Mindfulness

History of Mindfulness 

Mindfulness comes from the Pali word sati, which means having awareness, attention, and  remembering (Davis & Hayes, 2011). The practices are rooted in ancient Buddhist tradition. There are  two primary schools of Buddhism –Mahayana, which includes the Vajrayana/Tibetan and Zen traditions,  and the Theravada school. Most of the mindfulness practices taught as secular practices in the West  have their foundation in the Vipassana practices of the Theravada branch (Cullen, 2011). Vipassana is  also a Pali word that means insight, and the practices involve monitoring one’s moment-to-moment  physical sensations, emotions, mental activity and the immediate environment with the purpose of  drawing insight about the nature of things, including impermanence (Davis & Hayes, 2011; Lutz et al.).  

Mindfulness began its journey into mainstream Western use beginning in the late 1970s with  Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR), developed by Jon Kabat-Zinn for chronic pain management. Since 1979, MBSR and a variety of derivations and adaptations of the program, including  Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) developed in 2002, represent the most widely researched  mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) used for a diverse set of ailments (Cullen, 2011, Kreplin et al,  2018). The popularity and study of mindfulness has grown exponentially in the last decade among  practitioners and researchers. A search of scientific journal articles using Scopus revealed about 2000 to  4000 articles on mindfulness in year 2000, and over 32,000 articles in 2015 (Van Dam et al., 2018). The  number of randomized controlled trials alone have increased from one in the three-year period  between 1995 and 1997 to a total of 216 in the period between 2013 and 2015 (Powell, 2018). The  growth in interest may be driven by the search for an antidote to the pace of Western life and an  interest in a broad range of secular applications, from social work to politics to policing to education  (Bergman et al., 2016; Bristow, 2019; Christopher et al., 2015; Cullen, 2011; Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hick &  Furlotte, 2009, 2010; Jones et al., 2019; Kang et al., 2013; Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018; Neff & Pommier,  2012).  

Most of the studies and theoretical writing on the topic have focused on the mechanisms, efficacy, and  outcomes of mindfulness fostered through mindfulness meditation for various symptoms (Shapiro et al,  2006; Davis & Hayes, 2011). However, there still remains a healthy debate among scholars and scientists  about how to accurately define mindfulness and what standards of practices and level of experience  enable it, because it can be described as a set of practices, a process of personal transformation, a  momentary state, or a way of being (Davis & Hayes, 2011; Kreplin et al, 2018). As both a dispositional  trait and a training technique, where various practices lead to different insights and outcomes, it is then  challenging to explain exactly what it is, how it works and why. See more below on the scientific  definitions of mindfulness.  

As scientists work to identify and validate the various facets of mindfulness through neurological  imaging, self-report survey instruments, and behavioral analysis, Buddhist tradition does not necessarily  see that the multifaceted qualities of mindfulness can be separated (Baer, 2018). Yet many researchers  are exploring isolated neurological, physiological, psychological, and interpersonal benefits of  mindfulness practice without reference to Buddhist doctrine or tradition. As the secular adaptation and  scientific study of mindfulness has increased exponentially, there are further tensions between Buddhist  beliefs and the Western understanding of the original purpose behind the practices of supporting  liberation from suffering (Kreplin et al, 2018). In particular, there are concerns that when mindfulness  practices are separated from their ethical foundation and positive intentions, the practices can not only 

become a technique exclusively for self-centered benefit, but could even create harm (Sun, 2014). A  common example frequently cited is the nature of a sniper using mindfulness to improve his  performance in killing others (Cullen, 2011). And there can be a negative impact to a well-intentioned  practitioner as well, depending upon the quality of attention. For example, there may be an increase in  rumination and judgment when we focus attention on our thought patterns and emotions without the  intentional attitude of openness and curiosity (Baer, 2018; Bishop et al., 2004). Yet, when mindfulness is  conducted within an ethical framework or in the context of Buddhist concepts, such as with an  awareness of our interconnection, mindfulness can be a positive force for both personal growth and  social change (Cullen, 2011; Sun, 2014).  

Definitions of Mindfulness 

As simple as it may first appear, mindfulness is inherently difficult to define. There is currently no  consensus on one single definition. Mindfulness is both referred to as a process or skill to practice as  well as a mental state.  

