Not all mindfulness is equal: certain facets of mindfulness have important implications for well-being and mental health across the lifespan

Mindfulness, originally rooted in Buddhist philosophy, is now widely examined as a secular, multidimensional construct in Western psychology, commonly operationalized with five facets: observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging of inner experience, and non-reactivity (Baer et al., 2006, 2008). Prior research links higher mindfulness to benefits such as reduced anxiety and depression and increased life satisfaction and happiness across age groups. However, not all facets relate uniformly to outcomes; for example, the observing facet shows inconsistent associations depending on meditation experience and age group, and some facet–outcome links vary across populations. Much prior work uses variable-centered methods that assume a single homogeneous population, which may obscure meaningful heterogeneity. Person-centered approaches (e.g., latent profile analysis, LPA) can reveal distinct combinations (profiles) of mindfulness facets that may differentially relate to well-being. Prior person-centered studies frequently identify four profiles—high mindfulness, low mindfulness, non-judgmentally aware, and judgmentally observing—though the number and nature of profiles vary across samples, ages, and cultures. The present study addresses gaps by using a person-centered approach in a large, age-diverse Canadian sample (14–90 years) to identify mindfulness profiles and compare them on age distribution, well-being, and mental health. Although no formal a priori hypotheses were specified for the LPA, the authors expected at least high and low mindfulness profiles and potentially non-judgmentally aware and judgmentally observing profiles, with high mindfulness and non-judgmentally aware showing relatively better well-being than low mindfulness and judgmentally observing.

The paper reviews evidence that mindfulness, as measured by the FFMQ, is associated with decreased anxiety and depression, greater life satisfaction, and increased happiness across the lifespan. However, facets may not function uniformly: meta-analytic work suggests all facets except observing typically correlate negatively with maladaptive affective symptoms; relations can differ by meditation experience (e.g., observing positively correlates with symptoms in non-meditators but negatively in meditators) and by age group (e.g., mixed findings for non-reactivity in adolescents versus young adults). Numerous person-centered studies (college students, adults, clinical samples, adolescents, and older adults) commonly find four profiles: high mindfulness; low mindfulness; non-judgmentally aware (higher non-judging and acting with awareness, lower observing); and judgmentally observing (higher observing, lower acting with awareness and non-judging). Yet profile solutions vary (2–5 profiles) by sample characteristics and culture, implying heterogeneity that warrants examination in large, lifespan samples. Person-centered results often show the non-judgmentally aware profile is as adaptive as high mindfulness (lower depression/anxiety), whereas judgmentally observing is associated with poorer mental health; nonetheless, exceptions exist, highlighting the need for replication in broader lifespan contexts.

Design: Cross-sectional, person-centered latent profile analysis (LPA) of mindfulness facets with subsequent 3-step profile comparisons on age, well-being, and mental health. Participants and recruitment: N=1,600 Canadian participants recruited via Qualtrics XM (2023), age- and gender-balanced across cohorts (14–17, 18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65–74, 75+; 49.8% women). Mean age=45.74 years (SD=21.09; range 14–90). Most adult participants had college/university education (49.6%), annual household income $20,000–$80,000 (53.6%), and were not married/common-law (51.8%). Ancestry was diverse but with a majority of Western/Eastern European (50.6%). Informed consent obtained; REB approval: Simon Fraser University (#30001690). Measures: - Mindfulness: Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire–Short Form (FFMQ-SF; 15 items; 3 items per facet: observing, describing, acting with awareness, non-judging, non-reactivity). 5-point Likert scale (1=never to 5=always). CFA supported the 5-factor structure with loadings 0.612–0.854 and low cross-loadings (<0.326). Reliability (alphas) ranged approx. 0.60–0.78 across facets; composite reliability also reported. Intercorrelations largely significant except observing with acting with awareness (r=0.03), non-judging (r=−0.04), and stress (r=0.04), all ns. - Life satisfaction: Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; 5 items; 7-point Likert). - Existential well-being: 3-item Existential Well-Being subscale of the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (7-point Likert). - Mental health: DASS-12 (12 items; 4 items each for depression, anxiety, stress; 4-point Likert for past-week symptoms). Analytic plan: - No missing data (Qualtrics enforcement). LPA on standardized FFMQ facet scores as indicators; gender and age included as covariates. Models with 2–6 profiles were compared using AIC, BIC, adjusted BIC (aBIC), entropy, and VLMR LRT, along with interpretability and adequate smallest-profile size (targeting ≥~100 in the smallest class for reliability). - Profile comparisons on age, life satisfaction, existential well-being, and DASS depression, anxiety, stress used the 3-step method (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014), with Bonferroni adjustment (e.g., p<0.005 for 5-profile solution).

