See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328886088

Interpersonal Mindfulness: Scale Development and Initial Construct

Validation

Article  in  Mindfulness · November 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s12671-018-1057-2

CITATIONS READS

0 125

4 authors:

Steven Pratscher Phillip Karl Wood

University of Missouri University of Missouri
2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION    140 PUBLICATIONS   6,824 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Laura A King B. Ann Bettencourt

University of Missouri University of Missouri
126 PUBLICATIONS   10,669 CITATIONS    56 PUBLICATIONS   3,295 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mindfulness and Interpersonal relationships as well as intergroup relations View project

Elevated rate of alcohol consumption in borderline personality disorder patients in daily life View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Steven Pratscher on 15 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Mindfulness
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1057-2

ORIGINAL PAPER

Interpersonal Mindfulness: Scale Development and Initial

Construct Validation
Steven D. Pratscher 1 & Phillip K. Wood 1 & Laura A. King 1 & B. Ann Bettencourt 1

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Existing trait mindfulness scales primarily assess mindfulness as it occurs outside interpersonal contexts. To more fully under-
stand the possible relational benefits of mindfulness, the authors propose the construct of interpersonal mindfulness—
mindfulness as it occurs during interpersonal interactions. The current work describes psychometric development and evaluation
of an individual difference measure of interpersonal mindfulness, the interpersonal mindfulness scale (IMS). Exploratory and
confirmatory multigroup factor analyses across five independent samples (N = 2085) revealed a hierarchical solution in which
four first-order factors were components of a single higher-order interpersonal mindfulness factor. The four resulting subscales
were named Presence, Awareness of Self and Others, Nonjudgmental Acceptance, and Nonreactivity. Study 2 showed acceptable
test–retest reliability of the IMS over a 1-month period, and study 3 revealed that, among experienced meditation practitioners,
greater years of meditation practice, frequency of meditation practice, and number of meditation retreats attended were associated
with higher IMS scores. Study 4 provided evidence for convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity of the IMS using
partial correlations, partialling out the shared variance of trait mindfulness, with intrapersonal, interpersonal, and relationship
functioning variables. The value of this measure and construct for stimulating future research on the social consequences of being
mindful while interacting with others is discussed with special regard to understanding the context of healthy relationships.

Keywords Interpersonal mindfulness . Mindfulness . Measurement . Scale . Social relationships . Structural equation modeling

The rapidly expanding field of mindfulness research has pri-
marily focused on the individual. By contrast, much less is
known about mindfulness as it occurs within the interpersonal
context. Formal meditation is often an internal, solitary prac-
tice adopted to cultivate mindfulness, but the fruit of the prac-
tice is to bring that quality of being into everyday life. The
multitude of interpersonal interactions that occur in daily life
present opportunities for people to be mindful during these
exchanges. We propose the construct of interpersonal mind-
fulness as a means for understanding the process of
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-018-1057-2) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* B. Ann Bettencourt
Bettencourta@missouri.edu
1
Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, 104A
McAlester Hall, 320 S. 6th Street, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
mindfulness during interpersonal interactions and highlight
the need for a scale to measure it.
Mindfulness is a quality of consciousness characterized by
receptive attention and awareness of moment-to-moment experi-
ences (Brown and Ryan 2003). This definition aligns with the
operationalization outlined by Bishop et al. (2004) in which
mindfulness consists of self-regulation of attention and an open,
curious, and accepting orientation toward the present.
Specifically, BIn a state of mindfulness, thoughts and feelings
are observed as events in the mind, without over-identifying with
them and without reacting to them in an automatic, habitual
pattern of reactivity. This dispassionate state of self-observation
is thought to introduce a Bspace^ between one’s perception and
response^ (Bishop et al. 2004, p. 232).
Some scholars (e.g., Thera 1994; Commentary 4) have
interpreted the Satipatthana Sutta, also referred to as The
Four Foundations of Mindfulness, as instructing meditation
practitioners to be mindful of their own inner experiences as
well as the experiences of others. The four foundations of
mindfulness include the body, feelings, mind, and Bdhamas^
(Goldstein 2016). For example, the instructions for

mindfulness of mind states is translated by Nyanasatta Thera
as BThus he [she] lives contemplating mental objects in mental
objects internally, or he [she] lives contemplating mental ob-
jects in mental objects externally, or he [she] lives contemplat-
ing mental objects in mental objects internally and externally.^
With respect to the word Bexternally,^ Nyanasatta Thera sug-
gests that the meaning is that one would be mindful of the
mental objects of another, where mental objects include,
among other experiences, thoughts and emotions. Also, right
or wise speech is a core component of Buddhism’s Eightfold
Path. Presumably, practicing wise speech involves being
mindful of one’s words. Additionally, meditation scholars
and teachers, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi (2016) and Kramer
(2007), have written books on the topic of mindfulness in
social interactions and relationships. As such, the concept of
interpersonal mindfulness is theoretically linked back to
Buddhist texts and more contemporary writing.
There are many ways mindfulness may manifest in interper-
sonal interactions. Perhaps the most readily observable example
is giving undivided attention to another person who is speaking.
This mindful presence, or self-regulation of listening, Ballows us
to release limiting structures that include ingrained emotional
responses based on past experience, an inability to hear accurate-
ly what someone is saying based on anticipation of what is ex-
pected to come, and misinterpretation of emotional signals be-
cause of an ongoing internal narrative that distorts and confuses
the ability to see clearly^ (Parker et al. 2015, p. 232). Mindful
listening not only involves maintaining attention to the external
environment (i.e., the speaker) but also involves remaining pres-
ent in one’s body and nonjudgmentally and nonreactively ob-
serving one’s own internal experiences. With a quality of aware-
ness and full attention to interpersonal interactions, mindfulness
may promote attunement to other’s thoughts and feelings by
sensing more subtle cues and nonverbal communication
(Brown et al. 2007).
Interpersonal mindfulness can be defined as follows: when
people are interpersonally mindful, they maintain a receptive
awareness of what is going on during interpersonal interac-
tions, moment-by-moment. They are aware of their own
thoughts, emotions, feelings, bodily sensations, experiences,
and intentions as the interaction occurs. At the same time, they
pay attention to what seems to be Bgoing on^ with the other
person, picking up clues through, not only what is said or done
but also the other person’s apparent mood, verbal tone, and
body language. Because interpersonal interactions often in-
volve talking and listening, likely components of interpersonal
mindfulness are being aware and attentive as well as accepting
and responsive (i.e., not thoughtlessly reactive) during
conversations.
Research using trait and state mindfulness measures, as
well as interventions, demonstrate the value of considering
mindfulness in social contexts. Theoretical (e.g., Block-
Lerner et al. 2007; Gambrel and Keeling 2010; Kozlowski
Mindfulness
2013) and empirical (e.g., Dekeyser et al. 2008; MacDonald
and Price 2017; Wachs and Cordova 2007) work supports the
link between mindfulness and empathy—an ability vital for
successful social functioning and healthier relationships.
Moreover, mindfulness-based interventions are effective for
treating social anxiety (e.g., Goldin et al. 2017). Research
suggests that mindfulness also provides relational benefits
within the context of romantic relationships. Correlational
studies have shown that higher levels of trait mindfulness
are associated with greater relationship satisfaction (e.g.,
Barnes et al. 2007; Khaddouma et al. 2015) and marital qual-
ity (e.g., Lenger et al. 2017; Wachs and Cordova 2007;
Williams and Cano 2014). Furthermore, mindfulness-based
couple interventions have been shown to enhance relationship
functioning (e.g., Carson et al. 2004).
Researchers have also examined how mindfulness prac-
tices may be embedded within social interactions (Singer
et al. 2016). For example, Kok and Singer (2017) exam-
ined the effects of two newly developed types of dyadic
meditation practices: one that trained active, compassion-
ate, and empathic listening skills and one that trained
socio-cognitive abilities such as perspective taking on self
and others. These trainings included daily electronic dyad-
ic interactions, in addition to weekly face-to-face contem-
plative dyad interactions. Engagement in either of these
practices led to increases over time in self-disclosure and
feelings of social closeness.
Given the challenge of remaining attentive to not only one-
self but also to another person, interpersonal mindfulness may
draw upon skills and attributes not assessed in trait mindful-
ness scales. For the most part, items within trait mindfulness
scales do not ask respondents to specifically consider interper-
sonal contexts. Arguably, understanding the ways in which
mindfulness influences social interactions and relationships
requires a scale that directly assesses mindfulness as it occurs
in interpersonal interactions.
The scope of existing trait mindfulness scales is limited in
their capacity to predict behavior during dyadic interactions.
That is, research suggests that mindfulness that occurs in the
moment-to-moment unfolding of social interactions (i.e., state
mindfulness) is more strongly related than trait mindfulness to
relationship outcomes (e.g., Barnes et al. 2007). In college
dating couples who were videotaped while discussing rela-
tionship conflict problems, only state mindfulness predicted
objective video-coded communication quality while trait
mindfulness predicted individuals’ post-conflict anxiety and
anger-hostility. Laurent et al. (2016) also coded behavior dur-
ing couple interactions and found that state mindfulness dur-
ing the discussion was associated with quicker cortisol recov-
ery in the presence of negative partner behaviors, suggesting
that being mindful during interpersonal conflict can enhance
emotion regulation. Although measuring state mindfulness
during social interactions has value for some research
Mindfulness
questions, such scales are less useful for assessing longitudinal
changes in the way people interact with others.
Previous studies that have examined mindfulness scales
adapted to specific situations and social roles show that these
tailored mindfulness measures are useful for uncovering
domain-specific benefits. For instance, researchers have de-
vised measures of mindfulness pertinent to interpersonal do-
mains, such as mindful parenting (Duncan 2007) and mindful
teaching (Frank et al. 2016). Of particular interest, the
Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale (Duncan 2007)
was created to examine the effects of mindful parenting and
includes five dimensions: B(a) listening with full attention; (b)
nonjudgmental acceptance of self and child; (c) emotional
awareness of self and child; (d) self-regulation in the parenting
relationship; and (e) compassion for self and child^ (Duncan
et al. 2009, p. 258). Our definition of interpersonal mindful-
ness is similar to that of mindful parenting with the primary
difference being the exclusion of a compassion component in
our conceptualization. We refrained from explicitly including
compassion in our definition because we did not want to in-
troduce criterion contamination (Messick 1995); compassion
may be better considered as an outcome rather than a compo-
nent of the definition (e.g., Baer et al. 2006). Research has
shown that scores on the mindful parenting scale are associ-
ated with better quality parent–child relationships, through
improved communication quality (Lippold et al. 2015) and
with more positive affective behavior as well as less negative
affective behavior toward children (Coatsworth et al. 2010).
Importantly, this context-specific measure of mindfulness dur-
ing parent–child interactions was more diagnostic of adaptive
maternal and child cortisol levels after a stressful shared task
than was trait mindfulness (Laurent et al. 2017). Although
tailoring mindfulness measures to specific types of social re-
lationships (e.g., parent–child and teacher–student) has value,
they are then relevant only to the social roles and activities to
which they apply. Given the broad array of social interactions
in which people are likely to engage, a more Ball purpose^
measure may be more useful in broader contexts or as a gen-
eral interindividual difference.
The promise of the endeavor to develop a scale that
measures mindfulness during interpersonal interactions is
demonstrated by a pair of studies that included an initial
index of interpersonal mindfulness, which was derived
from trait mindfulness scales (Pratscher et al. 2018).
These studies suggested that interpersonal mindfulness
was positively associated with friendship quality, while
controlling for trait mindfulness. That is, interpersonal
mindfulness was a unique predictor of the interpersonal
outcome of friendship quality. Additionally, the second
study revealed that perspective taking and psychological
need satisfaction in the friend role, fully mediated the re-
lationship between interpersonal mindfulness and friend-
ship quality. Although the psychometric properties of the
initial scale were acceptable, ground-up development of a
fully articulated scale was the appropriate next step.
The goal of the current work was to articulate the construct
of interpersonal mindfulness and develop a corresponding in-
terpersonal mindfulness scale (IMS) focused specifically on
mindfulness within the context of interpersonal interactions.
The work consists of a series of studies that investigated the
psychometric properties of the IMS. In study 1, we described
the process of item generation, scale development, and scale
refinement. Although we expected multiple components to be
identified, we sought to create a scale that might be useful as
an aggregate representation of the broad construct of interper-
sonal mindfulness. Study 2 tested the temporal stability of the
IMS, and study 3 investigated the correlations between IMS
scores and self-reports of meditation practices among a sam-
ple of meditation practitioners. To provide further evidence of
construct validity that the IMS measures interpersonal mind-
fulness, study 4 examined correlations of the IMS with other
theoretically relevant scales.
Study 1
Method
Participants
Table 1 reports demographics and descriptive statistics for all of
the samples (A–E). Attention checks were embedded throughout
the questionnaire (e.g., Bto prove you are a human responder
please choose the BAlmost Always^ option^); participants were
dropped from the dataset if they failed to answer at least half of
the checks correctly. Undergraduate students were compensated
with course credit, and Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk)
workers received monetary compensation.
Procedure
Participants consented to take an online survey and were
asked to complete the IMS as well as other measures used
for construct validation. Samples A and B contained the initial
item pool of 42 items. After removing items and adding new
items (for reasons explicated below), participants in sample C
and D responded to a revised pool of 38 items. In all samples,
participants rated the frequency that their experience
corresponded to each statement on a Likert-type scale (1 =
Almost Never to 5 = Almost Always).
Initial Item Generation The first and last author generated a pool
of 49 items taking into consideration the proposed definition of
interpersonal mindfulness and the dimensions represented by
widely used measures of mindfulness (i.e., attention,
description, observation, nonjudgment, and nonreactivity;
 Mindfulness

