Mindfulness, originating from Buddhist philosophy, is now a secular construct in Western psychology, often defined as non-reactive, non-judgmental attention to present-moment experiences. The five-facet model of mindfulness (observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging, non-reactivity), operationalized by the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ), has shown links to various well-being outcomes. However, research reveals inconsistencies in how different mindfulness facets relate to well-being across various samples and age groups. Variable-centered approaches, focusing on mean scores, may obscure individual-level variability. Person-centered approaches, like latent profile analysis (LPA), can identify subgroups with unique patterns of mindfulness facets, potentially explaining inconsistencies in previous research. While previous LPA studies have identified four mindfulness profiles (high, low, non-judgmentally aware, judgmentally observing), inconsistencies exist regarding the number and characteristics of these profiles across different samples and age ranges. This study aimed to identify mindfulness profiles in a large, age-diverse Canadian sample and examine their associations with age, well-being (life satisfaction, existential well-being), and mental health (depression, anxiety, stress). We expected to find at least high and low mindfulness profiles, and possibly non-judgmentally aware and judgmentally observing profiles, with high mindfulness and non-judgmentally aware profiles associated with better well-being and mental health.

Existing research on mindfulness and well-being primarily utilizes variable-centered approaches, focusing on average scores across participants. These studies have demonstrated links between overall mindfulness and positive outcomes like reduced anxiety and depression, increased life satisfaction, and greater happiness across the lifespan. However, inconsistencies exist at the facet level. Some facets show different relationships with well-being in different samples, and inconsistencies are observed across age groups, suggesting that not all facets contribute equally to well-being. This heterogeneity led researchers to explore person-centered approaches using LPA. Previous person-centered studies, often focusing on college students or adults, have generally identified four mindfulness profiles: high mindfulness, low mindfulness, non-judgmentally aware, and judgmentally observing. However, the number of profiles and their characteristics vary across studies, potentially due to differences in sample characteristics (age range, cultural background, clinical status) and sample size. Studies investigating the relationships between these profiles and well-being consistently show that high mindfulness and non-judgmentally aware profiles are linked to better outcomes, while low mindfulness and judgmentally observing profiles are associated with poorer outcomes. The need for a lifespan approach with large sample sizes to clarify the profile structure and their associations with well-being was highlighted.

A Canadian sample of 1600 participants (age 14–90, 49.8% women), recruited through Qualtrics XM, was used. The sample was balanced across age cohorts and gender. Participants completed questionnaires measuring the five facets of mindfulness using the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire Short Form (FFMQ-SF), life satisfaction (Satisfaction with Life Scale), existential well-being (Spiritual Well-Being Scale), and mental health (Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-12; DASS-12). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted using standardized FFMQ subscale scores as indicators, with age and gender as covariates. Models with 2–6 profiles were compared using AIC, BIC, aBIC, entropy, and VLMR LRT to determine the best-fitting model. The 3-step approach was used to compare profiles on age, life satisfaction, existential well-being, depression, anxiety, and stress scores, adjusting for multiple comparisons with Bonferroni correction.

The five-profile model provided the best fit to the data. The five profiles identified were: 1. **High Mindfulness (21.1%):** High scores across all five mindfulness facets. 2. **Moderate Mindfulness (50%):** Moderate scores across all five facets. 3. **Low Mindfulness (8.2%):** Low scores across most facets. 4. **Nonjudgmentally Aware (13.8%):** Low observing and non-reactivity, moderate describing, high acting with awareness and non-judging. 5. **Judgmentally Observing (6.9%):** High observing, low non-judging, acting with awareness, and describing. Profile comparisons revealed: * **Age:** High mindfulness and nonjudgmentally aware profiles were older; judgmentally observing was younger. * **Well-being and Mental Health:** High mindfulness showed best outcomes; low mindfulness and judgmentally observing showed worst; moderate fell between. Nonjudgmentally aware had similar well-being to high mindfulness but more depressive symptoms and slightly lower existential well-being. Specifically, significant differences (p < 0.005) were found across profiles on age, gender distribution, and several well-being and mental health variables. For instance, the high mindfulness group significantly outperformed other groups in life satisfaction, existential well-being, and lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. The nonjudgmentally aware group showed similar levels of life satisfaction, stress, and anxiety compared to the high mindfulness group, but significantly higher depression levels compared to the high mindfulness group and lower than the moderate mindfulness group. The judgmentally observing profile displayed significantly higher anxiety scores than other groups.

This study is the first person-centered study to identify a five-profile model of mindfulness in a large, age-diverse sample. The identified profiles largely align with those found in previous smaller studies. The larger sample size in this study likely allowed for the identification of the fifth profile (moderate mindfulness), which was not as frequently reported in smaller studies. The findings support the notion of mindfulness heterogeneity, as different combinations of facets yield different outcomes. High mindfulness and nonjudgmentally aware profiles demonstrate adaptive functioning, suggesting that high scores on all facets, or high non-judging and acting with awareness, may be particularly beneficial. In contrast, the judgmentally observing profile, characterized by high observing and low scores on other facets, shows negative associations with mental health, suggesting observing alone may be detrimental without the balance of other facets. The age differences across profiles suggest that older individuals might be developmentally predisposed towards high mindfulness (potentially due to socioemotional selectivity theory and brain development) and that a preoccupation with external observation may be more characteristic of younger individuals. These findings have crucial implications for developing targeted mindfulness-based interventions.

This study identified five distinct mindfulness profiles across the lifespan, highlighting the heterogeneity of mindfulness and its relationship with well-being and mental health. High mindfulness and nonjudgmentally aware profiles were associated with better outcomes, particularly in older adults. Conversely, low mindfulness and judgmentally observing profiles were linked to poorer outcomes, especially in younger individuals. Future research should replicate these findings with more diverse samples and explore how these profiles change over time using longitudinal designs. The study also suggests the development of targeted mindfulness interventions focusing on specific mindfulness facets rather than a one-size-fits-all approach.

The sample, while large and age-diverse, was predominantly WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic). The reliance on Qualtrics for recruitment might have biased the sample towards those with technology access. Some profiles had relatively small sample sizes, raising concerns about generalizability. The use of short-form questionnaires might have increased measurement error. Finally, meditation experience, a potential confounder, was not assessed. Future studies should address these limitations by using larger, more diverse samples, alternative recruitment methods, full-length measures, and controlling for meditation experience.