PAID-06964; No of Pages 6
Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and
mindfulness in a temporal framework
Malgorzata Sobol-Kwapinska a,⁎, Tomasz Jankowski a, Aneta Przepiorka b
a
b
Department of Personality Psychology, Catholic University of Lublin, al. Raclawickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
Department of Psychology of Emotion and Motivation, Catholic University of Lublin, al. Raclawickie 14, 20-950 Lublin, Poland
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 1 April 2015
Received in revised form 16 July 2015
Accepted 23 July 2015
Available online xxxx
Keywords:
Mindfulness
Carpe Diem
Time perspective
a b s t r a c t
Researchers studying mindfulness point to the need for studies and analyses explaining and specifying the nature
of this variable as compared to other similar constructs. The aim of this article is to examine the relationship
between dispositional mindfulness and the Carpe Diem time perspective (CD) and their predictive value with
reference to eudaimonic well-being, namely authenticity and basic needs satisfaction. The participants were
238 Poles (138 female and 100 male, aged 15 to 65 years). We obtained results suggesting that mindfulness
and CD are separate constructs that do not correlate with each other. We point out that mindfulness is mainly
concerned with the form of awareness, while CD is concerned with its content. The interaction of these two
variables has a particularly positive effect on the functioning that enables the satisfaction of basic psychological
needs.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In this article, we considered two constructs that are related to
concentration on the present, which is linked with positive functioning.
We explored the overlap of the two present-time-related variables and
their relationships with authenticity (Kernis & Goldman, 2006) and
basic needs satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000). These variables were
dispositional mindfulness (Brown & Ryan, 2003) and a Carpe Diem
time perspective (CD) (Sobol-Kwapinska, 2013). The research results
show that both variables are related to and correlate positively with
subjective well-being to a similar degree (Brown & Ryan, 2003;
Brown, Ryan, & Creswell, 2007; Segal, Williams, & Teasdale, 2002;
Sobol-Kwapinska, 2009, 2013; Sobol-Kwapinska & Jankowski, 2015).
However, mindfulness and CD are constructs deriving from different
areas of psychology, which is why they differ in their nature. We therefore suppose that they will differ in their relations to eudaimonic wellbeing – the kind of well-being that is strictly connected with action –
decision making and basic needs satisfaction. We tested the overlap
between mindfulness and CD, and the interaction effects of these variables on authenticity and basic needs satisfaction.
1.1. Mindfulness
Mindfulness is defined as the mental state of concentration on
present experience without evaluating it in terms of desirability or undesirability (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Brown et al., 2007). The introduction
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Sobol-Kwapinska).
of this concept was inspired by sources rooted in the Buddhist tradition.
Mindfulness means being aware of internal and external events as phenomena, rather than as objects in a conceptually constructed world
(Brown et al., 2007). In the present paper, we deal with mindfulness
understood as an attribute of consciousness — as a disposition to
adopt states of mindfulness that are naturally available to people in
everyday life and not necessarily resulting from training in meditation
practice (Brown & Ryan, 2003).
The research results show that the trait of mindfulness correlates
positively with subjective well-being (e.g., Brown & Ryan, 2003;
Brown et al., 2007; Segal et al., 2002). It is also associated with higher
emotional and behavioural self-control (Brown & Ryan, 2003, 2004;
Deci & Ryan, 1980) and with emotional intelligence (Baer, Smith,
Hopkins, Krietemeier, & Toney, 2006; Brown & Ryan, 2003).
1.2. Carpe Diem time perspective
CD is a type of time perspective that consists in a focus on the here
and now, combined with a belief in the great importance of the present
(Sobol-Kwapinska, 2009, 2013; Sobol-Kwapinska & Jankowski, 2015).