Table 1 Demographic characteristics by sample

Characteristic Sample A Sample B Sample C Sample D Sample E Study 3

N 452 256 340 961 120 66

Sample composition MTurk College students College students MTurk MTurk Dharma Center
Age range 18–87 18–22 18–27 18–75 18–58 18–78
Age mean (SD) 40.9 (14.0) 18.6 (0.9) 19.0 (1.1) 35.5 (11.7) 33.3 (8.4) 52.88 (14.8)
Female (%) 58.0 71.5 60.3 44.0 47.5 66.7
Ethnicity n (%)
White/Caucasian 403 (89.2) 216 (84.4) 278 (81.8) 431 (44.8) 69 (57.5) 62 (93.9)
African American 2 (0.4) 12 (4.7) 22 (6.5) 46 (4.8) 10 (8.3) 1 (1.5)
Asian American 27 (6.0) 9 (3.5) 9 (2.6) 100 (10.4) 13 (10.8) 1 (1.5)
Hispanic American 1 (0.2) 4 (1.6) 11 (3.2) 46 (4.8) 23 (19.2) 1 (1.5)
Not a US citizen – – – 283 (29.4) – –
Other 15 (3.3) 15 (5.8) 16 (4.7) 55 (5.7) 5 (4.2) 1 (1.5)

Quaglia et al. 2016), as well as Baer’s (2011) recommendations
for mindfulness questionnaire construction and Clark and
Watson’s (1995) recommendations for scale construction. Six
of these items were from our initial version of the scale
(Pratscher et al. 2018). One of the items was taken almost ver-
batim from the Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale (MAAS)
(BI find myself listening to someone with one ear, doing some-
thing else at the same time.^; Brown and Ryan 2003), and other
items were adapted from known measures of mindfulness (e.g.,
Baer et al. 2004) to pertain to interpersonal interactions.
We generated items to represent four theoretical categories
derived from our working definition. Items for the first category
focused on paying attention to the present moment while
interacting with others and also included items relating to aware-
ness of one’s own and other’s experience during interpersonal
interactions. The second category of items was created to char-
acterize a nonjudgmental attitude of acceptance toward present
moment experiences while interacting with others. The third cat-
egory of items reflected pausing before responding and
nonreactivity to present moment emotions and experiences while
interacting with another person. The fourth category of items
captured the three previous dimensions in the context of listening
and speaking, which we called mindful dialog.
To assess the degree to which the items of the scale were
relevant to and representative of interpersonal mindfulness
(i.e., content validity; Haynes et al. 1995), we sent our defini-
tion, scale instructions, and generated items to several experts,
including a Buddhist meditation teacher who gives talks on
the topic of mindfulness in relationships, a Buddhist medita-
tion instructor who teaches MBSR and insight dialog (a form
of dyadic meditation practice; Kramer 2007), another
Buddhist meditation practitioner, and a psychometrician who
also is a meditation practitioner and certified in dialectical
behavior therapy. The experts confirmed that the majority of
items included content assessing each of the four domains as
intended. According to their informal written feedback, seven
items were discarded and one item was reworded. Although
the experts were given the opportunity to generate additional
items as another way to ensure the items sufficiently represent
the breadth of the construct, no additional items were offered,
resulting in an initial pool of 42 items.
Data Analyses
Prior to conducting structural analyses (i.e., exploratory factor
analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)), the
generated items were examined for item-criterion correlations
(e.g., Clark and Watson 1995) with trait mindfulness (TM)
affective empathy, cognitive empathy, authenticity, emotional
intelligence, and neuroticism. These criteria were chosen be-
cause they are constructs related to mindfulness (e.g., Brown
and Ryan 2003) and are interpersonal processes or outcomes
that should theoretically be associated with interpersonal
mindfulness. Because a goal of study 1 was to identify latent
factors accounting for the common variance among the mea-
sured variables, EFA was performed with SPSS version 23.0
using iterative principal axis factoring with Promax rotation.
Because missing data was less than 1%, we followed SPSS
procedures of listwise deletion, such that if a participant fails
to answer one or more items in the scale, data from those
participants are removed from the analysis. The scree plot
and factor interpretability were the criteria used to determine
the number of factors to retain. A minimum loading of 0.40
was used as the cutoff for an item to be considered part of a
factor. The multigroup CFA was conducted in MPlus (Muthén
and Muthén 1998–2010).
Results
Items not significantly and positively related to empathy, au-
thenticity, emotional intelligence, and mindfulness or which
Mindfulness
were not significantly and negatively related to neuroticism
were considered for removal. Of the 42 items, 10 were
discarded because they either did not correlate in the expected
direction with the criteria or were determined to be theoreti-
cally inadequate by the authors. We sought to reduce the num-
ber of items because the initial item pool was generated to be
broader and more inclusive than our theoretical view of the
construct.
Exploratory Factor Analysis
Factor analysis of sample A on the remaining 32 items re-
vealed three or four factors that appeared an adequate fit to
the data. When allowing four factors, the items within each
factor, in general, appeared to correspond with the theoretical
categories upon which they were based. After inspection,
three items were removed because they did not load onto a
factor or cross-loaded onto more than one factor; four items
were removed because their content did not correspond with
the theoretical meaningfulness of the factor on which they
loaded. The factor analysis was then re-conducted on this
smaller subset of 25 items and six more items were discarded;
five items that did not load onto a factor and one item to
reduce redundancy of the content of factor 1. The resulting
19 item simple four factor solution was theoretically consis-
tent with the working definition of interpersonal mindfulness
and explained 61.65% of the variance. Factor loadings and
subscale reliabilities are shown in Table S1. An identical
four-factor solution was replicated in sample B, with the ex-
ception of one item cross-loading on factors 1 and 2 and one
item loading below threshold on factor 4, which explained
54.87% of the variance. Coefficient alpha for the total scale
was 0.88 and 0.84 for samples A and B, respectively, and no
increase in alpha was detected if any item were deleted.
The four-factor structure was largely consistent with our
working definition and the conceptual categories used to gen-
erate items. Specifically, factor 1, which we labeled Presence
represented paying attention to the present moment while
interacting with another person. Factor 2, Awareness of Self
and Others, consisted of seven items dealing with noticing
one’s own moods and emotions and being aware of the moods
and nonverbal cues of others during an interpersonal interac-
tion. Factor 3, Nonjudgmental Acceptance, included three
items referring to listening without judgment and accepting
interpersonal experiences as they occur. Factor 4,
Nonreactivity, included two items about taking time to re-
spond instead of thoughtlessly reacting to another person.
Factors 1 and 2 comprised 14 of the 19 items of the scale
which seemed representative of the construct, because present
moment attention and awareness in interpersonal interactions
are central to being interpersonally mindful. Factors 3 and 4
had low internal consistency and presented psychometric
problems because it is recommend that a factor should have
at the very minimum three indicators (e.g., Floyd and
Widaman 1995). Because nonjudgmental acceptance and
nonreactivity are conceptually important qualities of interper-
sonal mindfulness, instead of removing factors 3 and 4, we
further refined the scale by generating additional items to im-
prove the representation of the construct, stability of the sub-
scales, and overall internal consistency of the scale (Smith and
McCarthy 1995).
Nineteen additional items were generated with the goal of
fleshing out the subscales. We used the same psychometric
procedure in sample C as with sample A to decide what items
to retain and discard. First, we examined item-criterion corre-
lations with TM, active–empathic listening, and relationship
satisfaction. The remaining items were subjected to an EFA
and examined for internal consistency reliability. Items that
did not highly load onto only one factor, that loaded onto a
theoretically inconsistent factor, or that had low item-total
correlations were removed, resulting in a final scale of 27
items.
Additional items loaded onto the Nonjudgmental
Acceptance, Nonreactivity, and Awareness of Self and
Others subscales, which resulted in the recommended mini-
mum of at least four items per subscale. Reliability estimates
for and correlations between the subscales of the IMS in sam-
ples C and D are presented in Table 2. As a result of scale
refinement, the internal consistency of the total IMS and the
last two subscales improved. All subscales significantly cor-
related with each other and the total interpersonal mindfulness
score. The 27 items together explained 48.34% and 49.74% of
the variance in samples C and D, respectively. Table 3 shows
the 27 items identified by the subscales.
Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A multigroup CFA across the five samples (N = 2085), with each
sample as a group, investigated the degree to which the four
factors of the IMS could be parsimoniously summarized via a
hierarchical factor model. Table 3 shows the standardized load-
ings associated with this hierarchical factor model for group 4
(sample D), which was the largest sample. In this model, factor
loadings were constrained to equality across all groups, manifest
variable intercepts were freely estimated and held to equality
across all groups, and one of the items within each factor was
fixed to unity in order to secure a mathematically identified so-
lution. For group 4, means of the higher-order Interpersonal
Mindfulness factor (superfactor) and subfactors were fixed to
zero to secure a mathematically identified solution. In addition,
in order to secure an identified solution for the superfactor, the
variance was fixed to one for the fourth group as well.
Examination of modification indices in initial models revealed
that the item BBefore I speak, I am aware of the intentions behind
what I am trying to say.^ cross-loaded weakly on the Awareness
of Self and Others factor as well as the Nonreactivity factor
 Mindfulness

