms of the survey process.
Moreover, future studies could replicate this model in other countries and cultures (withsufficient external validity) and generalize the argument beyond the United States.
3.7 Conclusions
This study aimed to investigate the relationship between transformational leadership as ajob resource and contextual performance as a work outcome, mediated by work engagement
and moderated by trait mindful awareness; specifically, we examined one of its dimensions,mindful awareness, as a personal resource. Theoretically, both the mediation and moderation
are based on the JD-R model.
We analyzed the conditionally mediated relationship using RCT. As predicted, the findings
revealed that the positive relationship between transformational leadership and contextual
performance is partially mediated by work engagement (B = 1.92, p < 0.001 between
transformational leadership and work engagement; B = 0.57, p < 0.001 between work
engagement and contextual performance; B = 0.27, p < 0.01 between transformational
leadership and contextual performance, directly). Moreover, we found that mindful awarenesssignificantly strengthens the relationship between transformational leadership and work
engagement (B = 0.96, p < 0.001).
This study contributes to the literature by providing further empirical evidence on theinconclusive contextualization of mindful awareness as a personal resource in the relationshipbetween transformational leadership and work engagement. Concerning practical implications,organizations should enhance such leadership among current managers and emphasize therecruitment and selection of individuals with transformational leadership tendencies to copewith issues such as quiet quitting in times of upheaval. Moreover, organizations should also
consider recruiting and maintaining employees with higher levels of mindful awareness so that41

employees can handle the unfavorable working conditions by utilizing their own personal
resources of mindful awareness, and without relying too heavily on the availability of job
resources around them.

42

Chapter 4
The Mediating Role of Emotion Regulation on the Relationshipbetween Mindfulness and Organizational Citizenship Behavior
4.1. Introduction
Dispositional tendency to be mindful in daily life is theorized to have a widespread
effect on human functioning and behaviors according to the findings across multiple
methodologies including correlational studies, RCTs and person-centered approaches. (Brown
et al., 2007). Trait or dispositional mindfulness refers to a relatively stable characteristic of anindividual and reflects an ability to remain mindful across different situations and contexts(Baer et al., 2006; Davis et al., 2009; Truong et al., 2020). It is distinct from state mindfulness,
which is described as a characteristic feature displayed in a given situation or time (Bishop etal, 2006; Lau et al., 2006; Tanay & Bernstein, 2013; Truong et al., 2020).
Trait mindfulness has been commonly analyzed as a unitary construct even though there
has been a great deal of theoretical and empirical support for its multidimensional nature (Bearet al., 2006; Carpenter et al., 2019; Macdonald, 2021; Macdonald & Baxter, 2017; Rau &Williams, 2016). Based on the previous mindfulness constructs, Bear et al. (2006) proposed
five facets of mindfulness, namely observing (being aware of inner and outer sensations,emotions, and cognitions),

describing (being able to mentally or verbally label sensations,emotions and cognitions), acting with awareness (being focused on one’s current activity, rather
than acting automatically), nonjudging of inner experiences (taking a nonevaluative stancetoward thoughts and feelings), and nonreactivity to inner experiences (allowing sensations,
cognitions, and emotions to come and go, without attention getting caught up in them)(Bränström et al., 2011). In fact, Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) by Bear et al.
(2006) is a widely recognized as one of the most comprehensive constructs which evaluates
both the attentional and attitudinal components of mindfulness when compared to otherconstructs such as Mindfulness Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS) (Sørensen et al., 2018;
Zhuang et al., 2017).
In addition, Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT) by Lindsay and Creswell (2017)
states that attention monitoring (observing facet in FFMQ) and acceptance (nonjudging andnonreactivity facets) are the basic mechanisms essential to trait mindfulness. There are twocore tenets in MAT. The first core tenet states that attention monitoring skills can exacerbate
both positive and negative experiences, whereas the second tenets claims that acceptance skills
can enhance emotion regulation.
43

Several efforts have been made by previous researchers claiming that these five facets
are useful in understanding the relationship between mindfulness and other conceptuallyrelated variables (Bravo et al., 2016; Kinnunen et al., 2019; Pearson et al., 2015; Tagney et al.,2017). Previous studies have demonstrated the link between trait mindfulness and various kindsof individual wellbeing outcomes. A wealth of evidence now exists, and a substantial body ofresearch has already demonstrated a statistically significant association between trait
mindfulness and a wide variety of negative psychological outcomes including perceived stress,
depression, anxiety, emotional reactivity and positive psychological outcomes such asresilience and positive state of mind (Bränström et al., 2011; Hill & Updegraff, 2012; Prakash
et al., 2015).
As mentioned above, researchers have conducted empirical studies on the relationships
between multiple facets of trait mindfulness and psychological outcomes but there is a roomfor further exploration as follows. For one thing, the studies on behavioral outcomes especiallyin work setting is still limited. There have been some studies revealing the positive association
between overall mindfulness and OCB (Askun Celik & Çetin, 2019; Mulligan, 2018; Petal,
2017; Tanover, 2022), with considering its relevance as an extra role work behavior. However,
the relationship between the mindfulness facets and OCB or other work behavior has not been
analyzed specifically. For the other, the results on the relationship between the trait mindfulness
facets and psychological outcomes suggested different roles of the facets but the empiricalresults have not been convincing. In order to be more conclusive, exploration of underlying
mechanisms is likely to be effective. Among the potential mediators in this process, ER has
been more commonly analyzed.
Extending the current literature, the main objective of this study is to investigate therole of the habitual use of cognitive ER strategies as mediating mechanisms in the relationshipbetween different facets of trait mindfulness and OCB.
4.2 Literature Review
Brown et al. (2007) suggests that higher level of trait mindfulness, or individual’s
predisposition to be mindful in their daily life, may induce controlling behaviors and making
behavioral decisions engendering wellbeing and goal attainment. Out of the axioms of
mindfulness namely intention, attention and attitude (IAA) proposed by Shapiro et al (2006),
Glomb et al. (2011) also states that an employee with a higher level of mindfulness, with its
attentional components, in particular, is very probable to be a good listener and a better decision
maker, very probable to be aware of a coworker who needs help, and the mutual benefits
44

associated with that help, thereby inherently improve social relationship and increase task
performance. However, there have been only a few studies showing the association between
mindfulness and behavioral outcomes. Furthermore, much of the existing literature is found to
be conducted outside the work environment (Dane & Brummel, 2014; Glomb et al., 2016).
Patel (2017) provided empirical evidence that mindfulness is associated with OCB by claimingthat the level of mindfulness, especially its attitudinal components predict how individuals
become more aware of their present moment experiences, and which in turn could leads to anincrease in OCB. OCB refers to any behavior that contributes to the overall effectiveness ofthe organization, and it is neither a part of the employee’s formal job descriptions, nor a basis
on which the employee is formally rewarded. (Organ, 1988: Podsakoff, 1997). Chang et al.
(2015) states that individuals with higher level of mindfulness can go beyond a self-centeredstate and see the integration between their work and the outside world, and thereby thecontribution they can make for others. Furthermore, as mindful individuals have relatively
higher level of empathy, focus and attention, they are better able to recognize the coworkers
who need their help, and also clearly aware of the responsibilities, cost and difficulties fortaking the extra roles to help them (Glomb et al., 2011; Jobbehdar Nourafkan et al., 2022).
There have been prior studies revealing the positive association between mindfulness and OCB(Askun Celik & Çetin, 2019; Jobbehdar Nourafkan et al., 2022; Mulligan, 2018; Petal, 2017;
Reb et al., 2015).
4.2.1 Mediation of ER on the relationship between Mindfulness Facets and OCB
Furthermore, Wheeler et al. (2017), in his review based on neuroscience research,claimed that individuals high in trait mindfulness (even without the intervention of formal
training) display greater activity in brain areas that is related to ER. In fact, there has beenplenty of studies demonstrating the link between mindfulness and ER (Arch & Craske, 2006;
Broderick & Jennings, 2012; Brown et al., 2007; Chambers et al., 2009; Desrosiers et al., 2013;
Hill & Updegraff, 2012; Hülsheger et al., 2013; Inai et al., 2019; Luberto et al., 2014;
MacDonald, 2021; MacDonald & Baxter, 2017; Roemer et al., 2015).
ER is defined as the process of modulating one or more aspects of an emotional
experience or response (Gross, 1998). According to the process model of emotion regulation
by Gross (2014), in the emotion generative process of an individual, there are five stages of ER
strategies namely situation selection, situation modification, attentional deployment, cognitivechange, and response modulation. Among them, the first two strategies – situation selection
and situation modification – are about changing the environment that fosters the emergence ofemotion. The last strategy – response modulation is about directly influencing the emotion’s
45physiological, experiential, or behavioral components. However, the third and fourth strategies– cognitive change and attentional deployment – represent strategies directed at regulating
emotions without literally adjusting the environment. When considering about the link between
trait mindfulness and ER, cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ) which istheoretically based on the process model of ER and encompasses both cognitive components
of ER strategies mentioned above, is relatively more appropriate to the context. Bednar et al.
(2020), based on their empirical study, claimed that ER is not a unitary construct within
mindfulness, but appears to be separated into distinct what and how scales. Moreover, recent
evidence suggests that five different facets of mindfulness significantly predict emotion
regulation (Macdonald, 2021) in a sample of undergraduate students in the United States. For
the present study, cognitive ER which assesses attentional and cognitive change strategies,
seems appropriate to explore the role of ER as an underlying mechanism between mindfulness
and organizational behaviors. According to Thompson (1991), cognitive emotion regulationrefers to the cognitive ways of managing the intake of emotionally arousing information. In
addition, Granefski et al. (2001) stated that there are nine dimensions of cognitive ER
encompassing self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing, and other blame, acceptance, putting
into perspective, positive refocusing, refocus on planning, and positive reappraisal (Matins etal., 2011). Furthermore, previous literature has already stated the significant role of ER
strategies in predicting human behaviors as those strategies have a prevalent effect on thefunctioning of human beings. (Cicchetti et al., 1991; Barnett, 1991; Cole et al., 2004; Gross,2014; Martins et al., 2016).
As mentioned just above, ER has been found as a proxy outcome of mindfulness andits conceptual foundation including its dimensions has been extensively analyzed. However,even though there has been increasing interest in the psychological mechanism through which
trait mindfulness predicts various psychological and behavioral outcomes, up until now there
have only been a few empirical studies exploring on this topic. For example, Brown et al.
(2014) shows that different facets of mindfulness (excluding observing) significantly predict
positive health outcomes via the psychological mechanisms including cognitive flexibility,
values clarification, self-regulation, and exposure.
Glomb et al. (2011) suggests that trait mindfulness may have an influence on work
related outcomes like improved communication, better coping with stressful events, and fasterrecovery from negative events via the mechanism of affective regulation. There were alsostudies indicating the mediating role of the habitual use of ER strategies of the relationshipbetween mindfulness and negative psychological outcomes such as depression, anxiety,46perceived stress, resilience, criminogenic cognition, and subjective wellbeing (Desrosiers et al.,2013; Hölzel et al., 2011; Nyklíček, 2011; Prakash et al., 2015; Shi-man et al., 2015; Sünbül
& Güneri, 2019). Especially, the mechanism by which trait mindfulness is associated withpositive behavioral outcomes such as OCB via ER is not well-explored until now, leaving a
gap in the literature. Moreover, Hanley and Garland (2017) also argued the possibility thatdifferent facets of mindfulness predict outcome variables differently. As we mentioned earlier,there has been previous studies showing the relationship between the overall mindfulness andER as well as OCB, However, relatively little is known and analyzed on how different facetsof mindfulness predicts ER and in turn OCB.