According to Zimbardo and Boyd (1999), time perspective is the basic
dimension of psychological time. When the tendency to stress a certain
temporal framework takes the form of overestimating one of the three
temporal areas in decision making, we speak of a tendency to be oriented toward the past, the present or the future. Two aspects can be distinguished with regard to time perspective: (1) the focus of attention on a
given area of time and (2) the evaluation of a given area of time, for
example, as positive vs. negative, important vs. unimportant, meaningful vs. meaningless, and so on (Sobol-Kwapinska, 2013). The CD, unlike
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.046
0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Sobol-Kwapinska, M., et al., What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness
in a temporal framework, Personality and Individual Differences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.046
2
M. Sobol-Kwapinska et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
hedonism and fatalism (see Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999), and just like
mindfulness, is a concentration on the present, which is linked with
positive functioning. CD is understood as the total focus of attention
on the “here and now,” accompanied by a perception of the value of
every moment as unique, the only one of its kind. Two aspects of CD
can be distinguished: focusing attention on what is happening “here
and now” and a conviction about the value of every moment of life.
This kind of attitude toward time makes it possible to limit the experience of emotions such as regret or longing – which refer to the past –
as well as to reduce the anxiety experienced when thinking about the
future. It is about alleviating the excessive intensity of these emotions,
rather than about their suppression or reduction. Focusing attention
on what the moment brings enables a full presence in the present,
which is accompanied by a feeling of freshness and spontaneity in the
perception of reality. The CD correlates positively with a sense of meaning in life, a positive affect and a focus on goal formulation and realisation (Sobol-Kwapinska, 2009, 2013) and with a generally positive
evaluation of life and time (Sobol-Kwapinska & Jankowski, 2015;
Sobol-Kwapinska & Nosal, 2009).
1.3. Authenticity and basic psychological needs satisfaction
In the search for characteristics that ensure happiness and optimal
functioning, it is worth referring to a life that is in harmony with oneself
and one's values – which manifests itself, among other things, in
authenticity – and to basic psychological needs satisfaction. Both of
these variables are strongly related to eudaimonic well-being (see
Chang, Huang, & Yi-Cheng, 2014; Kernis & Goldman, 2006; Ryan &
Deci, 2000). According to Kernis and Goldman (2006), authenticity is
the realisation of one's own potentialities and living in harmony with
oneself.
Similarly, according to Ryan and Deci (2000), persons are authentic
when their actions reflect their true – or core – selves, i.e., when they are
autonomous or self-determining. Autonomy is one of the three basic
psychological needs distinguished by Ryan and Deci (2000) in their
self-determination theory (SDT). According to this theory, there are
three basic psychological needs – competence, relatedness and autonomy – whose satisfaction is indispensable for mental health. Competence
is the source of energy in a person, i.e., a tendency to have an influence
on the environment. Relatedness refers to the need to have a sense of
being related to others — a sense of caring for and loving others, as
well as of being cared for and loved. Autonomy refers to the will — to
organising experiences on one's own and to the consistency of activity
with an integrated sense of self.
The present study concerns the relationships of dispositional mindfulness and CD with authenticity and basic needs satisfaction.
1.4. Mindfulness and Carpe Diem as related to authenticity and basic needs
satisfaction
The relationship between mindfulness and authenticity and the
satisfaction of basic psychological needs has been the subject of several
empirical studies. Kernis and Goldman (2005) obtained a significant
positive correlation between Brown and Ryan's (2003) mindfulness
and authenticity. In the study by Lakey, Kernis, Heppner, and Lance
(2008), mindfulness correlated significantly (.48) with the general
authenticity index (Kernis & Goldman, 2005). Basic psychological
needs fulfilment (Deci & Ryan, 2000) correlated significantly (.42)
with mindfulness as defined by Brown and Ryan (2003) in the study
by Chang et al. (2014).
As the research results show, there is a significant positive, though
not very strong, relationship between mindfulness and authenticity, as
well as between mindfulness and basic psychological needs satisfaction.
