ORIGINAL RESEARCH

COMPARING INDIVIDUAL PREFERENCES FOR FOUR MEDITATION TECHNIQUES: ZEN,

VIPASSANA (MINDFULNESS), QIGONG, AND MANTRA
Adam Burke, PhD, MPH, LAc1#

Context: A significant number of studies have been published

examining the mind-body effects of meditation and its clinical
efficacy. There are very few studies, however, which directly
compare different meditation methods with each other to explore potentially distinct mechanisms and effects, and no studies
comparing individual preferences for different methods. As preference is seen as an important factor in consumer healthcare
decision making, greater understanding of this aspect is needed
as meditation becomes a more widely used therapeutic modality.

practicing one method per week. At the end of a six-week training period participants ranked the four meditation methods in
order of personal preference.

Objectives: For this reason a pilot study was conducted to compare four meditation techniques for personal preference.

Conclusion: This study provides information on differences in

preference for type of meditation. As the benefits of meditation
accrue over time, selecting a method that motivates sustained
practice is a critical objective if therapeutic effects are to be
achieved.

Design: A within-subjects comparison design was employed.

Participants: A convenience sample of 247 undergraduate university students participated in the study.
Intervention: Participants learned two open observing meditation techniquesVipassana (Mindfulness) and Zen, and two focused attention techniquesMantra and Qigong Visualization,

INTRODUCTION
Meditation in the United States
Meditation, as a self-regulatory mind-body practice, has been
used throughout the Far East for millennia. In the United States
the exploration of Eastern thought and meditation began to
emerge as a more prominent aspect of American culture following the end of World War II. During the 1950s and 1960s Zen
was being popularized through important American literary
works, such as the Beat Generation author Jack Kerouacs
Dharma Bums. Alan Watts and D. T. Suzuki were actively writing
and lecturing on Zen, and Shunryu Suzuki-roshi, founder of the
San Francisco Zen Center, arrived in the United States. In 1959,
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi landed in San Francisco as part of his
first world tour teaching Transcendental Meditation mantra
techniques. In 1968, a publication of research findings by Joe
Kamiya popularized alpha neurofeedback. In 1971, Ram Dass
wrote Be Here Now, and the first study on Transcendental Meditation was published in the American Journal of Physiology. In

1 Institute for Holistic Health Studies, Department of Health Education, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
# Corresponding Author. Address:
Institute for Holistic Health Studies, Department of Health Education, San
Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA
e-mail: aburke@sfsu.edu

2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved

ISSN 1550-8307/$36.00

Outcome Measures: Ranking of subjective preference of meditations practiced.

Results: A within subjects comparison revealed that significantly more participants chose Vipassana or Mantra meditation
as their preferred techniques compared with Qigong Visualization and Zen.

Key words: Meditation, comparative study, individual differences, Zen, mindfulness, qigong, mantra
(Explore 2012; 8:237-242. 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

1975, the Insight Meditation Society, a nonprofit Buddhist organization rooted in the Theravada tradition, was founded by
Joseph Goldstein and colleagues in Barre, MA. The 14th Dalai
Lama made his first visit to the United States in 1979. During the
ensuing decades interest in meditation and its diverse traditions
continued to grow. Two recent national surveys on complementary and alternative medicine have shown meditation to be one
of the top 10 most commonly used CAM therapies. A 2002
National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) reported that 7.6% of
the adult population was found to have practiced meditation
during the previous year.1 A subsequent 2007 NHIS study reported 9.4% use.2
Trends in Meditation Research
During this period a significant body of scientific literature has
also been generated on the subject of meditation. One indication of its growing importance to the scientific community was
the introduction of the term Meditation to the National Library of Medicine medical subject heading Database in 1996.
The term meditation in the PubMed database produces more
than 2000 citations, and the term meditation in titles produces
more than 900 citations. Searching these titles by specific meditation traditions shows trends in research over time that follow
the popular cultural interests in those traditions, from Zen in the
1950s, to Transcendental Meditation in the 1960s, and Mindfulness/Vipassana (also known Insight meditation) in the 1970s. A