Note that observing facet of mindfulness is an

exception. According to previous studies, the propensity to notice one’s internal and external
experiences (observing facet) is found to have no significant association with psychologicalvariables (Brown et al, 2015; Carpenter et al., 2019; Curtiss & Klemanski, 2014; Rudkin
Medvedev & Siegert, 2018). Even though research in this field is still young, building on thefoundation of those existing research, to extend the current literature, we hypothesized asfollows.
H1: ER does not mediate the positive relationship between observing facet of mindfulness andOCB.
H2: ER mediates the positive relationship between describing facet of mindfulness and OCB.
H3: ER mediates the positive relationship between acting with awareness facet of mindfulness
and OCB.
H4: ER mediates the positive relationship between nonjudging facet of mindfulness and OCB.
H5: ER mediates the positive relationship between nonreactivity facet of mindfulness and OCB.
Figure 4.1
Conceptual Framework
Observing
Describing
Acting with
Awareness

EmotionRegulation

Nonjudging
Nonreactivity
47

Organizational
Citizenship
Behavior

4.3 Methods
4.3.1 Sample and Procedure
Participants were 343 full-time employees with 40 plus working hours in organizationsin the United States. They were recruited online through Amazon Mechanical Turk with amonetary incentive of two dollars as compensation for completing the questionnaire via thelink to Qualtrics XM survey software.
4.3.2 Measures
Different facets of mindfulness were measured by the 39-item scale of mindfulness
from the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) by Bear et al. (2006). Items wererated on a 5-point scale ranging from never or very rarely true (0) to very often or always true(4). Example items were “I do jobs or tasks automatically without being aware of what I am
doing.” and “I tell myself that I shouldn’t be thinking the way I am thinking.” The Cronbach’s
alpha for five different facets namely observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging
and nonreactivity were .89, .94, .91, .94 and .89 respectively.
Emotion regulation is measured with 18-item short form of Cognitive Emotion
Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ-short) that assesses the use of nine cognitive emotion
regulation strategies that people use after experiencing negative life events or situations(Garnefski & Kraaij, 2007). Each subscale consists of two items representing different emotion
regulation strategies such as self-blame, rumination, catastrophizing and blaming others for
maladaptive emotion regulation and acceptance, putting into perspective, positive refocus,
refocus on planning, positive reappraisal for adaptive emotion regulation. Items were rated on
a 5-point scale ranging from almost never (1) to almost always (5). Example items were “I
think I can become a stronger person as a result of what has happened (positive refocus)”. And“I am preoccupied with what I think and feel about what I have experienced (catastrophizing)(reversed).” The Cronbach’s alpha for CERQ was .86.
OCB was measured by using the 24-item scale (Podsakoff et al., 1993). Items wererated on a 5-point scale ranging from almost never (1) to almost always (5). Example items
were “I take steps to try to prevent problems with other members.” and “I obey company rules
and regulations even when no one is watching.” The Cronbach’s alpha was .89.

48

4.3.3 Data Analysis
To test the mediation model, the conditional process analysis by Hayes (2013) was
conducted with IBM SPSS 27 software.
4.4

Results

4.4.1 Descriptive Statistics
The demographic information of the respondents for the current study is presented inTable 4.1. Moreover, mean, standard deviations, and correlations among the study variables areshown in Table 4.2. Results reveal the expected association between the variables of interest in
the present study. In addition, it was also found that four facets of mindfulness (excluding
describing) are also significantly correlated with ER.
Table 4.1
Demographic Information
No.

of %

respondents
GenderAge

Education

Male

206

60.1%

Female137

39.9%

20 – 24 years

8

2.3%

25 – 29 years

13

3.8%

30 – 34 years

79

23.0%

35 – 39 years

73

21.3%

40 – 44 years

82

23.9%

45 – 49 years

33

9.6%

50 – 54 years

23

6.7%

55 – 59 years

22

6.4%

60 years and above

10

2.9%

High school graduate (high school

42

12.2%

Some college but no degree

41

12.0%

Associate degree in college (2-year)

44

12.8%

Bachelor’s degree in college (4-year)

181

52.8%

35

10.2%

diploma or equivalent including GED)

Master’s degree or higher
Note. N = 343, GED = General Education Development test.

49

Table 4.2
Descriptive Statistics
1. Gender
2. Age3. Education
4. A: Observing a
5. B: Describing b
6. C: Acting with Awareness c
7. D: Nonjudgment d
8. E: Nonreactivity e
9. ER
10. OCB

Mean
1.40
4.66
4.37
3.37
3.68
3.70
3.70
3.43
2.86
3.86

SD
0.49
1.78
1.19
0.77
0.92
0.85
0.88
0.76
0.51
0.60

1
1
.31**
-.08
.07
-.06
-.13*
-.08
-.14
-.09
.05

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1
-.09
-.00
-.10
.02
-.03
-.05
-.19**
.10

1
.01
.06
-.06
-.07
.03
.11*
.12*

1
.26**
.11*
-.02
.16**
.22**
.15**

1
.50**
.52**
.38**
-.04
.36**

1
.52**
.42**
-.15**
.27**

1
.42**
-.15**
.27**

1
.26**
.41**

1
.30**

1

Note. N = 343. SD = standard deviation, Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2), Age (20 to 24 = 1, 25 to 29 = 2, 30 to 34 = 3, 35 to 39 = 4, 40 to 44 = 5, 45 to 49 = 6, 50 to 54 = 7, 55
to 59 = 8, 60 years and above = 9), Education ( Less than high school degree = 1, High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent including General Education
Development (GED) = 2, Some college but no degree = 3, Associate degree in college (2-year) = 4, Bachelor degree in college (4-year) = 5, Master degree or higher (4-year)= 6.
For all models, 2 out of 18 items of CERQ and 5 out of 24 items of OCB were commonly removed. a, b, c, e In Model A, B, and C, 1 out of 8 items of each different facets of
FFMQ were removed, and in Model E, 1 out of 7 items of nonreactivity facet was removed.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01.

50

4.4.2 Late Response Bias Check
To check whether there was non-response bias, or a difference in the exposure oroutcome occurred during the process of data collection between participants and nonparticipants, late response bias check, as the second-best way, was conducted with demographic
data such as age, gender, and education, because information of non-respondents was notaccessible. The results from independent sample t-tests of age (t (170) =.00, p > .05) andeducation (t (170) = .76, p > .05), plus the chi-square test for gender (χ2 (1) = 0.63, p > .05)
show that there was no statistical difference between earlier and late responses demographically.
4.4.3 Model Fitness
Table 4.3
Model Fit Summary
Model

GFI

AGFI

TLI

CFI

NFI

SRMR

RMSEA

PCLOSE

<3

>0.80

>0.80

>0.90

>0.90

>0.80

<0.08

<0.06

>0.05

(Hair et(Forza &(Hair et(Forza &(Hair(Bentler

(Hu &

(Hu &

(Hu &

al.,

Filippini,al., 1992,

Filippini,

et al.,&Bonett

Bentler,

Bentler,

Bentler,

2006)

1998)

Bollen,

1998)

2010)

, 1980)

1999)

1999)

1999)

CMIN/
DF

Cutoff

1989)
Observing

1.845

0.842

0.803

0.923

0.935

0.871

0.0486

0.050

0.541

Describing

1.773

0.849

0.812

0.936

0.946

0.886

0.0510

0.048

0.829

Acting

1.855

0.840

.800

0.927

0.938

0.877

0.0477

0.050

0.494

Nonjudging

1.736

0.846

0.810

0.936

0.946

0.882

0.0451

0.046

0.923

Nonreactivity

1.74

0.854

0.816

0.935

0.946

0.882

0.0445

0.046

0.911

with

Awareness

Note. CMIN = minimum fit function Chi-square, DF = Degree of freedom, GFI = goodness-of-fit index, AGFI =adjusted goodness-of-fit index, TLI = Tucker-Lewis index, CFI = comparative fit index, NFI = normed fit index,
SRMR = standardized root mean squared residual), RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, PCLOSE= p-value for test of close fit.