The correlation is the weakest between mindfulness and relational orientation. Neither the relationship of CD with authenticity and basic psychological needs fulfilment nor the relationship between mindfulness
and CD has yet been the subject of empirical research. To date, the effect
of CD on the relationship of mindfulness with authenticity and basic
psychological needs satisfaction has also not been investigated.
1.5. The present study
In light of the development of the research on mindfulness, whose
secondary effect is the multiplicity of ways in which this variable is understood, there is a visible need for research and analyses explaining
and specifying the nature of mindfulness in relation to other constructs
that may have a superficial resemblance (see Brown et al., 2007). In this
paper, we will juxtapose mindfulness with a construct from the field of
time psychology — CD. Such a comparison seems all the more legitimate, as attempts to place mindfulness within the domain of temporal
concepts and to adjust it to the construct of time perspective have
been observed more and more frequently in recent years (see Drake,
Duncan, Sutherland, Abernethy, & Henry, 2008; Seema & Sircova,
2013; Wittmann et al., 2014; Zimbardo & Boyd, 2008). Therefore, the
analyses presented in this paper may help to place the terminology in
order and specify the nature of the mindfulness variable.
In order to identify the separate functional significance of mindfulness and CD, we examine the relations of these two variables with significant indicators of eudaimonic well-being — authenticity and basic
needs satisfaction. We predict that, due to their different nature, the
mindfulness and CD variables will differ from each other in terms of
their relations with the indicators of eudaimonic well-being. We predict
that differences will be visible, particularly in their relations with
authenticity and basic needs satisfaction, because they are variables
that concern decision making, deciding based on situational evaluation,
the fulfilment of basic psychological needs, such as maintaining good
relations with others, and future-oriented action. They are, then,
spheres of human functioning that require, on the one hand, openness
to and the ability to focus on the reality of the “here and now,” and
on the other hand, the belief in the importance of the “here and
now” and in the significance of the present for the future. For this
reason, we postulate that the relationship with authenticity and
basic needs satisfaction will be the strongest in the case of the interaction of mindfulness and CD, as compared to the relationships of authenticity and basic needs satisfaction with mindfulness and CD,
considered separately.
The aim of the research was to investigate the relationship between
mindfulness and CD and the effect of their interaction on the level of
authenticity and basic needs satisfaction.
Although both constructs, mindfulness and CD, derive from disparate areas of psychology, they both concern a concentration on the present and correlate positively with indicators of subjective well-being.
This provides grounds for the hypothesis that these two variables are
closely related. On the other hand, the two concepts differ in the evaluative
aspect: mindfulness consists in not judging the reality that is perceived
“here and now,” whereas CD involves evaluating the present time as
important and exceptional. It can therefore be supposed that these differences will weaken the relationship and that these two variables will
correlate with each other moderately and positively. Consequently, we
formulated the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Dispositional mindfulness correlates moderately
positively with CD time perspective.
Brown and Ryan (2003) pointed out the need for further studies to
seek to answer the question of the psychological conditions that support a state of mindfulness and those that impair it. The CD is a variable
in which the time aspect is strongly stressed; this means that it is an
attitude in which the perception of the present time as important and
exceptional is of fundamental importance. On that basis, we suppose
that, in the case of the interaction of mindfulness and CD, CD – by introducing the element of a conscious evaluation of the present – introduces
Please cite this article as: Sobol-Kwapinska, M., et al., What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness
in a temporal framework, Personality and Individual Differences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.046
M. Sobol-Kwapinska et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
a temporal context for the personal experience of the “here and
now,” places it in time, and thus, gives a certain meaning to actions
“here and now.” We therefore postulate that CD moderates the
positive relations of mindfulness with variables strongly related to
eudaimonic well-being — authenticity and basic psychological
needs satisfaction.
Hypothesis 2. CD significantly strengthens the positive relations of
dispositional mindfulness with authenticity and basic needs satisfaction, which means that CD is a moderator of the relations of dispositional mindfulness with authenticity and basic psychological needs
satisfaction.