- Correlations: Most mindfulness facets and outcomes were significantly intercorrelated. Observing showed non-significant associations with acting with awareness (r=0.03, p=0.234), non-judging (r=−0.04, p=0.142), and stress (r=0.04, p=0.156). Mindfulness average correlated positively with life satisfaction (r=0.37) and existential well-being (r=0.40), and negatively with depression (r=−0.53), anxiety (r=−0.33), and stress (r=−0.48), all p<0.001. - Model selection: Among 2–6 profile solutions, the 5-profile model was selected as best-fitting: it had the lowest BIC and aBIC, highest entropy (0.671), significant VLMR LRT versus 4-profile (p=0.002), and avoided very small classes (<100) seen in the 6-profile solution (which also had non-significant VLMR LRT). Average posterior probabilities for the 5 classes ranged 0.74–0.83. - Identified profiles (n and %): 1) High mindfulness (n=338; 21.1%): high on all facets. 2) Moderate mindfulness (n=800; 50.0%): moderate on all facets. 3) Low mindfulness (n=131; 8.2%): low on most facets. 4) Nonjudgmentally aware (n=220; 13.8%): low observing and non-reactivity, moderate describing, relatively high acting with awareness and non-judging. 5) Judgmentally observing (n=111; 6.9%): high observing; low non-judging, acting with awareness, and describing. - Demographic differences (3-step comparisons): • Age differed significantly across profiles (F or χ² p<0.001). Mean ages (yrs): High≈60.03; Moderate≈41.18; Low≈37.81; Nonjudgmentally aware≈57.87; Judgmentally observing≈20.37. High and nonjudgmentally aware were older; judgmentally observing was youngest. • Gender: Higher proportion women in judgmentally observing (≈72.1%). • Persons of color: Highest proportions in moderate mindfulness (≈54.9%) and judgmentally observing (≈65.8%). • Marital status: Low mindfulness least likely to be married; no significant income/education differences across profiles. - Well-being and mental health comparisons (Bonferroni-adjusted): Means by profile (SWLS, EWB, DASS-D, DASS-A, DASS-S): • High: 4.89; 4.70; 1.26; 1.47; 1.54. • Moderate: 4.03; 3.90; 1.97; 1.90; 2.14. • Low: 2.67; 2.64; 2.64; 2.00; 2.57. • Nonjudgmentally aware: 4.57; 3.94; 1.47; 1.45; 1.53. • Judgmentally observing: 3.48; 3.60; 2.66; 2.62; 2.77. Pattern: • Homogeneous profiles: High>Moderate>Low on life satisfaction, existential well-being, and better mental health (lower DASS); Moderate and Low did not significantly differ on anxiety. • Nonjudgmentally aware: Similar life satisfaction, stress, and anxiety to High; existential well-being similar to Moderate; depression higher than High but lower than Moderate. • Judgmentally observing: Highest anxiety; depression and stress similar to Low; well-being similar to Moderate, life satisfaction between Moderate and Low. Overall, nonjudgmentally aware resembled High on several outcomes, while judgmentally observing resembled Low (with especially elevated anxiety).

The study addressed whether distinct mindfulness facet profiles exist across a wide age range and how these profiles relate to age, well-being, and mental health. Using LPA, five profiles emerged that mirror and extend prior person-centered findings, demonstrating clear heterogeneity in how mindfulness facets cluster within individuals. The age distributions suggest developmental patterns: older individuals were more likely to be high in mindfulness or nonjudgmentally aware, whereas younger individuals clustered in the judgmentally observing profile, possibly reflecting developmental tendencies toward heightened external attention and self-judgment during adolescence and early adulthood. The well-being and mental health differences across profiles clarify that some configurations of facets are more adaptive. High mindfulness yielded the most favorable outcomes, consistent with variable-centered research. Importantly, the nonjudgmentally aware profile—elevated acting with awareness and non-judging paired with low observing and non-reactivity—often matched the High profile on life satisfaction, anxiety, and stress, though with slightly lower existential well-being and higher depression than High. Conversely, the judgmentally observing pattern—elevated observing with low non-judging and acting with awareness—was associated with the poorest mental health (particularly anxiety), approximating the Low profile. These results underscore that the quality and combination of facets, not just overall mindfulness, matter for well-being. The findings are relevant for theory and practice. They suggest that cultivating acting with awareness and non-judging may be especially impactful. Additionally, observing without concurrent non-judgment and awareness may be maladaptive. Recognizing these distinct profiles can refine mindfulness-based interventions and inform targeted support across the lifespan.

This large, lifespan study identified five mindfulness profiles—high, moderate, low, nonjudgmentally aware, and judgmentally observing—and showed that profile membership varies by age and is differentially associated with well-being and mental health. High mindfulness and nonjudgmentally aware profiles were older and exhibited the most adaptive outcomes, while low mindfulness and judgmentally observing profiles were younger and showed poorer mental health (particularly elevated anxiety in judgmentally observing). These results highlight meaningful heterogeneity in mindfulness and support person-centered approaches for understanding links to well-being across the lifespan. Future directions include: testing streamlined interventions focusing on non-judging and acting with awareness; ensuring observing is paired with other facets in clinical work; replicating findings with nationally representative and ethnically diverse samples; using full-length measures; accounting for meditation experience; and conducting longitudinal research (e.g., latent transition analysis) to track profile stability and change over time.

- Sample representativeness: Largely WEIRD (Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic); Qualtrics-based recruitment may overrepresent individuals with technology access. Replication in more diverse, nationally representative samples is needed (e.g., quota sampling). - Small profile proportions: Two profiles were relatively small (Low 8.2%; Judgmentally observing 6.9%), raising concerns about prevalence and replicability, though each exceeded 100 participants in this large sample. - Measurement brevity: Short-form scales (FFMQ-SF; 3-item EWB; DASS-12) may reduce reliability/validity versus full-length versions. - Unmeasured confounders: Meditation experience was not assessed and may moderate facet–outcome relations and vary by age. - Cross-sectional design: Precludes causal inference and understanding of profile transitions over time; longitudinal studies (e.g., latent transition analysis) are recommended.