51

Table 4.3 represents the model fit indices for each model of the five hypotheses.
According to the table, it can be seen that all the values of the minimum fit function Chi-square
divided by the degree of freedom (CMIN/DF) are less than the suggested cutoff value of 3
(Hair et al., 2006). Moreover, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index(AGFI), and normed fit index (NFI) values were found to be greater than 0.8, Tucker-Lewis
index (TLI) and comparative fit index (CFI) were found to be greater than 0.9, all indicating
the acceptable fit of the data (Awang, 2012; Etezadi-Amoli & Farhoomand, 1996, Forza &Filippini, 1998; Greenspoon & Saklofske, 1998, Hair et al., 2010). The RMSEA values being
below 0.06 also reveal a good fit (Hu & Bentler,1999).

In addition, goodness of fit of themodels was also examined through the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), all of
the SRMR values were found to be lower than 0.08, the suggested cutoff by Hu and Bentler(1999). Overall, it can be said that fit indices for all of the five hypothesized models reveal an
acceptable fit with statistical significance to the data.
4.4.4 Hypothesis Testing
The mediating role of ER on the relationship between the five facets of mindfulness
and OCB is presented in Table 4.4.
According to Table 4.4, it was found that there was no mediation of ER on therelationship between the observing facet (which represents monitoring skill) of mindfulness
and OCB as the direct effect (b = .09, p < .05) was positively significant whereas the indirect
effect (b = .03, Bootstrap CI95 = -.02 and .08) was not statistically significant. Therefore, it canbe concluded that H1 is supported.
For the relationship between describing facet of mindfulness and OCB, the results showthat ER plays the role of partial mediation as both the direct (b = .15, p < .001) and indirect (b= .11, Bootstrap CI95 = .07 and .15) effects were positively significant. Therefore, it can beconcluded that H2 is supported.

52

Table 4.4
Mediation of Emotion Regulation on the Relationship between Mindfulness Facets and OCB
IV to DVIV to DVIV to DV(with and(with(without

without

mediator)

mediator)

mediator)

MV to DVIV to MV

b

SE

b

SE

b

SE

b

SE

b

SE

.06

.04

.53***

.05

.03

.01

.09*

.04

.12**

.04

.25***.03.44***

.05

.11*

.02

.15***.03.26***.03.33***.03.47***

.05

.16*

.02

.10**

.04

.25***.04.23***.03.50***

.05

.12*

.02

.06

.03

.18***.04

Nonreactivity- .41***.04.43***

.05

.18*

.03

.15***.04.33***.04

Observing>ER->OCB
Describing>ER->OCB
Acting with
Awareness->ER->OCB
Nonjudging>ER->OCB
>ER->
OCB

Note. N = 343. IV = independent variable, DV = dependent variable, MV = mediator variable, FFMQ = Five
Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire, ER = Emotion Regulation, OCB = Organizational Citizenship Behavior. *p< .05. **p < .01, ***p < .001.

For the relationship between acting with awareness facet of mindfulness and OCB, it
can be found that ER plays the role of partial mediation as both the direct (b = .10, p < .01) andindirect (b = .16, Bootstrap CI95 = .12 and .20) effects were positively significant. Therefore, it
can be concluded that H3 is also supported.
The results also show that that ER fully mediates the relationship between the
nonjudging facet (which represents acceptance skill) of mindfulness and OCB as the direct (b= .06, p > .05) was found to be statistically not significant whereas the indirect (b = .12,
Bootstrap CI95 = .08 and .16) effect was significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that H4 is
53

supported.
Finally, it was also found that ER partially mediates the relationship between thenonreacting (which also represents acceptance skill) facet of mindfulness and OCB as both thedirect (b = .15, p < .001). and indirect (b = .18, Bootstrap CI95 = .13 and .23) effects werepositively significant. Therefore, it can be concluded that H5 is supported.
The results showed that all facets excluding observing (i.e, monitoring skill),
significantly predicts OCB via the full or partial mediation of ER. Out of two facets, nonjudging
and nonreactivity, which represent acceptance skill, the positive association between
nonjudging facet and OCB was significant without the mediation of ER (i.e., no mediation).
On the other hand, ER partially mediate the positive association between nonreactivity facet
and OCB.
4.5 Discussion
The findings of the present study provide preliminary empirical evidence on how fivedifferent facets of mindfulness predict OCB via ER. The results which demonstrate that fourout of five facets excluding observing having significant association with ER, are consistent
with the previous studies which shows four of these facets except observing were consistently
related way to a variety of outcome variables (Lilja et al., 2012; Macdonald; 2021).
All the results, as discussed in the literature review, can be explained by MAT by
Lindsey and Creswell (2017). Among them, some specific points will be elaborated below.
The first core tenet of MAT theory states that observing (or attention monitoring skill)
is not adequate enough for enhancing performance on cognitive tasks that balance attentional
control with ER. Consequently, in the present study, ER did not play the mediating role on therelationship between observing facet and OCB.
On the contrary, it was also found that nonjudging and nonreactivity facets show
statistically significant correlations with ER. These results are in line with the second core tenetof MAT which argues that acceptance skill, or nonjudging and nonreactivity facets in this study,
54

modify one’s relation to present moment experience and enhance cognitive tasks that involve
ER, and this skill is necessary for reducing affective reactivity. (Lindsey and Creswell, 2017).
In addition, it was also found that the correlation coefficient between nonreactivity facet andER is much greater than that of between nonjudging facet and ER. This may be due to the factthat letting one’s thoughts and feelings go without elaborating and focusing on them(nonreactivity) might have more influence on ER than just taking nonjudgmental stancetowards those experiences when facing an emotionally charged information or situation.
4.6 Practical Implications
A significant contribution of the current study was the distinction of different individual
facets of mindfulness when investigating their relationships to OCB via ER. The results of thecurrent study contribute to the understanding of why employees with different levels in specificfacets of mindfulness describe variant OCB levels.
Results from the current study may help not only the people themselves to regulate theiremotion and consequently better decision making, but also recruiters to facilitate therecruitment process by choosing more mindful candidates (and those who have higher score ineach different facet but observing) having the potential to have higher level of OCB. In addition,
the information can also help the managers in creating and providing a work environment thatcan enhance subjective wellbeing of employees as OCB indicates the behavioral consequencesof employee job satisfaction, and navigate in making decision which employees to provide
development opportunity in positions which may require higher level of OCB.
4.7 Limitations and Future Research Direction
The findings of the present study must be considered in the context of the following
limitations.
The very first limitation to address in this study is the usage of self-reported
questionnaires. Using additional methods or sources of data can help control some sources of55method variance in future studies.
Second, there is the possible impacts of confounding variables on the current conceptual
framework. Future RCT studies for the current conceptual framework with some kind of
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) is still necessary to address this limitation.
Third, the respondents of the current study are full-time employees with 40 plus
working hours in organizations in the United States. Therefore, caution should be exercisedwhen considering the generalizability of the research. Future studies with employees withdifferent types of employment and or different culture will be useful to fill this gap.
Furthermore, the current study didn’t collect the data on the type of organizations that the
respondents worked for. Further studies which compare respondents from different types oforganization can contribute to the literature by filling up this gap.
Furthermore, acknowledging the limitation of conducting this kind of mediational analyses ina cross-sectional dataset given the inherent assumptions of causality (Lindenberger & Pötter,1998), the present study was conducted as a preliminary attempt to examine the pathway
through which different facets of mindfulness predict OCB via ER. Additional research using
rigorous methodologies such as causal mediation analysis (Imai et al., 2010) is still required toprovide more compelling evidence for the path mentioned above. In addition, the limitation of
the current results with respect to causality leads to implications for future research toinvestigate more by using experimental studies with a particular kind of mindfulness-based
intervention such as mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) is still necessary to confirm
these relationships.
Another limitation to address is the usage of variable centered approach in a model
containing FFMQ as a variable. Lilja et al. (2013) suggested person-centered approachemphasizing on patterns of FFMQ scale rather than linear association with outcome variables.
To fill this gap, implementing the person-centered approach (Bravo et al., 2016; Kinnunen etal., 2019; Pearson et al., 2015) for the current framework can be an interesting task for the
future research.
56

Chapter 5
Conclusion
5.1. Summary of the Empirical Study Results
As mentioned in the chapters ahead, this dissertation focuses on exploring the role ofthe two different dimensions of mindfulness, namely awareness and acceptance, on both
psychological outcomes such as emotion regulation and perceived stress, and behavioral
outcomes like contextual performance and OCB. The findings from the three empirical studies
in the previous chapters are as follows.
Firstly, in Chapter 2, the impact of MSC training intervention on perceived stress was
explored, with an emphasis on the roles of awareness and acceptance in the relationshipbetween the training intervention and perceived stress as a moderator and a mediator,
respectively. A randomized controlled trial with 25 voluntary participants from the alumni of
the Ship for South-East Asian Youth Program in Myanmar was used for this study. The findings
reveal that acceptance has a statistically significant full mediation on the negative relationshipbetween the training and perceived stress. However, awareness did not moderate therelationship between acceptance and perceived stress.
Secondly, in Chapter 3, the relationship between transformational leadership as acontextual resource and contextual performance as a work outcome, mediated by work
engagement and moderated by trait mindfulness as a personal resource, was investigated froma total of 282 respondents were randomly assigned to one of two vignettes – one reflecting
transformational and one reflecting nontransformational leadership. The results show that thepositive relationship between transformational leadership and contextual performance ispartially mediated by work engagement. Mindful awareness, an important dimension ofmindfulness, significantly strengthens the relationship between transformational leadershipand work engagement.