The second hypothesis postulates that relations between mindfulness and two eudaimonic variables – basic needs satisfaction
and authenticity – are dependent on the level of CD. We additionally suggest that authenticity is a partial mediator of the relationship between mindfulness and basic needs satisfaction. This claim
stems from theoretical assumptions that mindfulness favours contact with the true self (Ryan & Brown, 2003) and that authenticity
leads to satisfactory self-regulation and well-being (Sheldon,
Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997). Postulated relationships between the variables are presented in the form of the moderated
mediation model (Fig. 1). This model depicts the effect of mindfulness on basic needs satisfaction mediated by authenticity, with
both direct and indirect effects of mindfulness moderated by CD.
The moderated mediation model was described in detail by Hayes
(2013), pp. 368–381; see also Preacher, Rucker, and Hayes (2007).
However, because of the cross-sectional design of our study, testing this model answers only the question of whether the proposed
direction of paths in the model might be reasonably accepted or
not. The true mediation analysis which answers the question of
whether authenticity really is a mediator, which means whether
there are causal relationships between the variables, could be
observed only in longitudinal studies, where a predictor precedes a
mediator in time, and a mediator precedes an outcome in time
(Selig & Preacher, 2009). This fact should be taken into consideration
in the discussion of the results.
2. Method
3
2.2. Procedure
Most of the participants received questionnaires directly from a psychologist or a psychologist's assistant. The participants were selected at
random. Ethical standards were maintained.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Dispositional mindfulness
The Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS; Brown & Ryan,
2003) was used to assess dispositional mindfulness, which was understood as the mindful awareness of internal and external sensations in
the present moment. In the Polish version, alpha = .85 (Jankowski,
2006). The items (15) are phrased to reflect the absence, not the presence, of mindfulness.
2.3.2. Carpe Diem
The CD time perspective was measured using the CD Scale (12 items;
alpha = .82; Sobol-Kwapinska, 2013). The scale measures concentration
on the present, combined with a belief in the importance of the present
time. People who score high on this scale are capable of fully focusing
on the present and often take advantage of this ability, trying to enjoy
every day as much as possible. They appreciate the value of every moment of life.
2.3.3. Authenticity
The Authenticity Inventory (Goldman & Kernis, 2004) was used to
measure the sense of authenticity in everyday life, defined as an awareness of who one is, a sense of insight into one's own emotions and the
ability to look critically at oneself. This inventory consists of 45 statements. The Cronbach's alpha for the whole scale in the Polish version
was .80 (Jankowski, 2006).
2.3.4. Basic psychological needs satisfaction
The General Need Satisfaction Scale (GNSS; Gagne, 2003) was used
to measure basic psychological needs fulfilment. This questionnaire
consists of three scales: Autonomy (the experience of a sense of freedom in making decisions); Relatedness (the sense of having good
friendly relations with other people); and Competence (the sense of
being able to do many things). The Cronbach's alpha for the whole
scale in the Polish version was .84 (Jankowski, 2006).
2.1. Participants
3. Results
The study was conducted in Poland in a group of 250 people, of
whom 238 (138 female and 100 male participants, aged 19 to 65, with
a mean age of 32.53 years, SD = 12.88) returned a set of completed
questionnaires. Nearly 40% of the respondents had a degree in economics,
30% in science, and 15% in pedagogy. The respondents were selected at
random, and they received questionnaires from a psychologist or a
psychologist's assistant.
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the variables are presented in Table 1.
The hypothesis concerning the moderate and positive relationship
between mindfulness and CD was not confirmed. A correlation analysis
reveals no relationship between these variables.
Our second hypothesis postulates that both the direct and indirect
effects of mindfulness on basic needs satisfaction are conditioned by
CD. A statistical diagram of the proposed conditional processes is
Table 1
Means, standard deviations, reliability coefficients and correlations between variables.