Table 2 Reliabilities and correlations of the IMS and subscales from sample C and sample D

Presence Awareness of Self and Nonjudgmental Nonreactivity Interpersonal

Others Acceptance Mindfulness

Presence 0.78, 0.81 0.29 0.33 0.32 0.64

Awareness 0.36 0.84, 0.86 0.54 0.64 0.85
Nonjudgmental 0.35 0.49 0.65, 0.71 0.61 0.74
Acceptance
Nonreactivity 0.32 0.55 0.52 0.73, 0.76 0.82
Interpersonal 0.68 0.85 0.71 0.77 0.89, 0.90
Mindfulness

Correlations for sample C are presented below the diagonal and correlations for sample D are presented above the diagonal; reliabilities are italicized
along the diagonal with sample D second
p < 0.01 for all correlations

across all five samples and, because of this, this additional factor
loading was allowed in the multi-group model. Error variances
associated with items which were missing by design in the study
(i.e., which were entirely missing within some samples) were
constrained to their values in the sample associated with the
largest sample size in the remaining groups. Taken together, these
identification constraints are used to express mean differences
and variability on the factors in the remaining groups as relative
to this group. Fit of this model was good (RMSEA = 0.05, 95%
CI = (0.05–0.06); TLI = 0.91, CFI = 0.91; χ2(1319) = 2901.51).
Estimated loadings of the four subscales on the general factor
reveal larger loadings for the Nonjudgmental Acceptance and
Nonreactivity factors, a slightly lower standardized loading for
the Awareness of Self and Others factor, and a lower loading for
the Presence factor. The lowest loading from Presence onto the
higher-order factor was unexpected; however, the data appear to
support the fit of the hierarchical factor solution.
Group differences at the level of the estimated factor means
are shown in supplementary Table 2. As shown in the table,
means for the two college samples on the Interpersonal
Mindfulness factor were more than one standard deviation lower
than group 4, and group 1 was an estimated one half standard
deviation lower than group 4. Estimated intercepts for the
subfactors, however, show that groups 2 and 3 showed markedly
higher levels on the Awareness of Self and Others,
Nonjudgmental Acceptance, and Nonreactivity subfactors. The
practical magnitude of these differences is somewhat difficult to
establish, however, as these coefficients represent unstandard-
ized, as opposed to standardized coefficients and thus, while
the higher-order factor differences can be interpreted in the scale
of the variation in group 4, no such comparison can be made
across the parameter estimates for the subscales.
(N = 2085), with increases in internal consistency reli-
ability after adding parallel items. The content of the
factors was conceptually consistent with the definition
of interpersonal mindfulness as well as with other facets
of mindfulness measures. Reasonably positive factor
correlations and good fit to a hierarchical factor model
indicated that the scale taps into an overarching individ-
ual difference and implies that scores from the scale can
be meaningfully summarized into a composite score.
Study 2
Method
Participants
For the purpose of examining test–retest reliability of
the IMS, 127 participants from sample C were contacted
approximately 1 month after the first survey to partici-
pate in another online survey. Sixty-nine undergraduates
participated in the follow-up study (one participant was
dropped for missing attention checks). The mean age of
the sample for the test–retest reliability analysis was
19.0 (SD = 1.00 and range = 18–23) and was comprised
mainly of White European Americans (84.1%) and fe-
male (60.9%) participants. Participants were compensat-
ed with course credit.
Data Analyses

Temporal stability of the IMS was assessed using the

Discussion intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). There are multiple
methods of estimation for the ICC (Shrout and Fleiss 1979);
Overall, psychometric procedures revealed a meaningful the following analyses used the two-way mixed effects model
four factor solution across five independent samples for consistency ICC (3,1) in SPSS.
Mindfulness

Table 3 Standardized factor

loadings for IMS higher-order Item Loading
model
Interpersonal mindfulness factor
Presence 0.39
Awareness of Self and Others 0.78
Nonjudgmental Acceptance 0.90
Nonreactivity 0.87
Presence
(R)When I am with others, I am easily distracted and my mind tends to wander. 0.74
(R)When a person is talking to me, I find myself thinking about other things, rather than giving them 0.70
my full attention.
(R)I give the appearance of listening to another person when I am not really listening. 0.68
(R)I find myself listening to someone with one ear while doing something else at the same time. 0.68
(R)When interacting with someone I know, I am often on autopilot, not really paying attention to 0.60
what is actually happening in the moment.
When I am conversing with another person, I am fully engaged in the conversation. 0.45
Rather than being distracted, it is easy for me to be in the present moment while I am interacting with 0.36
another person.b
Awareness of Self and Others
When interacting with others, I am aware of their facial and body expressions. 0.71
I am aware of others moods and tone of voice while I am listening to them. 0.71
When I am interacting with another person, I get a sense of how they are feeling. 0.68
I pick up on the intentions behind what another person is trying to say.a 0.63
When speaking to another person, I am aware of how I feel inside.a 0.62
I listen for the meaning behind another person’s words through their gestures and facial expressions. 0.62
I accept that another person’s current situation or mood might influence their behavior. 0.58
I am aware of my facial and body expressions when interacting with others.a 0.55
When I am with other people, I am aware of my moods and emotions. 0.52
I notice how my mood affects how I act toward other people. 0.50
Nonjudgmental Acceptance
When in a discussion, I accept others have opinions different from mine.a, b 0.66
I listen carefully to another person, even when I disagree with them.a 0.65
I listen to another person without judging or criticizing them. 0.58
When I am with another person, I try to accept how they are behaving without wanting them to 0.49
behave differently.
Nonreactivity
I think about the impact my words may have on another person before I speak.a 0.70
I take time to form my thoughts before speaking. 0.62
When I receive an angry text/email from someone, I try to understand their situation before 0.52
responding.a, b
When I am upset with someone, I notice how I am feeling before responding.a 0.51
In tense moments with another person, I am aware of my feelings but do not get taken over by them.a 0.51
Before I speak, I am aware of the intentions behind what I am trying to say. 0.44

(R) reverse-scored
p < 0.001 for all loadings
a
Item not in 19-item IMS
b
Items missing from sample E