57

Finally, in Chapter 4, the mediating role of ER on the relationship between five different
facets of trait mindfulness and OCB was explored with a sample of 343 online respondents
from United States. The results showed that all facets excluding observing (i.e, mindful
awareness skill), significantly predicts OCB via the full or partial mediation of ER. Out of two
facets, nonjudging and nonreactivity, which represent mindful acceptance skill, the positive
association between nonjudging facet and OCB was significant without the mediation of ER(i.e., no mediation). On the other hand, ER partially mediate the positive association between
nonreactivity facet and OCB.
5.2. Implications
The findings of three different empirical studies in this dissertation have the following
implications.
The results of Chapter 2 reveals that, even though awareness was not given muchattention, MSC training can still reduce perceived stress, by the improvement of acceptance.
We appreciate MSC training but also recommend caution for two reasons. First, the sample inStudy 1 possesses specific features that may not be found in the general adult population.
Second, the role of awareness suggested by the MAT was not significant in our analysis, which
may imply that training programs with more emphasis on awareness will produce better resultsin stress reduction.
The results in Chapter 3 showing the significant positive effect of transformational
leadership on contextual performance suggest that organizations should pay attention to theaugmenting such leadership among current managers and emphasize recruiting, selecting anddeveloping individuals with transformational leadership tendencies, especially for managerial
positions, to promote employees’ contextual performance. In addition, the interaction oftransformational leadership (as a contextual resource) and mindful awareness (as a personal
resource) can increase work engagement, and consequently contextual performance,
58

canimply that organizations should consider recruiting employees with relatively higher level ofmindful awareness so that managers as transformational leaders can better stimulate employee
work engagement and, in turn, contextual employee performance that contributes to themaintenance and or enhancement of the work context.
The findings reported in Chapter 4 suggested that all facets of trait mindfulness
excluding observing, significantly predicts OCB via the full or partial mediation of ER. A
significant contribution of this chapter was the distinction between five facets of mindfulness
in predicting OCB via ER. This chapter provide informative empirical evidence that individuals
who scores relatively higher level in distinct facets of trait mindfulness (excluding observing)has the potential to regulate their emotion better, and consequently has the potential to possess
higher levels of OCB. This kind of information may help managers in organization which
require employees with higher level of OCB, to make better decision on both recruitment of
new employees and/or in selecting people.
5.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions
Like any other studies, the three studies in this dissertation must also be considered in
the context of their own limitations.
For Chapter 2, the major limitation is its small sample size and the specificcharacteristics of the sample which constrains the generalizability of the results. Further
research with a larger and a more representative sample is necessary to confirm the results ofthis chapter.
Regarding chapter 3, despite the usage of the randomization of transformational andnontransformational leadership vignettes to produce the experimental data, the mediator (workengagement) was not randomized; therefore, we cannot argue the effect of work engagement
persuasively. In addition, a generalization issue exists along with collecting the data only fromthe respondents living in the United States. Future studies could replicate this model in other59

countries and cultures. Third, we used a single measure for mindful awareness and did notconsider the potential bias of measurement, although there is an ongoing debate regarding
which set of questionnaires should measure mindful awareness or, more broadly, the whole
mindfulness. An analysis based on multiple measures of mindfulness is required to address thislimitation.
In the case of Chapter 4, the limitation is of conducting mediational analyses in a crosssectional dataset given the inherent assumptions of causality. Chapter 4 was conducted as apreliminary attempt to examine the pathway through which mindfulness might be associatedwith OCB via ER. Additional research using rigorous methodologies is still required to provide
more compelling evidence for this kind of relationship. Investigating more by using
experimental studies with a particular kind of mindfulness-based intervention can be interesting
research directions for the future studies.

60

REFERENCES
Aldao, A., Jazaieri, H., Goldin, P. R., & Gross, J. J. (2014). Adaptive and maladaptive emotion
regulation strategies: Interactive effects during CBT for social anxiety disorder. Journalof anxiety disorders, 28(4), 382–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.03.005
Amor, A. M., Vázquez, J. P. A., & Faíña, J. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and work
engagement: Exploring the mediating role of structural empowerment. European
Management Journal, 38(1), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.06.007.
Arimitsu, K. (2016). The effects of a program to enhance self-compassion in Japaneseindividuals: A randomized

controlled

pilot

study. The

Journalof

Positive

Psychology, 11(6), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1152593
Askun Celik, D., & Çetin, F. (2019). Shedding some Light on the Blind Spots concerning
Organizational Citizenship Behavior. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol.
2019, No. 1, p. 15242). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management.
https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.15242abstract
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ); Mind
Garden. Accessed April 19, 2021. https://www.mindgarden.com/16-multifactorleadership-questionnaire.
Awang, Z. (2012). A Handbook on Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS. Universiti
Technologi MARA Press, Malaysia, 83–102.
Bader, B., & Berg, N. (2013). An empirical investigation of terrorism-induced stress on
expatriate attitudes and performance. Journal of International Management, 19, 163–175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2013.01.003
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mindfulness by self-report: The
KentuckyInventoryofMindfulness

Skills.

Assessment,

11(3),

191–206.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1073191104268029
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using Self-Report61Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504
Bednar, K., Voracek, M., & Tran, U. S. (2020). Common factors underlying the five facets ofmindfulness and proposed mechanisms: A psychometric study among meditators andnon-meditators. Mindfulness, 11(12), 2804-2817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-02001492-6
Bakker, A. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2010). Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory andresearch. London. Psychology press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203853047
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011). Key questions regarding work
engagement. European journal of work and organizational psychology, 20(1), 4-28.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432x.2010.485352.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands‐resources model: State of the art.
Journalofmanagerial

psychology.

22(3),

309-328.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008a). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development

13(3),

International.

209–223.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476.
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008, b). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187-200.
209–23. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476
Bass, Bernard M.; Avolio, Bruce J., Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ)—Tests,
Training; Available online: https://www.mindgarden.com/16-multifactor-leadershipquestionnaire (accessed on 19 April 2021).
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-reportassessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of62covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Bentley, J. W. (2021). Improving the statistical power and reliability of research using Amazon
Mechanical

Turk. Accounting

Horizons, 35(4),45–62.

https://doi.org/10.2308/HORIZONS-18-052
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D., Carmody, J., Segal, Z. V.,
Abbey, S., Speca, M., Velting, D., & Devins, G. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed
operational definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–
241. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bph077
Block-Lerner, J., Wulfert, E., & Moses, E. (2009). ACT in context: an exploration ofexperiential

acceptance. CognitiveandBehavioral

Practice, 16(4),443–456.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2009.04.005
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley.
Campbell, J. R. (1976). Psychometric Theory. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 119-154). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Bond, F. W., & Bunce, D. (2003). The Role of Acceptance and Job Control in Mental Health,Job Satisfaction, and Work Performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1057–
1067. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.1057
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. M. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In Personnel Selection in Organizations (Vol. 6).
Edited by Schmitt, Neil, and Walter C Borman. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 71–98.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The
meaning for personnel selection research. Human performance, 10(2), 99109.https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_3
Brumback, G. B. (2010). Performance Management: Putting Research into Action. Personnel
Psychology, 63(2), 501-507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01178_7.x.
Bravo, A. J., Boothe, L. G., & Pearson, M. R. (2016). Getting personal with mindfulness: A
latent profile analysis of mindfulness and psychological outcomes. Mindfulness, 7(2),420-432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0459-7
63

Bränström, R., Duncan, L. G., & Moskowitz, J. T. (2011). The association between
dispositional mindfulness, psychological well‐being, and perceived health in a Swedish
population ‐ based sample. British journal of health psychology, 16(2), 300-316.
https://doi.org/10.1348/135910710X501683
Broderick, P. C., & Jennings, P. A. (2012). Mindfulness for adolescents: A promising approachto supporting emotion regulation and preventing risky behavior. New directions for youth
development, 2012(136), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.20042
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its rolein psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–
848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations
and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological inquiry, 18(4), 211–237.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298
Buil, I., Martínez, E., & Matute, J. (2019). Transformational leadership and employee
performance:

The

role

personality. InternationalofJournalidentification,ofengagement

Hospitality

andManagement, 77,

proactive
64–75.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.06.014
Cabinet Office of Japan. (n.d.). The Ship for Southeast Asian and Japanese Youth Program(SSEAYP).

Retrieved

September

5,

2021,

from

https://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/kouryu/en/sseayp/sseayp.html
Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, J. D., Forman, E. M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The assessmentof present-moment awareness and acceptance: The Philadelphia Mindfulness
Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1073191107311467
Carpenter, J. K., Conroy, K., Gomez, A. F., Curren, L. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2019). The
relationship between trait mindfulness and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis of theFive Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Clinical psychology review, 74, 101785.
64https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101785
Carter, M. Z., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S., & Mossholder, K. W. (2013). Transformational
leadership, relationship quality, and employee performance during continuous
incremental organizational change. Journal of organizational behavior, 34(7), 942–958.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1824
Cavanaugh, M. A., Boswell, W. R., Roehling, M. V., & Boudreau, J. W. (2000), An empiricalexamination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 65–74. https://10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65
Chambers, R., Gullone, E., & Allen, N. B. (2009). Mindful emotion regulation: An integrative
review. ClinicalPsychology

560–572.

Review, 29(6),https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.06.005
Chang, J. H., Huang, C. L., & Lin, Y. C. (2015). Mindfulness, basic psychological needs
fulfilment, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(5), 1149–1162.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9551-2
Chiaburu, D. S., Smith, T. A., Wang, J., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2014). Relative importance ofleader influences for subordinates’ proactive behaviors, prosocial behaviors, and task
performance.

Journalof

Personnel

Psychology.

13(2)70–86.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000105
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative
review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
Chen, S. C., & Shao, J. (2022). Feminine traits improve transformational leadership advantage:investigation of leaders’ gender traits, sex and their joint impacts on employee contextual
performance. Gender in Management, 37(5), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-062020-0167

65

Chen, Z., Allen, T. D., & Hou, L. (2020). Mindfulness, empathetic concern, and work–family
outcomes: A dyadic analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 103402.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103402
Cheung, S. Y., Huang, E. G., Chang, S., & Wei, L. (2020). Does being mindful make people
more creative at work? The role of creative process engagement and perceived leader
humility. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 159, 39–48.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.12.003
Chua, J., & Ayoko, O. B. (2021). Employees’ self-determined motivation, transformational
leadership and work engagement. Journal of Management & Organization, 27(3), 523–
543. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2018.74.
Cicchetti, D., Ganiban, J., & Barnett, D. (1991). Contributions from the study of high-risk
populations to understanding the development of emotion regulation. In J. Garber & K.
A. Dodge (Eds.), The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 15–48).
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663963.003
Cifre, E., Salanova, M., & Rodríguez‐Sánchez, A. M. (2011). Dancing between theory andpractice: Enhancing work engagement through work stress intervention. Human Factors
andErgonomicsin

Manufacturing&

ServiceIndustries,

21(3),

269-286.

https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20232
Cohen, S. (1980). Aftereffects of stress on human performance and social behavior: A review
ofresearchandtheory.