Fig. 1. The statistical model of the relationship between mindfulness, Carpe Diem, basic
needs satisfaction and authenticity.
Variable
1
2
1. CD
2. MAAS
3. AUT
4. BNS
Mean
(SD)
Alpha
–
−.03
.27⁎
.31⁎⁎
–
.33⁎⁎
.38⁎⁎
46.36
(5.47)
.76
62.53
(11.4)
.85
3
4
–
.54⁎⁎
159.69
(16.51)
.80
–
100.49
(14.42)
.84
CD — Carpe Diem Scale, MAAS — Mindful Attention Awareness Scale, AUT — Authenticity,
BNS — Basic Needs Scale.
⁎ p b .05.
⁎⁎ p b .01.
Please cite this article as: Sobol-Kwapinska, M., et al., What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness
in a temporal framework, Personality and Individual Differences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.046
4
M. Sobol-Kwapinska et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 2. The statistical diagram of the relationship between mindfulness, Carpe Diem, basic needs satisfaction and authenticity.
presented in Fig. 2. The variable “mindfulness × Carpe Diem” represents
an interaction term. In order to verify the model, we applied the procedure proposed by Preacher et al. (2007). We estimated the model's
parameters using the PROCESS macro functioning in SPSS22 software,
developed by Hayes and Preacher (2013). Before being entered in the
model, the variables were centred in accordance with the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991). The nonstandardised coefficients are
displayed in Table 2.
The model contains several particular hypotheses, which concern: (1) a positive and direct relationship between mindfulness
and basic needs satisfaction (path c1 in Fig. 2) moderated by CD (if
only path c 3 is significant); (2) a positive relationship between
mindfulness and authenticity (path a 1 ) moderated by CD (if only
path a3 is significant); (3) a positive relation between authenticity
and basic needs satisfaction (path b); and (4) a conditional (moderated by CD if only path a3 is significant) indirect effect of mindfulness
on basic needs satisfaction mediated by authenticity (path a1 × b).
The first of these hypotheses was fully confirmed (interaction term
is significant, BC3 = .04, p b .02): Mindfulness significantly predicts
the fulfilment of basic needs only in those people who actively
focus on the present at least to an average degree, attributing positive significance to it. In the case of low concentration on the present,
mindfulness shows no significant relationship with basic needs
satisfaction (see Fig. 3). The simple model including mindfulness,
CD and the interaction between the two, but not including authenticity, explains more than one-fourth (26%) of the variance in satisfaction from self-regulation based on self-determination, which
suggests a moderate effect.
The second of the aforementioned hypotheses was not confirmed by the data. Mindfulness is a significant predictor of authenticity (path a1, B = .48, p b .001), regardless of the CD level (path a3,
B = .02, p = .56). Although authenticity significantly predicts basic
needs satisfaction (path b, B = .34, p b .001), in view of the fact that
the interaction between mindfulness and CD has no significance for
the prediction of authenticity, we abandoned the analysis of
moderated mediation and focused on a simple mediation analysis.
We checked whether authenticity partly mediates the relationship between mindfulness and basic needs satisfaction. For this
purpose, in accordance with Hayes and Preacher's (2013) suggestions, based on 2000 bootstrap samples, we generated a 95% bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect of mindfulness
(path: a1 × b). The effect of mediation (B = .16) fell within the
confidence interval that does not contain zero (95% bootstrap CI:
.05 to .33, boot SE = .08), which points to a significant effect.
Mindfulness is conducive to being authentic in everyday life, and
authenticity allows an increase in the level of basic needs satisfaction. However, higher authenticity in mindful people does not
fully explain the relation between mindfulness and needs satisfaction; the direct path, moderated by CD (c1), still remains significant, which suggests that there are other mechanisms linking the
two variables.