EXPLORE July/August 2012, Vol. 8, No. 4 237

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2012.04.003

search for studies with Zen Meditation in the title results in 21

articles, published between 1965 and 2011; Transcendental
Meditation produces 206 articles, published between 1970 and
2011; and Mindfulness/Vipassana Meditation produces 89 articles published between 1982 and 2011. Many of these studies,
across diverse traditions, provide evidence of the beneficial effects of meditation on physical and mental health.3 In a review
of 400 meditation clinical trials conducted between 1956 and
2005, however, authors found the methodology of such trails to
be poor, but improving, and noted the need for continued rigor
in their design and execution.4
The Need for Comparative Research
Despite decades of research on meditation, there are very few
studies in which the authors compare specific styles with each
other in terms of unique psychological and neurological characteristics or clinical benefits. One of the rare early examples is a
study with Zen, Yoga, and Transcendental Meditation practitioners, comparing responses to an auditory stimuli.5 As evidence
of increasing interest in this issue, in several more recent studies
researchers compared meditation practices. In separate studies
participants practiced 2 methods to explore differential effects
on perceived pain intensity6 and cerebral blood flow.7 Differences between the meditation methods were observed in both
studies. In a third study investigators compared a convenience
sample of meditators who were practicing Mindfulness meditation or Transcendental Meditation. The authors examined selfreported differences in mindfulness and psychological well being. No between-group differences were observed, and the best
predictors of mindfulness and psychological well being were
frequency and duration of practice.8 Finally, there is very limited
work comparing types of meditation for clinical effectiveness
with various symptoms or behaviors. The problem with this lack
of comparative research is that single method studies do not
provide adequate information on potentially unique benefits for
specific clinical issues or with specific populations. For example,
in a systematic review of the literature on mindfulness meditation-based interventions for the treatment of substance use disorders, the authors found preliminary evidence for efficacy and
safety, but no information on who specifically would benefit
from such an intervention.9 As meditation becomes increasingly
accepted as an adjunctive therapy in clinical settings information
of this type becomes more important.10,11
In addition to the limited number of studies in which methods are compared, there are no studies in which authors compare
individual preferences for different types of meditation. Research on consumer healthcare decision making suggests that
individual preference is a key element in consumer choice and
satisfaction.1214 Knowledge of individual preference for type of
meditation could potentially lead to a better match between
individual and method and an improved compliance with practice over extended periods of time. Given the reported benefit
associated with regular and sustained practice this issue of adherence is important when considering meditation as a therapeutic
intervention.1517 To explore this topic a pilot study was conducted to compare 4 basic meditation techniques with a sample
of novice practitioners to determine whether hypothesized individual preferences for specific methods would be observed.

238 EXPLORE July/August 2012, Vol. 8, No. 4

METHODS
Design and Participants
A within-subjects design was used with a sample of 247 participants who learned 4 meditation techniques during a 6-week
period. Participants were a convenience sample of self-selected
undergraduate students enrolled in a semester-length university
course on meditation and imagery. They were juniors or seniors,
an average age of 28.0 (range 20-56, SD ! 7.8, mode 21), and
73% female. The majority (88%) had no significant previous
meditation experience (defined as meditation practice using a
specific method for 1 or more years). Of those who were currently practicing meditation, the majority cited mindfulness
meditation as their practice method. Because of class size limits
of 26 students per semester, 11 groups were recruited, with
groups ranging from 15 to 26 students. Recruiting multiple
groups also allowed for the rotation of the order of presentation
of the meditation techniques, reducing the chances of an order
effect. The order was varied in all but 1 of the 11 rotations.
Although randomization of techniques was not completely possible, because of the scheduling needs of the meditation centers
that participant groups visited during their training, the chances
of an open awareness or focused attention method being first,
second, third or fourth were comparable. The study was carried
out during a period of several years (2003 to 2009).
Meditation Practices
In the first class session the research project was explained and
consent obtained. Given the fact that all students had intentionally registered to take a for-credit university course on meditation, and that the research involved practicing meditation, participation was universal. The day-long meditation class met once
a week for 6 weeks for 48-hours total. In the first class students
were introduced to the concepts of meditation, its reported benefits, and were provided with general information on practice,
such as correct posture and length of practice. During the second
through fifth class sessions, the participants learned a new meditation technique each week. The course instructor (author)
would provide information on the technique for the week, lead
participants through the meditation, answer questions, and offer
guidance on correct practice. Additional resources were integrated into sessions to augment live instruction, including select
readings on each method and support materials such as audiovisual presentations by practitioners from the various traditions,
and site visits to related meditation centers when possible. Participants were asked to practice the new technique every day for
15 to 20 minutes. At the end of the week they came back to class
and practiced the weeks method again as a group. The method
was reviewed and any questions were answered. After a break, the
instructions for the next meditation method were given.
Participants learned 4 seated meditation methods2 open observing and 2 focused attention. The open observing methods were
a traditional Soto Zen meditation practice and a Theravada Vipassana practice. These methods involved generalized awareness of, or
attention to, momentary phenomenal experience. The Pali term
used in early Buddhist literature describes this as yatha bhuta or
observing reality as it is. The Zen practice included sitting with
generalized awareness and using the traditional zazen meditation
posture as a reference point for checking presence of mind. The