Psychological

Bulletin,88(1),

82–108.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.82
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1994). Perceived stress scale. Measuring Stress:
A Guide for Health and Social Scientists, 10(2), 1–2.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct:
Methodological challenges and directions for child development research. Childdevelopment, 75(2), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00673.x
Daraba, D., Wirawan, H., Salam, R., & Faisal, M. (2021). Working from home during thecorona pandemic: Investigating the role of authentic leadership, psychological capital,
66

and gender on employee performance. Cogent Business &Management, 8(1).https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2021.1885573
Dane, E., & Brummel, B. J. (2014). Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job
performanceandturnoverintention.

Human

Relations,67(1),

105–128.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713487753
Davids, T. W. R., & Stede, W. (Eds). (1959). The Pali Text Society’s Pali-English dictionary.
London: Luzac & Company, Ltd.
Davis, K. M., Lau, M. A., & Cairns, D. R. (2009). Development and preliminary validation of
a

trait

versionoftheTorontoMindfulness

Scale. Journalof

Cognitive

Psychotherapy, 23(3), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.23.3.185
Davis, M. C., Zautra, A. J., Wolf, L. D., Tennen, H., & Yeung, E. W. (2015). Mindfulness andcognitive–behavioral interventions for chronic pain: Differential effects on daily pain
reactivity and stress reactivity. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 83(1), 24.
https://dx.doi.org/10.1037%2Fa0038200
Deikman, A. J. (1996). “I” = Awareness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3(4), 350–356.
Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The job demands-resources model: Challenges for
future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 01–09. Retrieved December
30,

2021,

fromhttp://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S20710763201100020
0001&lng=en&tlng=en.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Desrosiers, A., Vine, V., Klemanski, D. H., & Nolen‐Hoeksema, S. (2013). Mindfulness andemotion regulation in depression and anxiety: common and distinct mechanisms of action.
67

Depression and Anxiety, 30(7), 654–661. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22124
Den Hartog, D. N., & Belschak, F. D. (2012). When does transformational leadership enhance
employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024903
Den Hartog, V. M. JJ, & Koopman, PL (1997). Transactional versus transformational
leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational/ Organizational
Psychology, 70, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00628.x.
Detert, J. R., & Burris, E. R. (2007). Leadership behavior and employee voice: Is the door
reallyopen?

AcademyofManagement

Journal,50(4),

869-884.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.26279183
Dimidjian, S., & Linehan, M. M. (2003). Defining an agenda for future research on the clinicalapplication of mindfulness practice. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2),166–171. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg019
Dundas, I., Binder, P. E., Hansen, T. G., & Stige, S. H. (2017). Does a short self‐compassionintervention for students increase healthy self ‐ regulation? A randomized control
trial. Scandinavian

Journalof

Psychology, 58(5),443–450.

https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12385
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B. J., & Shamir, B. (2002). Impact of transformational leadershipon follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of Management
Journal, 45(4), 735–744. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069307
Farahani, S., Rafiepoor, A., & Jafari, T. (2019). The Role of Mediator of Cognitive Emotion
Regulation Strategies in the Relationship between Mindfulness and Perceived Stress in
People with High Blood Pressure. International journal of applied behavioral sciences,6(2), 52–59.
Feldman, G., Hayes, A., Kumar, S., Greeson, J., & Laurenceau, J. P. (2007). Mindfulness andemotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and68Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). Journal of Psychopathology and
Behavioral Assessment, 29(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-006-9035-8
Ferrari, M., Hunt, C., Harrysunker, A., Abbott, M. J., Beath, A. P., & Einstein, D. A. (2019).
Self-compassion interventions and psychosocial outcomes: A meta-analysis of
RCTs. Mindfulness, 10(8), 1455–1473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01134-6
Finlay-Jones, A., Strauss, P., Perry, Y., Waters, Z., Gilbey, D., Windred, M. A., Murdoch, A.,
Pugh, C., Ohan, J. L., & Lin, A. (2021). Group mindful self-compassion training to
improve mental health outcomes for LGBTQIA+ young adults: Rationale and protocol
for a randomised controlled trial. Contemporary clinical trials, 102, 106268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2021.106268
Forza, C., & Filippini, R. (1998). TQM impact on quality conformance and customer
satisfaction: a causal model. International Journal of Production Economics, 55(1), 1–
20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-5273(98)00007-3
Friis, A. M., Johnson, M. H., Cutfield, R. G., & Consedine, N. S. (2016). Kindness matters: a
randomized controlled trial of a mindful self-compassion intervention improvesdepression, distress, and HbA1c among patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 39(11),1963–1971. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-0416
Germer, C. (2009). The Mindful Path to Self-Compassion: Freeing Yourself from Destructive
Thoughts and Emotions. Guilford Press.
Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2001). Negative life events, cognitive emotion
regulation and emotional problems. Personality and Individual differences, 30(8), 1311–
1327. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00113-6
Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2006). Cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire–developmentof a short 18-item version (CERQ-short). Personality and individual differences, 41(6),1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.04.010
Geier, M. T. (2016). Leadership in Extreme Contexts: Transformational Leadership,69

Performance Beyond Expectations? Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,23(3), 234–247. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051815627359
Glomb, T. M., Duffy, M. K., Bono, J. E., & Yang, T. (2011). Mindfulness at work. In Researchin personnel and human resources management. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-7301(2011)0000030005
Gratz, K. L., & Tull, M. T. (2010). Emotion regulation as a mechanism of change in acceptanceand mindfulness-based treatments. Assessing mindfulness and acceptance processes inclients: Illuminating the theory and practice of change, 2, 107–33.
Gross, J. J. (1998a). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent
consequences for experience, expression and physiology. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 74, 224–237. https://doi.10.1037//0022-3514.74.1.224
Gross, J. J. (1998b). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Reviewof General Psychology, 2(3), 271–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J. (2014c). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–20). The Guilford Press.
Grover, S. L., Teo, S. T., Pick, D., & Roche, M. (2017). Mindfulness as a personal resource toreduce work stress in the job demands‐resources model. Stress and Health, 33(4), 426–
436. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2726
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1992). Multivariate data
analysis.
New York: Sage Publications.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate date analysis
with readings. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis,
Pearson Education, London.

70

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R. and Tatham, R. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis,
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ.

Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., McConville, D., & Chiang, C. L. (2015). A longitudinal investigationof person–organization fit, person–job fit, and contextual performance: The mediating
role

of

psychologicalownership.

Human

Performance,

28(5),

425–439.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2015.1021048.
Hafenbrack, A. C., Cameron, L. D., Spreitzer, G. M., Zhang, C., Noval, L. J., & Shaffakat, S.
(2020). Helping people by being in the present: Mindfulness increases prosocial
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 159, 21–38.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.08.005
Hanley, A. W., & Garland, E. L. (2017). The mindful personality: A meta-analysis from acybernetic perspective. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1456–1470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671017-0736-8
Harvard Business Review. Available online: https://hbr.org/2022/08/quiet-quitting-is-aboutbad-bosses-not-bademployees?utm_campaign=hbr&utm_medium=social&utm_source=linkedin (accessedon 8 September 2022).
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and commitment therapy:
An experimental approach to behavior change (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. introduction to
mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based
approach. New York: Guilford Publications, 1–20.
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation
modeling to examine contingent causal processes. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 219–266). IAP Information
Age Publishing.
Hayes, A. M., & Feldman, G. (2004). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the context ofemotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical Psychology: Scienceand Practice, 11(3), 255. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1093/clipsy.bph080
71

Hildenbrand, K., Sacramento, C. A., & Binnewies, C. (2018). Transformational leadership andburnout: The role of thriving and followers’ openness to experience. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, 23(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000051
Hill, D., Conner, M., Clancy, F., Moss, R., Wilding, S., Bristow, M., & O’Connor, D. B. (2021).
Stress and eating behaviors in healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Health Psychology Review, https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2021.1923406
Hill, C. L. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Mindfulness and its relationship to emotional
regulation. Emotion, 12(1), 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026355
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing stress.
American psychologist, 44(3), 513–524.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general
psychology, 6(4), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037%2F1089-2680.6.4.307
Holmes, P., Georgescu, S., & Liles, W. (2006). Further delineating the applicability ofacceptance and change to private responses: The example of Dialectical Behavior
Therapy. The

Behavior

AnalystToday,

7(3),311–324.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0100157
Hofstede, G. (2005). Hofstede. Geert Jan. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind,
2nd Ed., McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Hölzel, B. K., Lazar, S. W., Gard, T., Schuman-Olivier, Z., Vago, D. R., & Ott, U. (2011). How
does mindfulness meditation work? Proposing mechanisms of action from a conceptualand neural perspective. Perspectives on psychological science, 6(6), 537–559.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611419671
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
Hülsheger, U. R., Alberts, H. J. E. M., Feinholdt, A., & Lang, J. W. B. (2013). Benefits of72

mindfulness at work: The role of mindfulness in emotion regulation, emotional
exhaustion, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 310–325.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031313
Iani, L., Lauriola, M., Chiesa, A., & Cafaro, V. (2019). Associations between mindfulness andemotion regulation: The key role of describing and nonreactivity. Mindfulness, 10(2),366–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-0981-5
Imai, K., Keele, L., & Tingley, D. (2010). A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis.
American Psychological Association, 15(4), 309–334. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020761
Iqbal, N., Anwar, S., & Haider, N. (2015). Effect of leadership style on employee performance.
Arabian

Journalof

BusinessandManagement

Review,

5(5),

1–6.

https://doi.org/10.4172/2223-5833.1000146.
Janssen, E., Van Strydonck, I., Decuypere, A., Decramer, A., & Audenaert, M. (2020). How tofoster nurses’ well‐being and performance in the face of work pressure? The role ofmindfulness as personal resource. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(12), 3495–3505.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14563
Jiang, W., Zhao, X., & Ni, J. (2017). The impact of transformational leadership on employee
sustainable performance: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior.
Sustainability, 9(9), 1567–1584. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9091567
Jobbehdar Nourafkan, N., Tanova, C., & Gokmenoglu, K. K. (2022). Can Mindfulness Improve
Organizational Citizenship and Innovative Behaviors Through its Impact on Well-Being
Among

Academics?