Summing up, the model that explains nearly half (40%) of the
variability in basic needs satisfaction, which is an important indicator of eudaimonic well-being, suggests two independent paths that
link mindfulness with this variable. The first one is direct and
determined by the level of the CD: A high level of satisfaction of
the autonomy, competence and relatedness needs depends on
mindfulness only in people who are characterised by an increased
intensity in the CD attitude. The second path does not depend on
the level of active concentration on the present, but it takes
authenticity into account as a mediator between mindfulness and
well-being.
Table 2
Ordinary least squares regression model coefficients.
Consequent
Mediator (authenticity)
Antecedent
Path
Coeff.
SE
Mindfulness
Authenticity
Carpe Diem
Mindfulness × Carpe Diem
Constant
a1
–
a2
a3
i1
.48
.11
–
–
.88
.25
.01
.02
159.71
1.30
2
R = .19
F(3,131) = 10.08, p b .001
Dependent variable (basic needs satisfaction)
p
Path
Coeff.
b.001
–
b.001
.56
b.001
c1
b
c2
c3
i2
.31
.09
.34
.07
.72
.20
.04
.01
46.86
10.55
2
R = .40
F(4,130) = 21.95, p b .001
SE
p
b.001
b.001
b.001
b.02
b.001
Please cite this article as: Sobol-Kwapinska, M., et al., What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness
in a temporal framework, Personality and Individual Differences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.046
M. Sobol-Kwapinska et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Relation between mindfulness and basic needs satisfaction conditioned by Carpe
Diem.
4. Discussion
The studies presented in this article were designed to examine the
relationship between mindfulness and CD, as well as its relation with
authenticity and basic psychological needs satisfaction. The hypothesis
postulating a positive correlation between mindfulness and CD was
not confirmed. Rather, these variables do not correlate with each
other. We can only speculate that these variables, regardless of their
surface similarity, differ from each other more than was expected. This
fact compels us to revise our understanding of how mindfulness and
CD relate to each other. Mindfulness is a state of awareness: the state
of being mindful. The CD is kind of time perspective constituted by a
combination of a focus on the present and a belief in the importance
of the present as an area of time. Mindfulness defines the form of awareness and attention, while CD concerns mainly the content of awareness.
It is therefore possible for a person to be characterised by mindfulness in
everyday life, but rarely adopt CD — that is, to be mindful of what one is
doing and open to the reality of the “here and now,” but rarely to reflect
on the significance of the present and not to be convinced about the
need to use time in the best possible way. Conversely, it is possible to
adopt a CD often without being mindful of everyday activities. This
would translate, for example, into a strong emotional preoccupation
with the present. It is also possible both to be mindful and to often
adopt a CD. It is such a complex attitude that was the subject of further
analyses.
The relationships postulated in Hypothesis 2 were partly confirmed.
Both mindfulness and CD correlated significantly with authenticity, but
CD had no effect on increasing the strength of the relationship between
mindfulness and authenticity. The results of a moderation analysis show
that a CD increases the strength of the relationship between mindfulness and basic needs satisfaction. The obtained relations highlight the
distinct nature of the two variables involving concentration on the present:
mindfulness and CD. When interpreting the results of the moderation
analysis, it is possible to refer to that which constitutes the difference between authenticity and basic needs satisfaction. Authenticity can be said
to be a variable that is more strongly focused on personal feelings, goals
and desires, compared to the concept of basic psychological needs satisfaction. The latter is connected with transgressing personal feelings, in the
sense that, for example, emphasis is placed on striving to have good relations with others through friendly behaviours, which sometimes requires
putting other people's goals over one's own. What is stressed in
the concept of authenticity, by contrast, is, above all, the attribution
5
of primary importance to one's own goals, openness, and, so to
speak, painful honesty. This may account for the lack of a moderating
effect of CD on the relationship between mindfulness and authenticity.
Authenticity is mostly about harmony with oneself, while the relatedness
need, according to Ryan and Deci (2000), is also about harmony with
other people, which facilitates mutual communication and friendly
relations.