Individual Preferences with Four Meditations

Table 1. Participant Preferences for Method of Meditation1st to 4th Choice

1st Choice
Method
Mantra
Mindfulness
Qigong
Zen
a

Mean
a

2.27
2.22a
2.60
2.84

2nd Choice

3rd Choice

4th Choice

SD

Percent

Percent

Percent

Percent

1.11
1.10
1.11
1.10

77
77
54
36

31.6
31.6
22.0
14.8

64
67
52
56

26.8
28.0
21.8
23.4

52
59
68
55

22.2
25.2
29.1
23.5

45
35
64
90

19.1
15.0
27.4
38.5

Multiple comparisons: statistically significant difference with Qigong and Zen, P ! .05.

Vipassana method used silent observation of the breath as the primary locus of momentary awareness. It also included an inner selftalk component, mentally labeling secondary points of awareness as
they were recognized, followed by a return to breath observation.
(The term Vipassana is used in this article to denote a specific
Theravada Buddhist philosophy and practice instead of the more
common contemporary term Mindfulness because of an increasing divergence of meanings of the term mindfulness in the current
research literature.18,19)
The focused attention practices were a Qigong Visualization
method (Microcosmic Orbitfrom the Taoist tradition) and a
Mantra meditation method (from the Yoga tradition). These involved a concentrative focus on a specific object of meditation to
the exclusion of all other experiences. Both methods used a selfgenerated auditory and/or visual object. The Qigong Visualization
method used the dynamic image of a thin column of light rising
from the base of the spine up to the top of the head with the inhale,
and then descending down the front midline of the body to the
perineum with the exhale. The tip of the tongue lightly touched the
palate during the practice. The Mantra method used the image of a
stationary sphere of light located in the region of the heart. This was
accompanied by the mental repetition of a sound, or mantra. The
word Hum was thought once on the inhale. The word Sah was
thought on the exhale, either once or multiple times, with as much
automaticity as possible.
Data Collection
Participants recorded weekly practice information in a meditation
log, one log per method. Data was also collected at week 6, the final
class session, when a comprehensive practice was conducted. At
that time each method the group had learned was briefly reviewed.
The students were then guided into each meditation method and
that method was practiced silently for 10 minutes. This was performed for all 4 methods. At the end of each 10-minute session
participants spent several minutes recording their perceptions
about their meditation. Measures used for this final assessment were
simple Likert format self-report items with high face validity, and
response options ranging from strongly disagree to strongly
agree. Four questions asked about ease of practice, enjoyment,
subjective calm, and ability to maintain attention during the practice. When all 4 methods had been practiced, the participants were
also asked to report on their overall rating of personal preference for
each method. Descriptive statistics and nonparametric within
group comparisons were performed.

Individual Preferences with Four Meditations

RESULTS
Preferences for Specific Methods
During the final class session all 4 meditation methods were reviewed and then practiced for 10 minutes. Once this process was
completed, the participants were asked to rank order their preference for the styles practiced, from first choice (most preferred) to
fourth choice. In this sample a statistically significant difference was
found for individual preference with specific meditation techniques, !2(9) ! 54.4, P " .001. After multiple comparisons of the 4
methods, we found 2 of them to be more commonly selected as the
preferred first choice: Vipassanaan open observing method, and
Mantraa focused attention method (Table 1). In both cases 77
participants (31.6%) rated 1 of these 2 methods as their first choice.
There was no significant preference for either of the 2 methods
compared with each other. There was also no significant difference
between the other 2 methods compared with each other, Zen and
Qigong Visualization. Although the latter two methods were less
preferred in this sample it does merit noting that 22.0% and 14.8%
of participants ranked Qigong Visualization and Zen as their first
choices, respectively.
Additional Observations
Participants reported that during their weekly practice sessions
they meditated an average of 15.2 minutes per day (SD 4.9), and
5.3 days per week (SD 1.7). They were asked to rate each method
in terms of perceived ease of practice, enjoyment, subjective
calm, and ability to maintain attention during the practice. In
each case a similar statistically significant pattern was noted, with
Vipassana and Mantra meditations reported as easier to practice
(P ! .05), more enjoyable (P ! .05), and more calming (P ! .05)
than Qigong Visualization or Zen (Table 2). In terms of whether