Psychological

Reports,

0(0).

https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941211069517
Judge, T. A. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluations approach.
Research in organizational behavior, 19, 151–188.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1994). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday
life. New York: Hyperion.
73

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement atwork. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692–724. https://doi.org/10.5465/256287
Kang, C., & Whittingham, K. (2010). Mindfulness: A dialogue between Buddhism and clinicalpsychology. Mindfulness, 1(3), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-010-0018-1
Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement.
Organizational
behaviorandhuman
performance,
22(3),
375–403.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(78)90023-5
Kinnunen, S. M., Puolakanaho, A., Tolvanen, A., Mäkikangas, A., & Lappalainen, R. (2019).
Does mindfulness-, acceptance-, and value-based intervention alleviate burnout? A personcentered approach. International Journal of Stress Management, 26(1), 89–101.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/str0000095
Klussman, K., Curtin, N., Langer, J., & Nichols, A. L. (2022). The Importance of Awareness,
Acceptance, and Alignment with the Self: A Framework for Understanding SelfConnection.

Europe's

journalofpsychology,

18(1),

120–131.

https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.3707
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning as the Science of Learning and Development. PrenticeHall.
Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Van Buuren, S., Van der Beek, A. J., &De Vet, H. C. (2014). Improving the individual work performance questionnaire usingrasch

analysis. Journalofappliedmeasurement, 15(2),160–175.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24950534
Kotera, Y., & Van Gordon, W. (2021). Effects of self-compassion training on work-related wellbeing:Asystematic

review. Frontiersinpsychology, 12,1142.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.630798
Kovjanic, S., Schuh, S. C., & Jonas, K. (2013). Transformational leadership and performance:
An experimental investigation of the mediating effects of basic needs satisfaction andwork engagement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86(4), 543–
74

555. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12022
Kroon, B., Menting, C., & van Woerkom, M. (2015). Why mindfulness sustains performance:
the role of personal and job resources. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(4),638–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.92
Kroon, B., van Woerkom, M., & Menting, C. (2017). Mindfulness as substitute fortransformational leadership. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 32(4), 284–297
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-07-2016-0223
Kuhnert, K. W., & Lewis, P. (1987). Transactional and transformational leadership: A
constructive/developmental analysis. Academy of Management review, 12(4), 648–657.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1987.4306717.
Lau, M. A., Bishop, S. R., Segal, Z. V., Buis, T., Anderson, N. D., Carlson, L., ... & Devins, G.
(2006). The Toronto mindfulness scale: Development and validation. Journal of clinicalpsychology, 62(12), 1445–1467. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20326
Legood, A., van der Werff, L., Lee, A., & Den Hartog, D. (2021). A meta-analysis of the roleof trust in the leadership-performance relationship. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 30(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2020.18192
41
Lai, F. Y., Tang, H. C., Lu, S. C., Lee, Y. C., & Lin, C. C. (2020). Transformational leadershipand job performance: The mediating role of work engagement. Sage Open, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019899085
Lilja, J. L., Lundh, L. G., Josefsson, T., & Falkenström, F. (2013). Observing as an essential
facet of mindfulness: a comparison of FFMQ patterns in meditating and non-meditating
individuals. Mindfulness, 4(3), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0111-8
Lindenberger, U., & Pötter, U. (1998). The complex nature of unique and shared effects inhierarchical linear regression: Implications for developmental psychology. Psychological
Methods, 3(2), 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.218
75

Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Mechanisms of mindfulness training: Monitor andAcceptance

Theory(MAT). ClinicalPsychology

Review, 51,

48–59.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2016.10.011
Lindsay, E. K., & Creswell, J. D. (2019). Mindfulness, acceptance, and emotion regulation:
Perspectives from Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT). Current Opinion in
Psychology, 28, 120–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.12.004
Liu, W., Zhu, R., & Yang, Y. (2010). I warn you because I like you: Voice behavior, employee
identifications, and transformational leadership. The leadership quarterly, 21(1), 189–
202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.10.014
Luberto, C.M., Cotton, S., McLeish, A.C. et al. Mindfulness Skills and Emotion Regulation:
the Mediating Role of Coping Self-Efficacy. Mindfulness 5, 373–380 (2014).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0190-6MacDonald, H. Z. (2021). Associations ofFive Facets of Mindfulness with Self-Regulation in College Students. Psychological
Reports, 124(3), 1202–1219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120937438
MacDonald, H.Z., Baxter, E.E. Mediators of the Relationship Between Dispositional
Mindfulness and Psychological Well-Being in Female College Students. Mindfulness 8,
398–407 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0611-z
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial andorganizational Psychology, 1(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
Mandal, S. P., Arya, Y. K., & Pandey, R. (2011). Mindfulness, emotion regulation andsubjective wellbeing: An overview of pathways to positive mental health. Indian Journalof Social Science Research, 8(1-2), 159–167.
McKee, L. G., Duprey, E. B., & O’Neal, C. W. (2021). Emotion socialization and young adultinternalizing symptoms: the roles of mindfulness and emotion regulation. Mindfulness,
12(1), 53-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1079-9
McManus, I. C., Keeling, A., & Paice, E. (2004). Stress, burnout and doctors’ attitudes to work76

are determined by personality and learning style: A twelve-year longitudinal study of UK
medical graduates. BMC Medicine, 2, 29. http://www.biomedcentral.com/17417015/2/29
Meyers, M. C., Kooij, D., Kroon, B., de Reuver, R., & van Woerkom, M. (2019).
Organizational support for strengths use, work engagement, and contextual performance:
The moderating role of age. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(2), 485–502.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9702-4
Montani, F., Vandenberghe, C., Khedhaouria, A., & Courcy, F. (2020). Examining the inverted
U-shaped relationship between workload and innovative work behavior: The role of work
engagement

andmindfulness.

Human

Relations,73(1),

59–93.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0018726718819055
Mulligan, R. (2018). Mindfulness Matters: The Effects of Mindfulness on Organizational
Citizenship

Behavior.

CMC

Senior

Theses.

1992.

https://scholarship.claremont.edu/cmc_theses/1992
Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of themindful self ‐ compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28–44.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923
Nachreiner, F., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demandsresources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
Nyklíček I. (2011) Mindfulness, Emotion Regulation, and Well-Being. In: Nyklíček I.,
Vingerhoets A., Zeelenberg M. (eds) Emotion Regulation and Well-Being. Springer, New
York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-6953-8_7
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com.
Parent-Lamarche, A. (2022). Teleworking, Work Engagement, and Intention to Quit during the
COVID-19 Pandemic: Same Storm, Different Boats? International Journal of77Environmental

ResearchandPublicHealth, 19(3),1267.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031267.
Patel, T. (2017). Benefits of Mindfulness in the Workplace: The Effects of Mindful Practices
on Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.
http://hdl.handle.net/10415/6049
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature andsuggestionsforfutureresearch.

Journalofmanagement,

26(3),

513–563.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00047-7
Pearson, M. R., Lawless, A. K., Brown, D. B., & Bravo, A. J. (2015). Mindfulness andemotional outcomes: Identifying subgroups of college students using latent profile
analysis.

Personality

andIndividual

Differences,76,

33–38.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.009
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Hui, C. (1993). Organizational citizenship behaviors
and managerial evaluations of employee performance: A review and suggestions for
future research. Research in personnel and human resources management.
Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenshipbehavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 82(2), 262–270.
Pradhan, S., Jena, L. K., & Bhattacharyya, P. (2018). Transformational leadership andcontextual performance: Role of integrity among Indian IT professionals. International
journalofproductivity

andperformance

management.

67(2),

445–462.

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-08-2016-0186
Prakash, R. S., Hussain, M. A., & Schirda, B. (2015). The role of emotion regulation andcognitive control in the association between mindfulness disposition and stress.
Psychology and Aging, 30(1), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038544
78

Rapgay, L., & Bystrisky, A. (2009). Classical mindfulness. Annals of the New York Academyof Sciences, 1172(1), 148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.04405.x
Rank, J., Nelson, N. E., Allen, T. D., & Xu, X. (2009). Leadership predictors of innovation andtask performance: Subordinates' self‐esteem and self‐presentation as moderators. JournalofOccupational

andOrganizational

Psychology,

82(3),

465–489.

https://doi.org/10.1348/096317908X371547
Rau, H. K., & Williams, P. G. (2016). Dispositional mindfulness: A critical review of constructvalidation

research. Personality

andIndividual

Differences, 93,

32–43.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.035
Reilly, R. R., & Aronson, Z. H. (2009). Managing contextual performance. Performance
management: Putting research into action, 297–328. In Smither, J. W., & London, M.
(Eds.). (2009). Performance management: Putting research into action (Vol. 21). John
Wiley & Sons.
Robins, C. J., Schmidt, H. III, & Linehan, M. M. (2004). Dialectical Behavior Therapy:
Synthesizing Radical Acceptance with Skillful Means. In S. C. Hayes, V. M. Follette, &M. M. Linehan (Eds.), Mindfulness and Acceptance: Expanding the CognitiveBehavioral Tradition (pp. 30–44). Guilford Press.
Roemer, L., & Orsillo, S. M. (2003). Mindfulness: A promising intervention strategy in needoffurtherstudy. ClinicalPsychology:

ScienceandPractice,

10(2),

172–

178. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg020
Roemer, L., Williston, S. K., & Rollins, L. G. (2015). Mindfulness and emotion regulation.
Current Opinion in Psychology, 3, 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.02.006
Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality andrelationships with facets of job performance. International journal of selection andassessment, 10(1‐2), 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00189
Sandler, M. E. (2000). Career decision-making self-efficacy, perceived stress, and an integrated
79

model of student persistence: A structural model of finances, attitudes, behavior, andcareerdevelopment.