Results
Because the IMS is an individual difference measure and the
instructions ask participants to respond to how often they have
each experience, we expected high consistency between
responses at time 1 and time 2. The ICC for the total scale
was 0.86 (p < 0.01), demonstrating high scale stability over a
1-month period in a sample of college students. ICCs for the
subscales were also stable: Presence, r = 0.87 (p < 0.01),
Aw a r e n e s s o f S e l f a n d O t h e r s = 0 . 6 8 (p < 0 . 0 1 ) ,

Nonjudgmental Acceptance = 0.74 (p < 0.01), and
Nonreactivity = 0.67 (p < 0.01).
Study 3
Method
Participants
Sixty-six members of a meditation center participated in an
online survey in exchange for a $3.00 donation to the center,
per respondent. Five participants were dropped because they
failed to answer attention checks correctly (final sample N =
61).
Measures
The survey contained the IMS (three items were inadvertently
missing; one from all but the Awareness of Self and Others
subscale) and several items designed to assess meditation
practice. The latter included number of years of meditation
practice, number of mediation retreats attended, and four
items measuring regularity of sitting meditation (e.g., BIn the
last seven days, how often did you engage in meditation?^).
Participants also answered two open-ended questions (BDo
you actively try to be mindful while interacting with another
person/people? If so, how?^ and BHow has your meditation
practice affected your relationships with close others?^).
Data Analyses
Because the response scales for the frequency of meditation
practice items were different, z-scores were calculated and
averaged. We conducted three regressions analyses with
IMS as the outcome variable and number of years of practice,
number of retreats, and frequency of practice as the predictor
variables. Participant age was included as a covariate.
Results
The results showed that participants who reported greater fre-
quency of practice, β = 0.40, p < 0.01, numbers of years prac-
tice, β = 0.29, p = 0.032, and number of retreats attended, β =
0.27, p = 0.049, had higher levels of interpersonal
mindfulness.
Discussion
These findings suggest that more in-depth meditation experi-
ence is associated with higher levels of IMS. Even though
Mindfulness
formal meditation is a personal practice, the results support
that the effects accumulated from that practice (i.e., mindful-
ness) potentially carry over into social interactions during dai-
ly life. The exclusive focus of meditators from a Buddhist
center, rather than a sample of diverse meditation practices is
a potential limitation. Nevertheless, responses to the open-
ended questions provided additional confidence in the content
validity of the scale and meaningfulness of the construct.
Notwithstanding the demand that might be created from ask-
ing these questions and the lack of formal qualitative analysis,
the responses suggested that participants could articulate their
experiences with being mindful during interpersonal interac-
tions. See supplementary materials for the open-ended
responses.
Study 4
Method
Participants
This study included samples A, B, C, and E (see Table 1).
Participants in sample A were randomly assigned to complete
one of two surveys, each of which contained different sets of
measures; these samples will be referred to as A1 (n = 209)
and A2 (n = 243) in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7. A subset of sample C
who responded that they were currently in a romantic relation-
ship for greater than 3 months (n = 141) also answered items
about relationship functioning.
Measures
Interpersonal Mindfulness Participants in samples A and B
responded to the 19-item IMS because the newly generated
items had not been added to the scale until after these two
samples had been collected. The IMS in sample C contains
all 27 items (see Table 3), but three items were inadvertently
missing for sample E.
Trait Mindfulness TM was measured using the MAAS (Brown
and Ryan 2003), the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
(FFMQ; Baer et al. 2006), and the Kentucky Inventory of
Mindfulness Skills (KIMS; Baer et al. 2004). The MAAS is
a 15-item scale that measures present moment attention and
awareness of experiences (range αs = 0.84 to 0.92.) The
FFMQ and KIMS are both comprised of 39 items and have
four identically labeled subscales—observe, describe, acting
with awareness, and nonjudging of inner experience—with
the FFMQ having an additional nonreactivity to inner experi-
ence subscale (subscales range αs = 0.77 to 0.92; total score
range αs = 0.90 to 0.92).
Mindfulness
Personality The Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI;
Gosling et al. 2003) and the 60-item HEXACO Personality
Inventory (HEXACO-PI; Ashton and Lee 2009) were includ-
ed. The TIPI is comprised of two items from each of the Big-
Five personality dimensions—extraversion (α = 0.72), agree-
ableness (α = 0.51), conscientiousness (α = 0.62), neuroticism
(α = 0.77), and openness to experience (α = 0.44). The
HEXACO-PI measures a six dimension model of personality:
honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness
versus anger, conscientiousness, and openness to experience
(αs = 0.69, 0.79, 0.81, 0.75, 0.74, and 0.76, respectively). The
TIPI was endorsed on a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree,
7 = Strongly agree) and the HEXACO-PI on a 5-point scale
(1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree).
Social Desirability The 33-item Marlowe-Crowne Social
Desirability Scale (Crowne and Marlowe 1960) and the
40-item Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
(BIDR; Paulhus 1998) were included. The BIDR as-
sesses honest but overly positive perceptions of the self
(self-deceptive enhancement; α = 0.67) and bias to pub-
licly present oneself in a favorable light (impression
management; α = 0.60).
Self-Compassion The self-compassion scale includes the fol-
lowing subscales: self-kindness, common humanity, mindful-
ness, self-judgment, isolation, and over-identification.
Participants answered the 12-item short form (Raes et al.
2011), using a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = Almost never, 5 =
Almost always). We summed all the items to derive a total
self-compassion score (α = 0.81).
Self-Monitoring Scale Self-monitoring involves manipulating
nonverbal signals to adjust behavior according to the demand
of the social situations (Snyder 1974). The scale includes 25
true/false items (α = 0.66).
Self-Consciousness We used the revised self-consciousness
scale (Scheier and Carver 1985). Private self-consciousness
refers to thinking about personal or hidden aspects of the self
(i.e., beliefs, aspirations, values), not easily ascertained by
others (α = 0.82). Public self-consciousness refers to the ten-
dency to think about the aspects of the self-observable to
others and are used to form impressions (e.g., mannerisms
and stylistic quirks) and as such public self-consciousness
was considered an interpersonal variable (α = 0.72).
Participants rated 16 items from the two subscales on a 4-
point scale.
ADHD Symptoms The Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale
was included (Adler et al. 2006). Participants responded
to the frequency of each symptom with the 18-item
instrument (scale: 0 = Never, 4 = Very often; α = 0.86).
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (Antony et al. 1998)
Mental health symptoms of depression (α = 0.95), anxiety
(α = 0.87), and stress (α = 0.89) were measured with the
Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS), using a 4-
point scale (0 = Did not apply to me at all, 3 = Applied to
me very much, or most of the time) according to their experi-
ences during the past week.
Alexithymia The 20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale (Bagby
et al. 1994) measures a person’s difficulty understanding and
processing emotions, as well as lack of interest in emotions
and feelings, using facets about difficulty identifying feelings,
difficulty describing feelings, and externally oriented think-
ing. Participants answered items on a 5-point scale (1 =
Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree; α = 0.85).
Emotion Regulation The 10-item emotion regulation ques-
tionnaire (Gross and John 2003) was included: expressive
suppression (α = 0.76) and cognitive reappraisal (α = 0.87;
1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree).
Authenticity Participants completed the 45-item authenticity
inventory (Kernis and Goldman 2006). Four subscales cap-
tured the components of authentic functioning: awareness
(α = 0.85), unbiased processing of self-relevant information
(α = 0.81), behaving in congruence to one’s values and pref-
erences with respect to others (α = 0.71), and relational orien-
tation (α = 0.84). The latter two subscales were considered
interpersonal variables. The items were endorsed on a 5-
point Likert Scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree).
Emotional Intelligence The 33-item Emotional Intelligence
Scale (Schutte et al. 1998) and the 48-item trait meta-mood
scale (TMMS; Salovey et al. 1995) were used. The TMMS
taps into three distinct domains of emotional intelligence: at-
tention to feelings (α = 0.86), clarity of feelings (α = 0.86),
and mood repair (α = 0.79). Schutte et al. (1998) represents
emotional intelligence as both an intrapersonal (e.g., BI seek
out activities that make me happy.^) and interpersonal (e.g., BI
like to share my emotions with others.^) construct, so the latter
scale was considered an interpersonal variable, α = 0.80.
Active–Empathic Listening Scale (Bodie 2011) The 11-item
Active–Empathic Listening Scale (AELS) measures
three stages of listening associated with the social skill
of active and empathic listening. The first stage is
sensing where the listener demonstrates they are taking
in the information from the speaker, including more
than the spoken words. The second stage is processing
the information from the speaker. The third stage is
responding: the listener asks question, provides nonver-
bal feedback such as head nods, and paraphrases infor-
mation from the speaker to indicate active and empathic