Table 2. Participant Perceptions of Meditation Practice Attributes

Method

Ease

Enjoyment

Calming

Sustainable
Focus

Mantra
Mindfulness
Qigong
Zen

3.69a
3.79a
3.37
3.18

4.13a
4.12a
3.81
3.66

4.19a
4.24a
3.91
3.93

3.33
3.31
3.38
2.99b

Multiple comparisons:
a
Statistically significant difference from Qigong and Zen, P ! .05.
b
Statistically significant difference from Mantra, Mindfulness and Qigong,
P ! .05.

EXPLORE July/August 2012, Vol. 8, No. 4 239

Table 3. First Choice of Meditation Method by Demographic Characteristics

Percent Female

Average Age

Method

1st

Not 1st

Significance

1st

Not 1st

Significance

Mantra
Mindfulness
Qigong
Zen

75
75
72
69

72
73
73
74

0.69
0.76
0.89
0.54

28.1
26.5
28.4
31.3

28.2
28.9
28.2
27.7

0.91
0.04a
0.86
0.02a

Statistically significant.

participants felt that they were able to successfully sustain their

meditative focus during each of the methods practiced, the only
significant difference was between Zen and the other 3 methods,
with participants reporting that they felt least able to sustain
object focus with Zen (P ! .05). This was an appropriate response because the Zen practice had no specific object, although
the zazen meditation posture could ostensibly be used in that
fashion. Participants were also asked if they intended to continue
to practice meditation on a regular basis after the conclusion of
the final class. They responded using a 5-item Likert-type scale
ranging from 0 (definitely not) to 4 (definitely yes). The average
response was 3.5, indicating that a majority of students definitely
intended to continue meditation practice. Finally, a comparison
was done among the 4 methods to examine differences in demographic characteristics between those who selected a particular
method as their first choice compared with those who did not.
Within each meditation there were no observed differences for
gender. For age, however, it was found that younger participants
were more likely to select Vipassana as their first choice and
older participants to select Zen as their first. There were no age
differences for the Mantra of Qigong methods (Table 3).

DISCUSSION
Study Limitations
There are a number of factors that limit the interpretation of
findings, including the use of a nonrepresentative convenience
sample of self-selected participants from a single large urban
university. Also, data were collected using simple self-report variables, although the variables chosen all possessed high face validity and were directly and parsimoniously related to the specific outcome of interestindividual preference. Because of class
size enrollment limits, the study was conducted over a period of
several years to accrue a large enough sample. This method of
enrolling participants over time could be affected by natural
history. Indeed, this study presumes that natural history influences the popularity of specific meditation methods during specific periods, so a history affect could reasonably be expected in
any meditation study. In this specific case, the presumed bias
would favor a Mindfulness approach (Vipassana), which is the
meditation method receiving the greatest attention in media and
research for at least the last decade. For example, during the
course of this study there has been significant growth in the
clinical use of hospital-based mindfulness instruction20 and
mindfulness as a component of psychotherapy with depression,
eating disorders and other conditions.21,22

240 EXPLORE July/August 2012, Vol. 8, No. 4

Also, an analysis of the data was conducted to see whether there

were any notable differences across time. The 11 groups were combined to form 3 equivalent-sized consecutive clusters, and participants first choice techniques were then compared across the three
time periods. No statistically significant differences in first choice
technique were observed, !2(6) ! 10.0, P ! .125. Finally, one
instructor taught all meditation methods and was not blind to
method taught. This could potentially be improved by using consensus-based meditation formats agreed upon by an expert panel
and providing instruction in a prerecorded format. It should be
noted that the instructor has more than 30 years of experience
practicing and teaching meditation, and does not exclusively practice any one of the four methods used in the study. Also, resources
such as video recordings of tradition experts were used to provide
additional information on the methods taught, as well as site visits
to related meditation centers when possible.
The Importance of User Preference
Despite these limits, this pilot study provides information showing user preference for specific meditation methods, suggesting
the need for more research in this area of healthcare. Results of
this study indicate a preference for both open observing and
focused attention approaches to meditation. Given the growing
popularity of mindfulness meditation, an open observing
method, there may be a presumed bias that this is an effective
method for all novice practitioners. With the transitory popularity of any method, as evidenced in the social and research
trends over the past 50 years, it is useful for researchers, teachers,
and practitioners to recognize that there may be differences in
individual preference for meditation techniques. Bandura23
notes that learner self-efficacy with any new behavior is an important element of sustained effort. Consequently, a proper fit
between the individual and the method may help to increase
comfort with the method, perceived self-efficacy, and consequently, maintenance of practice over time.
The majority of students found the Vipassana and Mantra
methods to be the most compelling. Both methods, as implemented in this study, used breathing as a central element. The
difference was that breath in the Mantra method was comingled
with a self-generated visual and auditory object. Breath in Vipassana, by comparison, was a simpler observation of the actual
phenomena of breathing as it is. It is plausible that the Mantra
method may be providing a higher order of distraction or involvement for novice practitioners, as the brain/mind are actively creating and actively attending. In their self-reports some
students noted a preference for this technique as it provided