Research

inHigher

Education,

41(5),

537–580.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007032525530
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagementwith a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychologicalmeasurement, 66(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0013164405282471
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurementof engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journalof Happiness studies, 3(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model:
Implications for improving work and health. Bridging occupational, organizational andpublic health, 43-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4.
Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of
mindfulness. Journalofclinical

373–386.

psychology, 62(3),https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237
Shi-Man, L. I. U., Ke-Ting, L. I. U., Tian-Tian, L. I., & Li, L. V. (2015). The impact of
mindfulness on subjective well-being of college students: The mediating effects ofemotion regulation and resilience. Journal of psychological science, (4), 889.
http://www.psysci.org/EN/Y2015/V/I4/889
Shokory, S. M., & Suradi, N. R. M. (2018). Transformational Leadership and its impact on
extra-role performance of project team members: The mediating role of work
engagement.

AcademyofStrategic

Management

Journal,17(5),

1–6.

https://doi.org/1939-6104-17-5-218.
Shoss, M. K., Hunter, E. M., & Penney, L. M. (2016). Avoiding the issue: Disengagement
coping style and the personality–CWB link. Human Performance, 29(2), 106–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2016.1148036
Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its natureandantecedents.

JournalofAppliedhttps://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653
80

Psychology,

68(4),

653–663.

Sørensen, L., Osnes, B., Visted, E., Svendsen, J. L., Adolfsdottir, S., Binder, P. E., & Schanche,
E. (2018). Dispositional mindfulness and attentional control: The specific association
between the mindfulness facets of non-judgment and describing with flexibility of early
operatingorientingin

conflict

detection. Frontiersinpsychology, 9,2359.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02359
Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The
dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors createdequal?

Journalofvocational

behavior,

68(3),

446–460.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2005.10.005
Sünbül, Z. A., & Güneri, O. Y. (2019). The relationship between mindfulness and resilience:
The mediating role of self-compassion and emotion regulation in a sample ofunderprivileged Turkish adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 337–
342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.12.009
Strauss, K., Griffin, M. A., & Rafferty, A. E. (2009). Proactivity directed toward the team andorganization: The role of leadership, commitment and role‐breadth self‐efficacy.
British journal of management, 20(3), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678551.2008.00590.x
Tanay, G., & Bernstein, A. (2013). State Mindfulness Scale (SMS): Development and initial
validation. Psychological

Assessment,

25(4),

1286–

1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034044
Tangney, J. P., Dobbins, A. E., Stuewig, J. B., & Schrader, S. W. (2017). Is there a dark side to
mindfulness? Relation of mindfulness to criminogenic cognitions. Personality and Social
Psychology

Bulletin,43(10),

1415–1426.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167217717243
Tanova, C. (2022). Can Mindfulness Improve Organizational Citizenship and Innovative
Behaviors Through its Impact on Well-being Among Academics? Psychological Reports,81https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00332941211069517
Tonkin, T. H. (2013). Authentic versus transformational leadership: Assessing theireffectiveness on organizational citizenship behavior of followers. International JournalofBusinessandPublicAdministration, 10(1),40–61.

https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A335188936/AONE?u=anon~65599d68&sid=googleSc
holar&xid=bd0639ca
Truong, Q. C., Krägeloh, C. U., Siegert, R. J., Landon, J., & Medvedev, O. N. (2020). Applying
generalizability theory to differentiate between trait and state in the Five Facet
Mindfulness

Questionnaire(FFMQ). Mindfulness, 11(4),953–963.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01324-7
Van Dam, N. T., Earleywine, M., & Borders, A. (2010). Measuring mindfulness? An item
response theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale. Personality andIndividual Differences, 49(7), 805–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.07.020
Van den Broeck, A., Van Ruysseveldt, J., Smulders, P., & De Witte, H. (2011). Does an intrinsic
work value orientation strengthen the impact of job resources? A perspective from the
Job Demands–Resources Model. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 20(5), 581–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594321003669053
van der Meulen, R. T., Valentin, S., Bögels, S. M., & de Bruin, E. I. (2021). Mindfulness andself-compassion as mediators of the Mindful Work Training on perceived stress andchronic fatigue. Mindfulness, 12(4), 936–946. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-02001557-6
Vila-Vázquez, G., Castro-Casal, C., Álvarez-Pérez, D., & del Río-Araújo, L. (2018).
Promoting the sustainability of organizations: Contribution of transformational
leadership

to

job

engagement. Sustainability, 10(11),4109.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114109.
Wahbeh, H., Lu, M., & Oken, B. (2011). Mindful awareness and non-judging in relation to82

posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Mindfulness, 2(4), 219–227.
Wahn, B., & König, P. (2017). Is attentional resource allocation across sensory modalities taskdependent? Advancesin

Cognitive

Psychology,

13(1),

83–

96. https://doi.org/10.5709/acp-0209-2
Walumbwa, F. O., Mayer, D. M., Wang, P., Wang, H., Workman, K., & Christensen, A. L.
(2011). Linking ethical leadership to employee performance: The roles of leader–member
exchange, self-efficacy, and organizational identification. Organizational behavior andhumandecisionprocesses,

115(2),

204–213.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.11.002
Wang, G., Oh, I.-S., Courtright, S. H., & Colbert, A. E. (2011). Transformational Leadershipand Performance Across Criteria and Levels: A Meta-Analytic Review of 25 Years of
Research. Group&

Organization

Management, 36(2),

223–270.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601111401017
Willis, S., Clarke, S., & O'Connor, E. (2017). Contextualizing leadership: Transformational
leadership and Management ‐By ‐Exception‐Active in safety ‐ critical contexts.
JournalofOccupational

andOrganizational

Psychology,

90(3),

281–305.

https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12172
Wheeler, M. S., Arnkoff, D. B., & Glass, C. R. (2017). The neuroscience of mindfulness: How
mindfulness alters the brain and facilitates emotion regulation. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1471–
1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0742-x
Wupperman, P., Neumann, C. S., & Axelrod, S. R. (2008). Do deficits in mindfulness underlie
borderline personality features and core difficulties? Journal of Personality
Disorders, 22(5), 466–482. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.5.466
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role ofpersonal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress
Management, 14(2), 121–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.14.2.121
83

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). A diary study on
the happy worker: How job resources relate to positive emotions and personal
resources. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21(4), 489–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2011.584386.
Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., & Fischbach, A. (2013). Work engagement among employees
facing emotional demands: The role of personal resources. Journal of Personnel
Psychology, 12(2), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000085
Yang, C., Chen, Y., Zhao, X. R., & Hua, N. (2019). Transformational leadership, proactive
personality and service performance: The mediating role of organizational
embeddedness. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(1),267–287. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-03-2019-0244
Yukl, G. (1998). Leadership in Organizations; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Zhuang, K., Bi, M., Li, Y., Xia, Y., Guo, X., Chen, Q., ... & Qiu, J. (2017). A distinction between
two instruments measuring dispositional mindfulness and the correlations between thosemeasurements and the neuroanatomical structure. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1–9.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-06599-w

84

Appendix A
Questionnaire for Chapter 2
I.

1. Gender:
1 = Male; 2 = Female

1.

Marital Status:

0 = Single, 1 = Married
2. Age0 = 18 to 24 years, 2 = 25 to 34 years, 3 = 35 to 44 years

3.

Highest education0= undergraduate student, 2 = bachelor’s degree, 3 = master’s degree, 4 = professional
degree, 5 = doctorate

4. Employment status
1 = student, 2 = unemployed not looking for work, 3 = unemployed looking for work, 4 =employed part-time, 5 = employed full-time.
II.

Mindful Awareness from the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS)(Cardaciotto et al., 2008).
1 = Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4= Often, 5=Very often.
1.

I'm aware of what thoughts are passing through my mind.

2.

I try to distract myself when I feel unpleasant.

3.

When talking with other people, I am aware of their facial and body expressions.

4.

There are aspects of myself I don’t want to think about.

5.

When I shower, I am aware of how the water is running over my body.

6.

I try to stay busy to keep thoughts or feelings from coming to mind.

7.

When I am startled, I notice what is going on inside my body.

8. I wish I could control my emotions more easily.
85

9. When I walk outside, I am aware of the smells and how the air feels against my face.
10. I tell myself that I shouldn’t have certain thoughts.
11. When someone asks how I am feeling, I can identify my emotions easily.
12. There are things I try not to think about.
13. I am aware of thoughts I'm having when my mood changes.
14. I tell myself that I shouldn’t feel sad.
15. I notice changes inside my body, like my heart beating faster or my muscles getting tense.
16. If there is something I don’t want to think about, I’ll try many things to get out of my mind.
17.Whenever my emotions change, I am conscious of them immediately.
18. I try to put my problems out of my mind.
19. When talking with other people, I am aware of the emotions I am experiencing.
20. When I have a bad memory, I try to distract myself to make it go away.
III.

Perceived Stress (Cohen et al., 1994)

0 = Never, 1= Seldom/Rarely, 2=Sometimes, 3= Often, 4=Very often.
1.

How often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?

2.

How often have you felt that you are unable to control the important things in your

life?
3.

How often have you felt nervous and 'stressed'?

4.

How often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal

problems? *5.

How often have you felt that things were going your way? *6.

How often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had todo?
7.

How often have you been able to control irritations in your life?*

8.

How often have you felt that you were on top of things?*

9.

How often have you been angered because of things that were outside of your control?
86

10.