attention. The three subscales were combined for a total
active–empathic listening score (αs = 0.87 and 0.92).
Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale (Rubin and
Martin 1994) Participants completed the 10-item short form of
the Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale (ICCS)
to measure a person’s ability in 10 different skill areas: self-
disclosure, empathy, social relaxation, assertiveness,
altercentrism, interaction management, expressiveness, sup-
portiveness, immediacy, and environmental control. The sin-
gle items from each domain was summed (1 = Almost never,
5 = Almost always; α = 0.82).
Social Connectedness Scale (Lee et al. 2008) Social connect-
edness refers to a person’s awareness and perception of being
close to others. Participants answered 15 questions on a 6-
point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 6 = Strongly agree), α =
0.95.
Perspective Taking We used Smith and Rose’s (2011) measure
of social perspective taking in the context of a specific friend-
ship. Participants were instructed to bring to mind a close or
best friend of the same sex and answer the 22 items (1 = Does
not describe me at all, 5 = Describes me very well; α = 0.90).
Empathy The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A; Carré
et al. 2013) is a 20-item scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 =
Strongly Agree) that assesses cognitive and affective empathy.
The cognitive dimension of empathy is similar to perspective
taking, α = 0.80. The affective dimension refers to feeling
similar emotions as another person, α = 0.76.
Social Anxiety The revised self-consciousness scale (Carver
and Scheier 1985) includes a subscale to measure social anx-
iety. Participants rated six items from the subscale on a 4-point
scale (1 = Not like me at all, 4 = A lot like me), α = 0.75.
Friendship Quality Rose’s (2002) friendship quality scale was
used. Participants were instructed to bring to mind a close or
best friend of the same sex and answer 25 items (1 = Not at all
True, 5 = Really True; α = 0.82).
Romantic Relationship Satisfaction Intimate partner relation-
ship satisfaction was measured with Hendrick’s (1988) 7-item
relationship assessment scale (1 = Low satisfaction, 5 = High
satisfaction; α = 0.88).
Inclusion of Other in Self Scale (Aron et al. 1992) The scale is a
pictorial measure of interpersonal closeness depicted by two
circles varying in degrees of overlap from not at all overlap-
ping, to almost completely overlapping, using seven pairs of
circles. Greater self-other overlap represents more relationship
closeness.
Mindfulness
Adult Attachment The Experiences in Close Relationships—
Relationship Structure questionnaire (Fraley et al. 2011) was
used. Participants who were in a committed romantic relation-
ship answered the 9-item questionnaire with respect to their
romantic partner. Participants rated each item (1 = Strongly
disagree, 7 = Strongly agree) to determine attachment-
anxiety (α = 0.88) and attachment-avoidance (α = 0.92)
scores. Low scores of both attachment-anxiety and
attachment-avoidance represent a secure attachment pattern.
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction We used (Bettencourt
and Sheldon 2001) 6-item scale of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness in the context of social roles. Participants rated
each item according to how they typically feel while fulfilling
their role as a best friend (1 = Not at all, 7 = Extremely; α =
0.86).
Data Analyses
Because it is important to show that the IMS accounts for
variance over and above TM scales in relation to other vari-
ables, we report zero-order correlations as well as partial cor-
relations, controlling for TM. Such analyses demonstrate the
distinctiveness and differential predictive power of TM and
interpersonal mindfulness.
Results
Convergent Validity
As expected, IMS was positively related to measures of TM
(see Table 4). Although the correlations were fairly high, they
were not as strong as known associations among various
scales of TM (e.g., r = 0.88; Bergomi et al. 2013). For the most
part, the correlations among the subscales show that concep-
tually similar subscales are correlated among the IMS and the
other TM scales.
Intrapersonal Variables
Discriminant validity was examined by investigating zero-order
correlations and partial correlations between the IMS total score
and subscales with intrapersonal variables (see Table 5). Several
intrapersonal measures were socially oriented, at least in part. For
example, the personality traits of extraversion, agreeableness, and
honesty–humility obviously had social aspects. Following from
this, with the exception of these few more socially oriented vari-
ables, we hypothesized that the partial correlations between the
IMS and the intrapersonal variables would be small or negative.
Specifically, for personality traits, we expected small or null cor-
relations with emotionality, conscientiousness, openness to expe-
rience, and neuroticism. But for the other more interpersonal
Mindfulness

Table 4 Correlations of the IMS with trait mindfulness scales and subscales

Scale Sample(s) IMS-Total IMS-Presence IMS- IMS- IMS-

Awareness Acceptance Nonreactivity

MAAS A2,B, C 0.60, 0.52, 0.45 0.72, 0.62, 0.53 0.30, 0.17, 0.27 0.27, 0.31, 0.21 0.25, 0.41, 0.34
FFMQ A1, E
Observe 0.24, 0.45 0.02, 0.20 0.42, 0.52 0.13, 0.26* 0.17*, 0.40
Describe 0.51, 0.56 0.46, 0.49 0.27, 0.54 0.39, 0.34 0.27, 0.33
Awareness 0.67, 0.49 0.81, 0.60 0.18, 0.34 0.34, 0.35 0.26, 0.24*
Nonjudging 0.40, 0.25* 0.51, 0.32 − 0.01, 0.15 0.36, 0.17 0.08, 0.15
Nonreactivity 0.36, 0.62 0.24, 0.33 0.13, 0.53 0.54, 0.58 0.34, 0.68
Total 0.70, 0.73 0.68, 0.61 0.29, 0.65 0.53, 0.52 0.34, 0.55
KIMS A2
Observe 0.46 0.13* 0.59 0.32 0.42
Describe 0.61 0.48 0.48 0.40 0.47
Awareness 0.60 0.70 0.25 0.39 0.32
Nonjudging 0.34 0.48 0.08 0.25 0.06
Total 0.74 0.64 0.53 0.50 0.47

IMS interpersonal mindfulness scale, MAAS Mindful Attention and Awareness Scale, FFMQ Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire, KIMS Kentucky
Inventory of Mindfulness Skills, IMS-Awareness Awareness of Self and Others, IMS-Acceptance Nonjudgmental Acceptance, FFMQ and KIMS
Awareness Act with Awareness, Nonreactivity Nonreactivity to inner experience
Italicized values are statistically significant at p < 0.01 level; *p < 0.05

personality variables (i.e., extraversion, agreeableness, and hones- Interpersonal Variables

ty–humility), we expected modest correlations. For self-oriented
measures, such as self-compassion, self-monitoring, alexithymia,
and self-consciousness we expected small correlations with IMS.
For measures of cognitive and psychological functioning, includ-
ing ADHD, depression, anxiety, stress, emotion regulation, and
authenticity, we expected small or null correlations.
Overall, our predictions were supported for personality traits,
with the more socially oriented dimensions (i.e., extraversion,
agreeableness, and honesty–humility) having modest correlations
with the IMS, after controlling for TM. With regard to self-oriented
measures, the results showed small relationships with the IMS,
controlling for TM. One unexpected finding was the moderately
negative partial correlation of alexithymia with the IMS.
Alexithymia is characterized by a lack of ability to identify, pro-
cess, and understand one’s own emotions, but the results suggest
this construct also likely affects interpersonal processes as well.
Indeed, recent research has connected dispositional mindfulness
and alexithymia with the socio-cognitive and socio-emotional abil-
ities of empathy (MacDonald and Price 2017).
For the cognitive and psychological functioning measures,
partial correlations of depression, anxiety, stress, and ADHD
symptoms were small or null as expected. The partial correlations
between IMS and emotional intelligence (i.e., Trait-Meta Mood
Scale) and emotion regulation, however, were modest.
Emotional intelligence may best be considered an interpersonal
construct, because it involves not only being aware and manag-
ing one’s own emotions, but also recognizing and regulating the
emotions of others.
Convergent validity was examined by exploring correlations
and partial correlations between the IMS total score and sub-
scales with the interpersonal variables (see Table 6). Because
interpersonal mindfulness and TM are overlapping constructs,
with the primary difference being the context of application, it
was imperative to establish that the IMS was associated with
interpersonal measures, even after removing the shared vari-
ance of TM. As predicted, the IMS was positively related to all
of the interpersonal variables after partialling out the variance
shared with TM, with the exception of social anxiety.
The IMS was relatively highly correlated with active–
empathic listening (AEL), placing both constructs into a con-
ceptual nomological network (Cronbach and Meehl 1955).
Both scales tap into deep listening in conversations. Both also
measure ways of responding in interpersonal interactions, but
AEL is characterized by sending signals that one is actively
listening (i.e., paraphrasing), whereas the IMS is characterized
by nonjudgmentally noticing present moment thoughts, feel-
ings, sensations, and emotions rather than automatically
reacting to what another says or does.
Incremental Validity
As expected, IMS was positively related to relationship func-
tioning variables (see Table 7). Social skills related to being
interpersonally mindful, such as being aware of the impact of
one’s actions on others, are associated with higher quality
Table 5 Zero-order correlations and partial correlations of the IMS and subscales with Intrapersonal Variables