Individual Preferences with Four Meditations

them with extra mental engagement, while others preferred the

more minimalist observation of breathing in Vipassana.
What also stood out in this study, besides the fact that an
open observing and a focused attention method tied for first
choice, was that an open and a focused method were also the last
choices. What distinguished the first 2 methods from the last 2,
at least in part, was the degree of complexity. Comparing the two
closed focused methods, the Qigong Visualization method used
a more specified and dynamic visualization than the Mantra
method, which employed a stationary, less-specified image.
With the open awareness methods, although both Vipassana
and Zen are open, Zen is by contrast, completely open and
unspecified, and by default much more abstract conceptually
and practically. Zen is often known for its recondite quality,
epitomized by the koan practice of the Rinzai School. The practice of shikantaza, just sitting with the mind directed to no
object, although a superb practice, can be quite challenging for
new students to comprehend or implement. Consumer research
has shown that perceived competence with a purchased product
affects satisfaction and use.24 26 For novice meditators the degree of competence/satisfaction could be a decisive factor in
continued use of a new meditation method. A second interesting
finding was the difference in ages for first choice in Zen (older
students) and Vipassana (younger students). This matches the
hypothesis that meditations have their moment of cultural relevance and are then eclipsed by newer methods. In this case Zen,
being one of the first meditation methods to gain cultural attention in the United States should logically have the oldest adherents, whereas mindfulness, being the most recent, should have
the youngest. This was observed in the data.

CONCLUSIONS
These results speak to the value of providing novice practitioners
with a simple object of meditation and an accessible conceptual
framework for practice. In this study, breath served as a common
object of focused attention in the Mantra meditation method
and of open awareness in the Vipassana method. It should be
noted that Vipassana meditation, an open observing method, is
frequently introduced to new practitioners by way of breath as a
primary locus of awareness. The very important sutra teaching of
the Theravada tradition, the Anapanasati Sutta, or Discourse on
Mindfulness of Breath, reflects this central role. It must also be
noted again, that 22% and 15% of participants, respectively
ranked Qigong Visualization and Zen as their first choices, indeed in part because of the higher degree of specificity of Qigong
Visualization and the openness of Zen, according to student
self-reports. These methods were not without their adherents.
Individual preferences were again clearly evident.
Perhaps the evolution of diverse meditation forms reflects the
fact that individuals differ in cognitive styles, such as a preference for analytical or intuitive thinking. Crawford and colleagues,27 for example, found that those who could be hypnotized easily had a markedly greater capacity for sustained and
focused attention, and absorption, compared with those who
could not. As research in this area matures, it will be useful to
examine the potential similarities and differences among traditions. Such comparisons may shed light on unique human ca-

Individual Preferences with Four Meditations

pacities potentiated by specific meditation methods, and reveal

the possible shared mechanisms and benefits common to all
traditions. It could also inform differential use of specific meditation methods for specific symptoms, conditions, and behaviors. Although diverse, there are many shared similarities underlying the surface differences, such as use of breath, attention and
posture.28 Perhaps in the end it is not so much the path one
takes, but how one progresses along the way. Ultimately, promoting commitment to regular practice, in whatever style an
individual finds most compelling, is a useful goal.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks the San Francisco Zen Center, Spirit Rock
Meditation Center, Tse Chen Ling Tibetan Buddhist Center,
and the Sivananda Yoga Vedanta Center for graciously allowing
our students to visit.