As regards the competence need, its satisfaction involves the necessity of taking actions “here and now” that are supposed to have consequences in the future, for example, exercise and training in certain
skills, formulating goals and plans for their achievement, and so on —
in keeping with the saying that “practice makes perfect.” It also requires
putting future achievements over the “here and now” benefits from
time to time. Thus, it is clearly connected with making decisions based
on a broader time perspective and based on the evaluation of the current reality, for instance, in terms of “important vs. unimportant.”
Based on these reflections, it is possible to formulate a supposition
that CD concerns the content aspect of action (i.e., “that which I do”),
whereas mindfulness refers primarily to the form of action (i.e., “how I
do it”).
It is worth noting that there are studies pointing to the drawbacks of
the tendency to be mindful. For example, the findings of studies on selfcontrol suggest the co-occurrence of mindfulness with maladaptive behaviours. Leigh, Bowen, and Marlatt (2005) obtained results showing
that, in students, mindfulness was linked to smoking and getting
drunk more frequently. They proposed that this might have been caused
by the perceived need to soothe the increased physical sensitivity in
people with higher mindfulness. In the context of our research, we
could add that perhaps mindfulness in those students was not accompanied by other dispositions important to functioning, such as the awareness of the significance of behaviour engaged in “here and now.” Also,
Brown et al. (2007) believe that there may be certain circumstances in
which too much contact with reality may be detrimental to wellbeing. If we define mindfulness as going deeper into reality, CD could
be described as maintaining awareness in time, looking at the present
in terms of meaning or sense. After all, the belief in the significance of
the present stems from a sense of the finitude of time and from the
need to use every moment of life in the best possible way.
The following question could be asked: What is it that mindfulness
does not have, but CD does have? The answer to this question could
be the acknowledgement of the importance of the present in the context of limited time. One could also wonder what it is that CD lacks,
but mindfulness has. Perhaps the answer is distance from the self and
distance from time. The CD may produce tension caused by the need
to make the best possible use of the “here and now.” Irritation can be
caused, for example, by the necessity to wait passively and do tiresome
things while there are so many possibilities available to use time attractively. Negative emotions may also arise with the sense of the passage of
time associated with CD; in CD, the temporal aspect and the finitude of
time are strongly stressed. Moreover, CD and the related attitude of
“seizing” time may result in persons setting the goal for themselves of
using time to a maximum degree, in the sense of ensuring that they
feel as good in it as possible. This can be a frustrating attitude, which
makes it even more difficult to open up to the “here and now.” The combination of a CD with mindfulness makes it possible to avoid this kind of
attitude toward time.
With regard to the limitations, it is important to stress that the study
is limited by its cross-sectional character: No causal relations can be
determined. Regarding another limitation, the results are based on
self-report studies, which implies that the participants had insight into
their states and feelings.
As regards directions for further research, it would be worthwhile to
investigate the relationship of mindfulness, CD and authenticity with
basic psychological needs satisfaction using experiments manipulating,
for example, the mindfulness variable and testing the causal relationship between the variables analysed. Moreover, it is worthwhile to
Please cite this article as: Sobol-Kwapinska, M., et al., What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness
in a temporal framework, Personality and Individual Differences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.046
6
M. Sobol-Kwapinska et al. / Personality and Individual Differences xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
consider whether similar relations would also be obtained if a different
scale was used for measuring mindfulness – for example, one that highlights acceptance and nonjudgement.
Acknowledgements
Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the grant “Forms of
the present time orientation” 2014/14/M/HS6/00910 from the National
Science Centre (Poland).
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park: Sage.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeier, J., & Toney, L. (2006). Using self-report
assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191105283504.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role
in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822–848.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Fostering healthy self-regulation from within and
without: A self-determination theory perspective. In P. A. Linley, & S. Joseph (Eds.),
Positive psychology in practice (pp. 105–124). New York: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1002/9780470939338.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical foundations
and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18, 211–237. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298.