Scale Sample(s) IMS-Total TM-Total Partial r IMS- IMS- IMS- IMS-

with TM Presence Awareness Acceptance Nonreactivity

Personality
Neuroticism A2 − 0.46 − 0.49 − 0.24 − 0.45 − 0.23 − 0.44 − 0.23
Emotionality C 0.11* − 0.10 0.17 0.03 0.25 − 0.05 − 0.02
Openness to A2,C 0.38, 0.11* 0.39, − 0.02 0.20, 0.14* 0.34, 0.00 0.28, 0.10 0.24, 0.15 0.19, 0.11*
experience
Conscientiousness A2,C 0.53, 0.41 0.59, 0.30 0.27, 0.32 0.50, 0.32 0.32, 0.30 0.39, 0.23 0.32, 0.39
Extraversion A2,C 0.20, 0.30 0.25, 0.25 0.08, 0.22 0.19, 0.18 0.14*, 0.27 0.22, 0.18 0.08, 0.27
Honesty–humility C 0.27 0.13* 0.25 0.24 0.15 0.27 0.23
Agreeableness A2,C 0.49, 0.37 0.41, 0.20 0.34, 0.32 0.38, 0.28 0.36, 0.12* 0.40, 0.48 0.29, 0.41
Social desirability
BIDR B 0.45 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.30 0.36 0.28
Self-deceptive 0.40 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.31 0.29 0.21
enhancement
Impression management 0.35 0.32 0.26 0.29 0.19 0.31 0.26
Marlowe-Crowne C 0.24 0.22 0.14* 0.17 0.06 0.31 0.28
Self-compassion C 0.20 0.36 0.05 0.17 0.02 0.18 0.31
Self-monitoring E 0.07 − 0.12 0.02 0.15 − 0.05 0.05
Private self-consciousness B 0.05 − 0.18 0.18 − 0.13* 0.32 − 0.13* 0.13
ADHD symptoms B − 0.46 − 0.67 − 0.16* − 0.53 − 0.10 − 0.35 − 0.20
Depression E − 0.36 − 0.48 0.07 − 0.34 − 0.30 − 0.28 − 0.28
Anxiety E − 0.25 − 0.33 0.04 − 0.23* − 0.21* − 0.20* − 0.16
Stress E − 0.42 − 0.47 − 0.02 − 0.43 − 0.26 − 0.46 − 0.37
Alexithymia C − 0.51 − 0.52 − 0.37 − 0.44 − 0.43 − 0.27 − 0.37
Emotion regulation B
Cognitive reappraisal 0.41 0.22 0.33 0.29 0.26 0.35 0.31
Expressive − 0.25 − 0.21 − 0.17 − 0.21 − 0.21 0.15* − 0.06
suppression
Authenticity A1
Awareness 0.64 0.73 0.27 0.57 0.38 0.45 0.27
Unbiased processing 0.51 0.71 0.02 0.55 0.15* 0.44 0.12
Trait meta-mood B 0.47 0.40 0.37 0.39 0.35 0.33 0.16
Attention to feelings 0.34 0.23 0.29 0.27 0.31 0.23 0.02
Clarity of feelings 0.42 0.54 0.20 0.44 0.17 0.26 0.27
Mood repair 0.38 0.41 0.20 0.38 0.16 0.34 0.08

Personality correlations from sample A2 are from the Ten-Item Personality Inventory
TM Trait Mindfulness, IMS-Awareness Awareness of Self and Others subscale, IMS-Acceptance Nonjudgmental Acceptance, BIDR Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding, Unbiased Processing
unbiased processing of self-relevant information
Italicized values are statistically significant at p < 0.01 level; *p < 0.05
Mindfulness
 Mindfulness

Table 6 Zero-order correlations and partial correlations of the IMS and subscales with interpersonal variables

Scale Sample(s) IMS- TM-Total Partial r with TM IMS- IMS- IMS- IMS-
Total Presence Awareness Acceptance Nonreactivity

Active–empathic listening B, C 0.52, 0.57 0.20, 0.02 0.49, 0.63 0.29, 0.24 0.59, 0.61 0.19, 0.41 0.37, 0.40
Sensing 0.40, 0.50 0.05, 0.00 0.44, 0.56 0.14*, 0.16 0.58, 0.62 0.09, 0.32 0.31, 0.34
Processing 0.43, 0.44 0.21, − 0.02 0.36, 0.50 0.31, 0.19 0.42, 0.43 0.12, 0.36 0.33, 0.35
Responding 0.51, 0.54 0.27, 0.06 0.45, 0.58 0.31, 0.29 0.52, 0.54 0.27, 0.40 0.32, 0.37
ICCS A2 0.66 0.44 0.55 0.43 0.55 0.59 0.44
Social connectedness C 0.38 0.35 0.27 0.33 0.31 0.21 0.28
Perspective taking A1 0.29 0.15* 0.27 0.10 0.41 0.14* 0.21
Empathy A1
Cognitive 0.51 0.36 0.39 0.36 0.44 0.28 0.30
Affective 0.28 0.12 0.28 0.18 0.25 0.14* 0.21
Emotional intelligence test A2 0.48 0.26 0.41 0.24 0.48 0.40 0.36
Public self-consciousness B 0.09 − 0.18 0.22 − 0.04 0.32 − 0.17 0.10
Social anxiety B − 0.15* − 0.30 0.05 − 0.21 0.00 − 0.15* 0.01
Authenticity A1 0.64 0.79 0.21 0.64 0.27 0.52 0.24
Behavioral congruency 0.46 0.65 0.00 0.49 0.10 0.43 0.17*
Relational orientation 0.58 0.63 0.26 0.58 0.23 0.45 0.25

IMS-Awareness Awareness of Self and Others, IMS-Acceptance Nonjudgmental Acceptance, TM Trait Mindfulness, ICCS Interpersonal Communication Competence Scale, Behavioral Congruency
behaving in congruence to one’s values and preferences
Italicized values are statistically significant at p < 0.01 level; *p < 0.05
 Mindfulness

Table 7 Zero-order correlations and partial correlations of the IMS and subscales with relationship functioning variables

Scale Sample(s) IMS- TM- Partial r with IMS- IMS- IMS- IMS-
Total Total TM Presence Awareness Acceptance Nonreactivity

Friendship quality A1 0.30 0.24 0.19 0.18* 0.24 0.29 0.20

Romantic relationship C 0.25 0.06 0.21* 0.17* 0.19* 0.11 0.27
satisfaction
Inclusion of other in self C 0.19* − 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.22* 0.07 0.06
Attachment C
Anxiety − 0.36 − 0.29 − 0.26 − 0.22 − 0.25 − 0.30 − 0.38
Avoidant − 0.46 − 0.17* − 0.43 − 0.33 − 0.45 − 0.25 − 0.29
Psychological need A1 0.55 0.55 0.30 0.50 0.27 0.48 0.24
satisfaction in
friendship

TM Trait Mindfulness, IMS-Awareness Awareness of Self and Others subscale, IMS-Acceptance Nonjudgmental Acceptance subscale, Psychological
Need Satisfaction in Friendship Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scale with respect to being a best friend
Italicized values are statistically significant at p < 0.01 level; *p < 0.05