How often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could notovercome them?
*Reversely coded items

87Appendix B
Vignettes for Chapter 3
I.

Transformational Leadership Vignette
Mr. Smith is your department manager. He is a man of dedication, conscientiousness,and optimism. Promoting positive values and maintaining professional standards of behaviors
in an ethically appropriate manner are essentially his norms. In addition, he possesses the skill,energy, and self-confidence to guide and facilitate efforts for change in the department.
Additionally, Mr. Smith is a well-known trouble-shooter in the organization, retrieving,translating, and utilizing data to solve impending problems.
He typically clearly communicates expectations to his team members and expresses his
commitment to goals and shared visions. Further, he emphasizes the importance of teamwork.
When necessary, he offers further guidance and support to the team members (including you)in achieving their full potential while accomplishing organizational goals. He is also good at
motivating his team members by introducing meaningful challenges in their assigned tasks,
driving everyone towards a satisfying and rewarding future. Mr. Smith encourages his team toseek new and creative approaches to problems and refrains from criticizing a team member’s
ideas, especially when they differ from his. Most importantly, he deliberately communicateshis trust in his team members’ ability to attain targets. In addition, Mr. Smith is an active listener.
He usually attempts to pay attention to understand the need of each team member. He assigns
tasks to the team members as a means of developing them per their differences.
II.

Nontransformational Leadership Vignette
Mr. Smith is your department manager. He emphasizes order and structure and is a manof discipline. However, his strict and rigid standards may discourage the creative problemsolving skills of team members (including you). He is inherently resistant to change and88unwilling to take proactive actions to counteract possible obstacles as he lacks the insight toforesee them. It seems like his emphasis is on maintaining the status quo – a well-organized
and structured working environment – and keeping the ship afloat. Even though he is good at
handling routine, he usually becomes incompetent to cope with issues requiring creative
solutions. He prefers to work within the existing systems and limitations and attempts tofunction within the boundaries to reach targets.
He usually informs his team members that their performance will be evaluated monthly. He
intends to elicit the desired performance from team members through rewards and punishments.
Particularly, he tends to reward or criticize team members individually, without very muchemphasis on teamwork. One of his priorities is to ensure that predetermined criteria andguidelines are met accurately. He refrains from interfering with the workflow unless an issue
arises. Rather, Mr. Smith focuses on closely monitoring loopholes, errors, and deviations fromstandards and taking corrective actions.

Questionnaire for Chapter 3
I.

Demographic Questions:1.

Gender:

1 = Male; 2 = Female2.

Age

1 = 20 to 24 years, 2 = 25 to 29 years, 3 = 30 to 34 years, 4 = 35 to 39 years, 5 = 40 to 44 years,
6 = 45 to 49 years, 7 = 50 to 54 years, 8 = 55 to 59, 9 = 60 years and above
3.

Highest education1= less than high school degree, 2 = High school graduate (high school diploma or
equivalent including GED), 3 = Some college but no degree, 4 = Associate degree incollege (2-year), 5 = bachelor’s degree in college (4-year), 6 = Master’s degree orhigher.

89

II.

Transformational Leadership (Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire - MLQ)
(Avolio and Bass, 1995) 20 items

0= Not at all, 1= Once in a while, 2= Sometimes, 3= Fairly often, 4=Frequently, if not always
Cannot show the detail items as the copyright version is used here.

III.

Mindful Awareness from the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS)(Cardaciotto et al., 2008).
1 = Never, 2= Rarely, 3=Sometimes, 4= Often, 5=Very often.
1.

I'm aware of what thoughts are passing through my mind.

2.

When talking with other people, I am aware of their facial and body expressions.

3.

When I shower, I am aware of how the water is running over my body.

4.

When I am startled, I notice what is going on inside my body.

5.

When I walk outside, I am aware of the smells and how the air feels against my face.

6.

When someone asks how I am feeling, I can identify my emotions easily.

7.

I am aware of thoughts I'm having when my mood changes.

8.

I notice changes inside my body, like my heart beating faster or my muscles getting

tense.
9.

Whenever my emotions change, I am conscious of them immediately.

10.

When talking with other people, I am aware of the emotions I am experiencing.

IV. Work Engagement [Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES-9)](Schaufeli et al., 2006)
0=Never, 1 = Almost never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = Sometimes, 4 = Often, 5 = Very often, 6 = Always
1.

At my work, I would feel bursting with energy.

2.

At my job, I feel strong and vigorous.

3.

I am enthusiastic about my job.

90

4.

My job inspires me.

5.

I feel like going to work when I get up in the morning.

6.

I feel happy when I am working intensely.

7.

I'm proud of the work that I do.

8.

I am immersed in my work.

9.

I get carried away when I am working.

V.

Contextual Performance (Koopman et al., 2014)

1 = Seldom, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = frequently, 4 = Often, 5 = Always.
1.

I take on extra responsibilities.

2.

I start new tasks myself when my old ones were finished.

3.

I take on challenging work tasks when available.

4.

I work at keeping my job knowledge up to date.

5.

I work at keeping my job skills up to date.

6.

I come up with creative solutions to new problems.

7.

I keep looking for new challenges in my job.

8.

I do more than was expected of me.

9.

I actively participate in work meetings.

10.

I actively look for ways to improve my performance at work.

11.

I grasp opportunities when they present themselves.

12.

I know how to solve difficult situations and setbacks quickly.

91

Appendix C
Questionnaire of Chapter 4
I. Demographic Questions:
1. Gender:
1= Male; 2 = Female
2. Age1 = 20 to 24 years, 2 = 25 to 29 years, 3 = 30 to 34 years, 4 = 35 to 39 years, 5 = 40 to 44 years,
6 = 45 to 49 years, 7 = 50 to 54 years, 8 = 55 to 59, 9 = 60 years and above
3. Highest Education
1 = less than high school degree, 2 = High school graduate (high school diploma or equivalent
including GED), 3 = Some college but no degree, 4 = Associate degree in college (2-year), 5 =bachelor’s degree in college (4-year), 6 = Master’s degree or higher.

II. Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) (Bear et al., 2006)
1 = Never or very rarely true, 2 = Rarely true, 3 = Sometimes true, 4 = Often true, 5 = Veryoften or always true
1.

When I’m walking, I deliberately notice the sensations of my body moving.

2.

I’m good at finding the words to describe my feelings.

3.

I criticize myself for having irrational or inappropriate emotions.

4.

I perceive my feelings and emotions without having to react to them.

5.

When I do things, my mind wanders off and I’m easily distracted.

6.

When I take a shower or a bath, I stay alert to the sensations of water on my body.

7.

I can easily put my beliefs, opinions, and expectations into words.

8.

I don’t pay attention to what I’m doing because I’m daydreaming, worrying orotherwise distracted.
9.

I watch my feelings without getting lost in them.
92

10.

I tell myself that I shouldn’t be feeling the way I’m feeling.

11.

I notice how foods and drinks affect my thoughts, bodily sensations, and emotions.

12.

It’s hard for me to find the words to describe what I am thinking.

13.

I am easily distracted.

14.

I believe some of my thoughts are abnormal or bad and I shouldn’t think that way.

15.

I pay attention to sensations, such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face.

16.

I have trouble thinking of the right words to express how I feel about things.

17.

I make judgements about whether my thoughts are good or bad.

18.

I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present.

19.

When I am having distressing thoughts and images, I “step back” and am aware of thethought or image without getting taken over by it.
20.

I pay attention to sounds, such as clocks ticking, birds chirping, or cars passing.

III.

Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ-short)(Garnefski & Kraaij ,2007)
Everyone gets confronted with negative or unpleasant events now and then and everyone
responds to them in his or her own way. By the following questions, you are asked to indicate
what you generally think when you experience negative or unpleasant events.
1 = Almost never, 2 = Often, 3 = Somewhat frequently, 4 = Very frequently, 5 = Almost always
1.

I feel that I am the one who is responsible for what happened.

2.

I think that basically the cause must lie within myself.

3.

I think that I have to accept that this has happened.

4.

I think that I have to accept the situation.

5.

I often think about how I feel about what I have experienced.

6.

I am preoccupied with what I think and feel about what I have experienced.
93

7.

I think of pleasant things that have nothing to with it.

8.

I think of something nice instead of what has happened.

9.

I think about how to change the situation.

10.

I think about a plan of what I can do best.

11.

I think I can learn something from the situation.

12.

I think I can become a stronger person as a result of what has happened.

13.

I think that it hasn’t been too bad compared to other things.

14.

I tell myself that there are worse things in life.

15.

I keep thinking about how terrible it is what I have experienced.

16.

I continually think how horrible the situation has been.

17.

I feel that others are responsible for what has happened.

18.

I feel that basically the cause lies with others.

IV.

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)(Podsakoff et al., 1993)
1 = Almost never, 2 = Often, 3 = Somewhat frequently, 4 = Very frequently, 5 = Almost always

1.

I consume a lot of time complaining about trivial matters.

2.

I always focus on what’s wrong rather than on the positive side.

3.

I tend to make “mountains out of molehills”.

4.

I always find fault with what the group is doing.

5.

I am the classic squeaky wheel that always need greasing.

6.

I take steps to try to prevent problems with other members.

7.

I am mindful of how my behavior affects other people’s job within the group.

8.

I do not abuse the rights of others.

9.

I try to avoid creating problems for other members

10.

I consider the impact of my actions on other members.
94

11.

I help others who have been absent.

12.

I help others who have heavy workloads.

13.

I help orient new people even though it is not required.

14.

I willingly help others who have work related problems.

15.

I am always ready to lend a helping hand to those around me.

16.

Attendance of work is above the norm.

17.

I do not take extra breaks.

18.

I obey company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.

19.

I am one of the most conscientious employees.

20.

I believe in giving an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.

21.

I attend meetings that are not mandatory but are considered important.

22.

I attend functions that are not required but are considered important.

23.

I keep abreast of changes in the organization.

24.

I read and keep up with organization announcements, memos, and so on.

95Appendix D
The Research Ethic Approval96