Chang, J., Huang, Ch., & Yi-Cheng, L. (2014). Mindfulness, basic psychological needs fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902014-9551-2.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1, 33–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902014-9551-2.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.
Drake, L., Duncan, E., Sutherland, F., Abernethy, C., & Henry, C. (2008). Time perspective
and correlates of wellbeing. Time & Society, 17(1), 47–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0961463X07086304.
Gagne, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial
behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1023/A:1025007614869.
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2004). Development of the authenticity inventory. Unpublished manuscript, University of Georgia.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis.
New York: The Guilford Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050.
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 (2nd ed.). Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.07.001.
Jankowski, T. (2006). Struktura koncepcji siebie i procesy przetwarzania informacji o
sobie u osób o różnym stopniu uważności [Self-concept structure and self-relevant
information processing in people with different levels of mindfulness] (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Lublin.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2005). From thought and experience to behavior
and interpersonal relationships: A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity.
In A. Tesser, J. V. Wood, D. A. Stapel, & A. Diederik (Eds.), On building, defending
and regulating the self: A psychological perspective (pp. 31–52). New York, NY, US:
Psychology Press.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. In M. P. Zanna, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances
in experimental social psychology, Vol. 38. (pp. 283–357). San Diego, CA, US:
Elsevier Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9.
Lakey, C. E., Kernis, M. H., Heppner, W. L., & Lance, C. E. (2008). Individual differences in
authenticity and mindfulness as predictors of verbal defensiveness. Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 230–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1026/1616-3443/a000111.
Leigh, J., Bowen, S., & Marlatt, G. A. (2005). Spirituality, mindfulness and substance abuse.
Addictive Behaviors, 30, 1335–1341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.01.010.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation
hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
42, 185–227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.002.
Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2003). Why we don't need self esteem: On fundamental
needs, contingent love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 71–76. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.1.95.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1130244.
Seema, R., & Sircova, A. (2013). Mindfulness — A time perspective? Estonian study. Baltic
Journal of Psychology, 14(1/2), 4–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961463X15577277.
Segal, Z. V., Williams, J. M. G., & Teasdale, J. D. (2002). Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
for depression: A new approach to preventing relapse. New York, NY: Guilford. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035036.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2009). Mediation models for longitudinal data in developmental research. Research in Human Development, 6, 144–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
15427600902911247.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). “True” self and “trait” self:
Cross role variation in the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity and well
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380–1393. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1380.
Sobol-Kwapinska, M. (2009). Forms of present time orientation and satisfaction with life
in the context of attitudes toward past and future. Social Behavior and Personality,
37(4), 433–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2009.37.4.433.
Sobol-Kwapinska, M. (2013). Hedonism, fatalism and ‘Carpe Diem’: Profiles of attitudes
towards the present time. Time & Society, 22(3), 371–390. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1177/0961463X13487043.
Sobol-Kwapinska, M., & Jankowski, T. (2015). Positive time. Balanced time perspective
and positive orientation. Journal of Happiness Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-015-9656-2.
Sobol-Kwapinska, M., & Nosal, C. S. (2009). How does one conceive time? Measurement
by means of Time Metaphors Questionnaire. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 40, 1–7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/s10059-009-0026-y.
Wittmann, M., Peter, J., Gutina, O., Otten, S., Kohls, N., & Meissner, K. (2014). Individual
differences in self-attributed mindfulness levels are related to the experience of
time and cognitive self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 64, 41–45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.011.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable
individual-differences metric. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77(6),
1271–1288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07368-2_2.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (2008). The time paradox: The new psychology of time that will
change your life. New York: Free Press.
Please cite this article as: Sobol-Kwapinska, M., et al., What do we gain by adding time perspective to mindfulness? Carpe Diem and mindfulness
in a temporal framework, Personality and Individual Differences (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.07.046