↓ Skip to main content

SAGE Publishing

Article Metrics

Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation

Overview of attention for article published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 658)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
36 news outlets
blogs
7 blogs
twitter
330 tweeters
facebook
32 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users
reddit
5 Redditors
video
1 video uploader

Readers on

mendeley
278 Mendeley
Title
Mind the Hype: A Critical Evaluation and Prescriptive Agenda for Research on Mindfulness and Meditation
Published in
Perspectives on Psychological Science, September 2017
DOI 10.1177/1745691617709589
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas T. Van Dam, Marieke K. van Vugt, David R. Vago, Laura Schmalzl, Clifford D. Saron, Andrew Olendzki, Ted Meissner, Sara W. Lazar, Catherine E. Kerr, Jolie Gorchov, Kieran C. R. Fox, Brent A. Field, Willoughby B. Britton, Julie A. Brefczynski-Lewis, David E. Meyer

Abstract

During the past two decades, mindfulness meditation has gone from being a fringe topic of scientific investigation to being an occasional replacement for psychotherapy, tool of corporate well-being, widely implemented educational practice, and "key to building more resilient soldiers." Yet the mindfulness movement and empirical evidence supporting it have not gone without criticism. Misinformation and poor methodology associated with past studies of mindfulness may lead public consumers to be harmed, misled, and disappointed. Addressing such concerns, the present article discusses the difficulties of defining mindfulness, delineates the proper scope of research into mindfulness practices, and explicates crucial methodological issues for interpreting results from investigations of mindfulness. For doing so, the authors draw on their diverse areas of expertise to review the present state of mindfulness research, comprehensively summarizing what we do and do not know, while providing a prescriptive agenda for contemplative science, with a particular focus on assessment, mindfulness training, possible adverse effects, and intersection with brain imaging. Our goals are to inform interested scientists, the news media, and the public, to minimize harm, curb poor research practices, and staunch the flow of misinformation about the benefits, costs, and future prospects of mindfulness meditation.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 330 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 278 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 278 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 53 19%
Researcher 51 18%
Student > Master 40 14%
Student > Bachelor 28 10%
Other 18 6%
Other 88 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 139 50%
Unspecified 31 11%
Social Sciences 30 11%
Neuroscience 24 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 6%
Other 36 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 568. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#7,697
of 9,105,686 outputs
Outputs from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#8
of 658 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#519
of 255,381 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Perspectives on Psychological Science
#1
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 9,105,686 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 658 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 50.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,381 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.