relationships. Also, higher levels of interpersonal mindfulness
were significantly related to lower levels of attachment avoid-
ance and anxiety.
As previously noted, TM, in particular the MAAS which is
controlled for in these analyses, has been significantly related
to relationship satisfaction. An important goal of study 4 was
to establish the IMS as a unique concurrent predictor of ro-
mantic relationship satisfaction over and above any correla-
tion with trait mindfulness. Given the positive correlation
among IMS and Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale,
we also included it as a covariate. The results showed that
only IMS predicted romantic relationship satisfaction, β =
0.24, p = 0.01; MAAS: β = 0.01, p = 0.94; social desirability:
β = 0.03, p = 0.74. This finding, along with the other reported
findings, provides initial evidence that the IMS is a valid in-
dicator of interpersonal mindfulness and suggests that it may
be better suited for understanding relationship functioning
than TM measures.
General Discussion
The primary aim of the current work was to delineate the
construct of interpersonal mindfulness and provide empirical
evidence of a scale that measured the construct. Interpersonal
mindfulness is conceptualized as being mindful during inter-
personal interactions and is briefly defined as paying attention
in the present moment while with another person/s, including
being aware of internal experiences (bodily sensations,
thoughts, reactions, mood, etc.) and external experiences (ver-
bal and nonverbal communication, apparent mood, etc.).
Additional attitudinal qualities of interpersonal mindfulness
are noticing and accepting internal reactions during social in-
teractions and choosing to respond in a nonjudgmental way.
Our findings suggested that the IMS has strong psychometric
properties, exemplified by good internal consistency, test–
retest reliability, and construct validity.
The four factors identified from multiple EFA’s in study
1—Presence, Awareness of Self and Others, Nonjudgmental
Acceptance, and Nonreactivity—are consistent with dimen-
sions of other self-report TM measures and the working def-
inition presented. The multigroup CFA showed that a higher-
order model with the four subscales loading onto an overarch-
ing general factor of interpersonal mindfulness fit the data
well. Theoretical reasons, in addition to these findings, sup-
port integrating the dimensions of mindfulness (e.g., Baer
2011), but also increasingly point to the likelihood that mind-
fulness is multidimensional. As such, we suggest summing
the items of the scale to derive a single assessment of inter-
personal mindfulness. Nevertheless, we leave open the possi-
bility of examining the subscales separately, because each
may provide useful information about the processes involved
in mindfulness training interventions (e.g., Quaglia et al.
2016) and a clearer understanding of the construct (e.g.,
Coffey et al. 2010; Lenger et al. 2017).
Among members of a Buddhist meditation sangha, number
of years and frequency of meditation practice were associated
with higher scores on the IMS, revealing preliminary evidence
that the instrument can detect varying levels of mindfulness
training. Also, the IMS had good test–retest reliability in a
sample of college students, which suggests it may be a rela-
tively stable individual difference useful for assessing changes
over time. We caution, however, that this is an empirical ques-
tion and that examining changes in the subscales may be less
reliable in such an assessment. Nevertheless, one primary pur-
pose of mindfulness measures is to enhance understanding of
how mindfulness-based interventions affect outcomes (e.g.,
Baer 2011). Hence, it is worthwhile exploring whether differ-
ent contemplative practices and interventions, especially those
that include dyadic or relational aspects (e.g., Kok and Singer
Mindfulness
2017), impact levels of interpersonal mindfulness and other
downstream outcomes.
Our analyses provided support of convergent and discrim-
inant validity of the IMS. Duly noted in Brown and Ryan
(2003), individual difference measures must be Bsimilar
enough to other [concepts] to be recognizable, but different
enough to be worth studying (Mayer, 2000, p. 49).^ Thus, it
was unsurprising that the IMS was highly correlated with
other measures of TM. The distinctiveness of the IMS from
TM scales was evidenced through partial correlational analy-
ses that removed shared variance between the measures.
Because of the nonsignificant divergent partial correlations
between the IMS and depression, anxiety, stress, self-compas-
sion, and self-monitoring, existing dispositional mindfulness
measures may be more relevant for measuring intrapersonal
variables. Other partial correlations with interpersonal vari-
ables revealed several prosocial concepts belong in the nomo-
logical network of interpersonal mindfulness including: agree-
ableness, honesty–humility, empathy, perspective taking,
emotional intelligence, AEL, and social connectedness.
Of theoretical importance, the interaction styles associated
with interpersonal mindfulness may support healthy interper-
sonal communication and adaptive relationship functioning
(Brown et al. 2007). When one is fully present with another
and allows Bspace^ for the other to express themselves with-
out reacting or passing judgment, the other is likely to feel
important and understood (e.g., Kuhn et al. 2018), two qual-
ities essential for happy, close, responsive relationships (e.g.,
Reis et al. 2017). Furthermore, being interpersonally mindful
may be especially helpful in dealing with difficult or negative
emotional responses while interacting with others (Barnes
et al. 2007; Bihari and Mullen 2014; Huston et al. 2011;
Wachs and Cordova 2007). For instance, during conflict with
an intimate partner, strong emotions that arise (e.g., anger,
contempt, jealousy) may produce hurtful automatic reactions,
but a person who is mindful during such an interaction may be
more likely to notice such emotions and respond more skill-
fully (Lenger et al. 2017). It follows, then, that being mindful
during interpersonal interactions is worth investigating in its
own right, especially in ways that the individual’s attention
and awareness of their social world affects their relationships.
Further studies on interpersonal mindfulness can contribute
to the research agenda and comprehensive model of
Karremans et al. (2017) relating mindfulness to romantic re-
lationship processes and outcomes. The model emphasizes the
importance of examining dyadic effects of mindfulness on
couples, because romantic relationships are interdependent
such that how one partner thinks, feels, and behaves affects
the other partner. Studies using TM measures reveal mixed
findings when examining partner effects between mindfulness
and relationship satisfaction (i.e., the cross-partner effects of
one’s own mindfulness on their partner’s reported relationship
quality). For example, some studies (Lenger et al. 2017;
Williams and Cano 2014) show partner effects of mindfulness
while others do not (e.g., Barnes et al. 2007). Iida and Shapiro
(2017) also failed to find partner effects on relationship pro-
cesses but suggested that Bthe measure of individual mindful-
ness [used] does not adequately reflect couple-level mindful-
ness; thus, it may have little impact on partner’s relationship
quality.^ (p. 1565). Thus, a critical next step is to examine
whether the IMS is better suited than TM for dyadic analyses.
Limitations
The current studies suggest the IMS has the potential to be
useful, but there are several limitations to acknowledge. For
one, the studies were cross-sectional and correlational, limit-
ing the ability to draw any causal conclusions that the IMS
predicts theoretically meaningful outcomes. The multigroup
structural model used identified that significant differences in
overall level exist across the groups but significant differences
in component scores as well, suggesting that environmental,
social, or interpersonal differences across samples may lead to
some differences across groups. The limits of self-report
scales must also be considered. The current studies relied
solely on self-reports which may inflate correlations due to
shared method variance. The IMS was significantly and mod-
erately associated with social desirability, suggesting that the
scale may be vulnerable to social demand. Moreover, of the
many concerns about the assessment of mindfulness raised by
Grossman (2011), one especially relevant for the IMS con-
cerns whether people have the ability to accurately self-
report on the items from mindfulness questionnaires, such as
the frequency of their attentional lapses. Thus, using daily
diary, experience sampling, and peer-report methodologies
as well as testing whether the IMS corresponds to behavior
and outcomes from experimental and longitudinal studies will
further support the construct validity of the scale. It should be
noted that some of the psychometric tests (e.g., convergent
and discriminant validity) used versions of the IMS that were
missing some items. It is likely that this issue had little impact
on these tests because all of the versions included representa-
tive items from all four subscales. Next, the ethnic composi-
tion of the samples in these studies was primarily White
European American as such the research presented is limited
in generalizability. Lastly, the scope of relationships examined
in study 4 was relatively narrow (i.e., best friendships and
romantic relationships). Future research should test the IMS
with respect to other types of social relationships (e.g., work-
place, doctor–patient, intergroup, etc.).
In sum, it is likely that the conceptualization of interper-
sonal mindfulness will contribute to the growing interest in the
interpersonal and relational effects of mindfulness. We em-
phasize that scale construction is an ongoing process and that
more data will provide cumulative evidence about the validity
and reliability of the measure. Nevertheless, in its current