REFERENCES
1. Barnes PM, Powell-Griner E, McFann K, Nahin RL. Complementary
and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adults: United States, 2002.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2004.
2. Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL. Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adults and Children: United States, 2007. Hyattsville,
MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2008.
3. Murphy M, Donovan S, Taylor E. The Physical and Psychological Effects of Meditation: A Review of Contemporary Research With a Comprehensive Bibliography, 1931-1996. Petaluma, CA: Institute of Noetic
Sciences; 1997.
4. Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh M, et al. Clinical trials of meditation practices in health care: characteristics and quality. J Altern
Complement Med. 2008;14:1199-1213.
5. Becker DE, Shapiro D. Physiological responses to clicks during Zen,
yoga, and TM meditation. Psychophysiology. 1981;18:694-699.
6. Perlman DM, Salomons TV, Davidson RJ, Lutz A. Differential effects on pain intensity and unpleasantness of two meditation practices. Emotion. 2010;10:65-71.
7. Wang DJ, Rao H, Korczykowski M, et al. Cerebral blood flow
changes associated with different meditation practices and perceived
depth of meditation. Psychiatry Res. 2011;191:60-67.
8. Schoormans D, Nyklcek I. Mindfulness and psychologic well-being: are they related to type of meditation technique practiced? J
Altern Complement Med. 2011;17:629-634.
9. Zgierska A, Rabago D, Chawla N, Kushner K, Koehler R, Marlatt A.
Mindfulness meditation for substance use disorders: a systematic
review. Subst Abus. 2009;30:266-294.
10. Dakwar E, Levin FR. The emerging role of meditation in addressing
psychiatric illness, with a focus on substance use disorders. Harv Rev
Psychiatry. 2009;17:254-267.
11. Fortney L, Taylor M. Meditation in medical practice: a review of the
evidence and practice. Prim Care. 2010;37:81-90.
12. Burke A, Kuo T, Harvey R, Wang J. An international comparison of
attitudes toward traditional and modern medicine in a Chinese and
an American clinic setting. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2011;
2011:204137.
13. Shannon S, Weil A, Kaplan B. Medical decision making in integrative medicine: safety, efficacy, and patient preference. Altern Complement Ther. 2011;17:84-91.
14. Thompson CJ, Troester M. Consumer value systems in the age of
postmodern fragmentation: the case of the natural health microculture. J Consum Res. 2002;28:550-571.

EXPLORE July/August 2012, Vol. 8, No. 4 241

15. Baron Short E, Kose S, Mu Q, et al. Regional brain activation during

meditation shows time and practice effects: an exploratory FMRI
study. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2010;7:121-127.
16. Luders E, Toga AW, Lepore N, Gaser C. The underlying anatomical
correlates of long-term meditation: larger hippocampal and frontal
volumes of gray matter. Neuroimage. 2009;45:672-678.
17. Lutz A, Slagter HA, Rawlings NB, Francis AD, Greischar LL, Davidson RJ. Mental training enhances attentional stability: neural and
behavioral evidence. J Neurosci. 2009;29:13418-13427.
18. Chiesa A, Malinowski P. Mindfulness-based approaches: are they all
the same? J Clin Psychol. 2011;67:404-424.
19. Mikulas WL. Mindfulness: significant common confusions. Mindfulness. 2011;2:1-7.
20. Center for Mindfulness. Umass Medical School. Available at: http://
www.umassmed.edu/cfm/home/index.aspx. Accessed July 11, 2011.
21. Segal ZV, Williams JMG, Teasdale JD. Mindfulness-Based Cognitive
Therapy for Depression: A New Approach to Preventing Relapse. New
York: Guilford Press; 2002.

242 EXPLORE July/August 2012, Vol. 8, No. 4

22. The Center for Mindful Eating. Available at: http://www.tcme.org/

board/j_kristeller.htm. Accessed July 17, 2011.
23. Bandura A. Self-Efficacy: the Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman;
1997.
24. Robert A. Westbrook consumer satisfaction as a function of personal competence/efficacy. J Acad Mark Sci. 1980;8:427-437.
25. Ellen PS, Bearden WO, Sharma S. Resistance to technological innovations: an examination of the role of self-efficacy and performance satisfaction. J Acad Mark Sci. 1991;19:297-307.
26. Wood SL, Moreau CP. From fear to loathing? How emotion influences the evaluation and early use of innovations. J Mark. 2006;70:
44-57.
27. Crawford HJ, Brown AM, Moon CE. Sustained attentional and
disattentional abilities: differences between low and highly hypnotizable persons. J Abnorm Psychol. 1993;102:534-543.
28. Burke A. Meditation styles: Common features and distinguishing
characteristics. Biofeedback. 2004;32:13-15.

Individual Preferences with Four Meditations