form, the IMS is valuable for assessing the capacity to be
mindful while interacting with others. The development of
the construct and scale is intended to spark additional research
on interpersonal mindfulness, especially with regard to in-
creasing human connection and healthy relationships.
Author Contributions SDP: designed the studies, analyzed the data, and
wrote and revised the paper. PKW: conducted and wrote the multigroup
CFA analyses and edited the manuscript. LAK: collaborated with scale
refinement and study designs and assisted with organization of the man-
uscript. BAB: collaborated in conceptualizing and defining interpersonal
mindfulness, generating items, designing studies, and editing all versions
of the manuscript.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no competing
interests.
Ethical Approval The University of Missouri, Columbia Institutional
Review Board approved this project. All procedures performed in studies
involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical stan-
dards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the
1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical
standards.
Informed Consent Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Appendix
Interpersonal mindfulness scale
Instructions: Below is a collection of statements about your
everyday experiences with other people
Using the scale, please indicate how frequently you have each
experience. Answer according to what really reflects your
experience rather than what you think your experience should
be. Treat each item separately from every other item (1 =
Almost never, Infrequently, Sometimes, Frequently, 5 =
Almost Always).
1. When I am with other people, I am aware of my moods
and emotions.
2. When I am conversing with another person, I am fully
engaged in the conversation.
3. When in a discussion, I accept others have opinions dif-
ferent from mine.
4. In tense moments with another person, I am aware of my
feelings but do not get taken over by them.
5. When a person is talking to me, I find myself thinking
about other things, rather than giving them my full
attention.
6. When I receive an angry text/email from someone, I try
to understand their situation before responding.
Mindfulness
7. I listen for the meaning behind another person’s words
through their gestures and facial expressions.
8. When I am upset with someone, I notice how I am feel-
ing before responding.
9. I listen carefully to another person, even when I disagree
with them.
10. I find myself listening to someone with one ear while
doing something else at the same time.
11. I take time to form my thoughts before speaking.
12. I think about the impact my words may have on another
person before I speak.
13. When interacting with someone I know, I am often on
autopilot, not really paying attention to what is actually
happening in the moment.
14. When I am with another person, I try to accept how they
are behaving without wanting them to behave
differently.
15. I am aware of others moods and tone of voice while I am
listening to them.
16. I am aware of my facial and body expressions when
interacting with others.
17. When I am with others, I am easily distracted and my
mind tends to wander.
18. When interacting with others, I am aware of their facial
and body expressions.
19. I pick up on the intentions behind what another person is
trying to say.
20. I listen to another person without judging or criticizing
them.
21. I give the appearance of listening to another person when
I am not really listening.
22. Before I speak, I am aware of the intentions behind what
I am trying to say.
23. When I am interacting with another person, I get a sense
of how they are feeling.
24. I accept that another person’s current situation or mood
might influence their behavior.
25. Rather than being distracted, it is easy for me to be in the
present moment while I am interacting with another
person.
26. When speaking to another person, I am aware of how I
feel inside.
27. I notice how my mood affects how I act towards others.
Note: Randomly order the items when administering the scale.
Scoring: * Indicates reverse scored item.
To compute a total interpersonal mindfulness score, reverse
score the indicated items (i.e., 1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3. 4 = 2, 5 = 1)
and calculate a mean.
Coding key:
Presence items: 2, 5*, 10*, 13*, 17*, 21*, 25.
Awareness of Self and Others items: 1, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19, 23,
24, 26, 27.
Mindfulness
Nonjudgmental Acceptance items: 3, 9, 14, 20.
Nonreactivity items: 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, 22.
References
Adler, L. A., Spencer, T., Faraone, S. V., Kessler, R. C., Howes, M. J.,
Biederman, J., & Secnik, K. (2006). Validity of Pilot Adult ADHD
Self-Report Scale (ASRS) to rate adult ADHD symptoms. Annals of
Clinical Psychiatry, 18(3), 145–148.
Antony, M. M., Bieling, P. J., Cox, B. J., Enns, M. W., & Swinson, R. P.
(1998). Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions
of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a
community sample. Psychological Assessment, 10(2), 176–181.
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of Other in the
Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.
Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of
the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 91(4), 340–345.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). Assessment of mind-
fulness by self-report the Kentucky inventory of mindfulness skills.
Assessment, 11(3), 191–206.
Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., Hopkins, J., Krietemeyer, J., & Toney, L.
(2006). Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of
mindfulness. Assessment, 13(1), 27–45.
Baer, R. A. (2011). Measuring mindfulness. Contemporary Buddhism,
12(01), 241–261.
Bagby, R. M., Parker, J. D., & Taylor, G. J. (1994). The twenty-item
Toronto Alexithymia Scale—I. Item selection and cross-validation
of the factor structure. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 38(1),
23–32.
Barnes, S., Brown, K. W., Krusemark, E., Campbell, W. K., & Rogge, R.
D. (2007). The role of mindfulness in romantic relationship satisfac-
tion and responses to relationship stress. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 33(4), 482–500.
Bergomi, C., Tschacher, W., & Kupper, Z. (2013). Measuring mindful-
ness: First steps towards the development of a comprehensive mind-
fulness scale. Mindfulness, 4(1), 18–32.
Bettencourt, B. A., & Sheldon, K. (2001). Social roles as mechanism for
psychological needsatisfaction within social groups. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81(6), 1131–1143.
Bishop, S. R., Lau, M., Shapiro, S., Carlson, L., Anderson, N. D.,
Carmody, J., et al. (2004). Mindfulness: A proposed operational
definition. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 230–
241.
Block-Lerner, J., Adair, C., Plumb, J. C., Rhatigan, D. L., & Orsillo, S. M.
(2007). The case for mindfulness-based approaches in the cultiva-
tion of empathy: Does nonjudgmental, present-moment awareness
increase capacity for perspective-taking and empathic concern?
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 501–516.
Bodhi, B. (2016). The Buddhas teachings on social and communal har-
mony: An anthology of discourses from the Pāli Canon. Somerville,
MA: Wisdom.
Bodie, G. D. (2011). The active-empathic listening scale:
Conceptualization and evidence of validity within the interpersonal
domain. Communication Quarterly, 59(3), 277–295.
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(4), 822–848.
Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness:
Theoretical foundations and evidence for its salutary effects.
Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 211–237.
Carré, A., Stefaniak, N., D'Ambrosio, F., Bensalah, L., & Besche-
Richard, C. (2013). The Basic Empathy Scale in Adults (BES-A):
Factor structure of a revised form. Psychological Assessment, 25(3),
679–691.
Carson, J. W., Carson, K. M., Gil, K. M., & Baucom, D. H. (2004).
Mindfulness-based relationship enhancement. Behavior Therapy,
35(3), 471–494.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in
objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–
319.
Coatsworth, J. D., Duncan, L. G., Greenberg, M. T., & Nix, R. L. (2010).
Changing parent’s mindfulness, child management skills and rela-
tionship quality with their youth: Results from a randomized pilot
intervention trial. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19(2), 203–
217.
Coffey, K. A., Hartman, M., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Deconstructing
mindfulness and constructing mental health: Understanding mind-
fulness and its mechanisms of action. Mindfulness, 1(4), 235–253.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psycholog-
ical tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability
independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 24(4), 349–354.
Dekeyser, M., Raes, F., Leijssen, M., Leysen, S., & Dewulf, D. (2008).
Mindfulness skills and interpersonal behaviour. Personality and
Individual Differences, 44(5), 1235–1245.
Duncan, L. G. (2007). Assessment of mindful parenting among families
of early adolescents: Development and validation of the
Interpersonal Mindfulness in Parenting Scale (Unpublished disser-
tation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). A model of
mindful parenting: Implications for parent–child relationships and
prevention research. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review,
12(3), 255–270.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development
and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological
Assessment, 7(3), 286–299.
Fraley, R. C., Heffernan, M. E., Vicary, A. M., & Brumbaugh, C. C.
(2011). The experiences in close relationships-relationship struc-
tures questionnaire: A method for assessing attachment orientations
across relationships. Psychological Assessment, 23, 615–625.
Frank, J. L., Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2016). Validation of the
mindfulness in teaching scale. Mindfulness, 7(1), 155–163.
Gambrel, L. E., & Keeling, M. L. (2010). Relational aspects of mindful-
ness: Implications for the practice of marriage and family therapy.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 32(4), 412–426.
Goldin, P. R., Morrison, A. S., Jazaieri, H., Heimberg, R. G., & Gross, J.
J. (2017). Trajectories of social anxiety, cognitive reappraisal, and
mindfulness during an RCT of CBGT versus MBSR for social anx-
iety disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 97, 1–13.
Goldstein, J. (2016). Mindfulness: A practical guide to awakening.
Boulder, CO: Sounds True.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief
measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research
in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion
regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well-
being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 348–
362.
Grossman, P. (2011). Defining mindfulness by how poorly I think I pay
attention during everyday awareness and other intractable problems
for psychology's (re)invention of mindfulness: Comment on Brown
et al. (2011). Psychological Assessment, 23(4), 1034–1040.
Haynes, S. N., Richard, D., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content validity in
psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and
methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238–247.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(1), 93–98.
Huston, D. C., Garland, E. L., & Farb, N. A. (2011). Mechanisms of
mindfulness in communication training. Journal of Applied
Communication Research, 39(4), 406–421.
Iida, M., & Shapiro, A. F. (2017). The role of mindfulness in daily rela-
tionship process: Examining daily conflicts and relationship mood.
Mindfulness, 8(6), 1559–1568.
Karremans, J. C., Schellekens, M. P., & Kappen, G. (2017). Bridging the
sciences of mindfulness and romantic relationships: A theoretical
model and research agenda. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 21(1), 29–49.
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptu-
alization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357.
Khaddouma, A., Gordon, K. C., & Bolden, J. (2015). Zen and the art of
dating: Mindfulness, differentiation of self, and satisfaction in dating
relationships. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and
Practice, 4(1), 1–13.
Kok, B. E., & Singer, T. (2017). Effects of contemplative dyads on en-
gagement and perceived social connectedness over nine months of
mental training: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry,
74(2), 126–134.
Kozlowski, A. (2013). Mindful mating: Exploring the connection be-
tween mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 28(1–2), 92–104.
Kramer, G. (2007). Insight dialogue: The interpersonal path to freedom.
Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications.
Kuhn, R., Bradbury, T. N., Nussbeck, F. W., Bodenmann, G., & Kuhn, R.
(2018). The power of listening: Lending an ear to the partner during
dyadic coping conversations. Journal of Family Psychology,
Advance online publication.
Laurent, H. K., Duncan, L. G., Lightcap, A., & Khan, F. (2017). Mindful
parenting predicts mothers’ and infants’ hypothalamic-pituitary-
adrenal activity during a dyadic stressor. Developmental
Psychology, 53(3), 417–424.
Laurent, H. K., Hertz, R., Nelson, B., & Laurent, S. M. (2016).
Mindfulness during romantic conflict moderates the impact of neg-
ative partner behaviors on cortisol responses. Hormones and
Behavior, 79, 45–51.
Lee, R. M., Dean, B. L., & Jung, K. R. (2008). Social connectedness,
extraversion, and subjective well-being: Testing a mediation model.
Personality and Individual Differences, 45(5), 414–419.
Lenger, K. A., Gordon, C. L., & Nguyen, S. P. (2017). Intra-individual
and cross-partner associations between the five facets of mindful-
ness and relationship satisfaction. Mindfulness, 8(1), 171–180.
Lippold, M. A., Duncan, L. G., Coatsworth, J. D., Nix, R. L., &
Greenberg, M. T. (2015). Understanding how mindful parenting
may be linked to mother–adolescent communication. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 44(9), 1663–1673.
MacDonald, H. Z., & Price, J. L. (2017). Emotional understanding:
Examining alexithymia as a mediator of the relationship between
mindfulness and empathy. Mindfulness, 8(6), 1644–1652.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of infer-
ences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry
into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50(9), 741–749.
Muthén, B. O., & Muthén, L. K. (1998–2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Parker, S. C., Nelson, B. W., Epel, E. S., & Siegel, D. J. (2015). The
science of presence: A central mediator of the interpersonal benefits
View publication stats
Mindfulness
of mindfulness. In K. W. Brown, J. D. Creswell, & R. M. Ryan
(Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness: Theory, research, and practice
(pp. 225–244). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Manual for the Paulhus deception scales: BIDR
version 7. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Pratscher, S. D., Rose, A. J., Markovitz, L., & Bettencourt, A. (2018).
Interpersonal mindfulness: Investigating mindfulness in interperson-
al interactions, co-rumination and Friendship Quality. Mindfulness,
9(4), 1206–1215.
Quaglia, J. T., Braun, S. E., Freeman, S. P., McDaniel, M. A., & Brown,
K. W. (2016). Meta-analytic evidence for effects of mindfulness
training on dimensions of self-reported dispositional mindfulness.
Psychological Assessment, 28(7), 803–818.
Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011). Construction
and factorial validation of a short form of the self-compassion scale.
Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(3), 250–255.
Reis, H. T., Lemay, E. P., & Finkenauer, C. (2017). Toward understanding
understanding: The importance of feeling understood in relation-
ships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11(3),
Advanced online publication. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.
12308.
Rose, A. J. (2002). Co–rumination in the friendships of girls and boys.
Child Development, 73(6), 1830–1843.
Rubin, R. B., & Martin, M. M. (1994). Development of a measure of
interpersonal communication competence. Communication
Research Reports, 11(1), 33–44.
Salovey, P., Mayer, J. D., Goldman, S. L., Turvey, C., & Palfai, T. P.
(1995). Emotional attention, clarity, and repair: Exploring emotional
intelligence using the trait meta-mood scale. In J. W. Pennebaker
(Ed.), Emotion, disclosure, & health (pp. 125–154). Washington,
DC, US: American Psychological Association.
Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1985). The self-consciousness scale: A
revised version for use with general populations. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 15(8), 687–699.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Hall, L. E., Haggerty, D. J., Cooper, J. T.,
Golden, C. J., & Dornheim, L. (1998). Development and validation
of a measure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual
Differences, 25(2), 167–177.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in
assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428.
Singer, T., Kok, B. E., Bornemann, B., Zurborg, S., Bolz, M., & Bochow,
C. A. (2016). The Resource project. Background, design, samples,
and measurements (2nd ed.). Leipzig. Germany: Max-Planck
Institute for Human and Cognitive and Brain Sciences.
Smith, G. T., & McCarthy, D. M. (1995). Methodological considerations
in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological
Assessment, 7(3), 300–308.
Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537.
Thera, N (1994). Satipatthana Sutta: The foundations of
mindfulness. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.
nysa.html.
Wachs, K., & Cordova, J. V. (2007). Mindful relating: Exploring mind-
fulness and emotion repertoires in intimate relationships. Journal of
Marital and Family Therapy, 33(4), 464–481.
Williams, A. M., & Cano, A. (2014). Spousal mindfulness and social
support in couples with chronic pain. The Clinical Journal of
Pain, 30(6), 528–535.