As far as a process, mindfulness is seen as a form of brain-training conducted through a range of  practices involving intentional present-moment attention regulation that brings our internal  experiences, like emotional reactivity, under greater, conscious control (Bishop et al., 2004; Davis &  Hayes, 2011). The most frequently referenced definition is that of Jon Kabat-Zinn: “paying attention in a  particular way: on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally” (Kabat-Zinn, 1994, p 4).  Another similar definition is: “Moment -to-moment awareness, paying attention in a specific way, in  the present moment, as non-reactively, nonjudgmentally and open-heartedly as possible” (Van Dam  et al., 2018).  

Shapiro et al (2006) propose that mindfulness is an interwoven triumvirate of: 

1. intention - along a continuum of self-regulation, self-exploration and self-liberation;

2. attention - focused awareness, switching attention, and cognitive inhibition; and 

3. attitude - of patience, openness, and curiosity that work simultaneously to allow a particular quality and process of moment-to-moment attention.  

In 2004, a gathering of scientists sought to determine an operational definition. Participants agreed that  mindfulness involved two primary components: (1) The self-regulation of attention on the present  moment, and (2) an attitude of curiosity, openness and acceptance (Bishop et al., 2004). The more  precise definition that evolved was:  

“A process of regulating attention in order to bring a quality of nonelaborative awareness to  current experience and a quality of relating to one’s experience within an orientation of  curiosity, experiential openness, and acceptance. We further see mindfulness as a process of  gaining insight into the nature of one’s mind and the adoption of a decentered perspective  (Safran & Segal, 1990) on thoughts and feelings so that they can be experienced in terms of their  subjectivity (versus their necessary validity) and transient nature (versus their permanence)”  (Bishop et al., 2004, p. 234).  

In this case, intentional, present-moment awareness with an attitude of openness is married with (a)  efforts towards avoiding elaborative or added thought processes like rumination or mind-wandering  arising out of what is experienced, yet also (b) allows for insight into the nature of those experiences by taking a decentered perspective as an unattached observer. This allows individuals to notice that their  experiences (thoughts, emotions, sensations) come and go and are not fused with who they are.  

As a state, mindfulness is characterized by different facets or capacities that can produce other  outcomes. Baer et.al. (2006) identified the following five facets of mindfulness, which are regularly  referenced in studies of mindfulness capacities:  

1. Non-reactivity - to inner experience 

2. Observing - noticing sensations/perceptions/thoughts/feelings  

3. Acting with awareness - reduction in automatic pilot, non-distractedness and concentration 4. Articulating experience  

5. Non-judgment - of experience 

It is necessary and yet challenging to distinguish the precise relationship between mindfulness practices,  its cognitive mechanisms, the facets describing it as a state, and its correlated or potential outcomes.  For example, in Buddhist doctrine, there are considered four foundations of mindfulness – awareness of  body, feeling tone, mental states and mental contents, which could describe either the nature of the  practices and/or the capacities or facets developed by the practices (Cullen, 2011). 

PRACTICES -> COGNITIVE MECHANISMS -> STATES defined by FACETS -> OUTCOMES 

Some of the challenges in defining mindfulness include that the terms “mindfulness”, “meditation” and  “self-awareness” are often used interchangeably. Yet, critical to the definition of mindfulness is  discerning whether we are referring to a wide range of mental states and/or practices and processes  (Van Dam et al., 2018). Meditation includes a variety of practices for training attention for self regulation and awareness (Davis & Hayes, 2011). Self-awareness involves going beyond self-observation  fostered by a practice like meditation to draw insight into the relationship between feelings, thoughts,  and actions (Bishop et al., 2004). Mindfulness seems to include both a set of skills that can be  developed with practice that include (but can go beyond) meditation, as well as mental states that are  regulated through such practice (Bishop et al., 2004).  

It is thus necessary to explore what we may know about the mechanisms of mindfulness to help shed  further light on how we might better define mindfulness, how it works, and what it feels like when we  experience it. Research on the mechanisms of mindfulness attempt to explain how a person develops  

mindfulness, what is happening in their brain, felt sense, and behavior, how these capacities and  functions relate to each other, and what they result in as outcomes. The following sections will attempt  to summarize current findings across these realms, as well as present how the facets and outcomes of  mindfulness may be relevant to those working towards social change.  

Mindfulness Practices 

In order to begin to explore the mechanisms of mindfulness, it is critical to understand the range of  actions research participants are undertaking to foster mindfulness. There is a large variety of  mindfulness practices and programs that combine a range of skills.  

We have organized mindfulness practices into four primary categories (Steidle, 2017): One category  involves a set of practices called focused attention that is usually cultivated during a formal practice, like  meditation, where we set aside explicit time from our day to concentrate with sustained attention on  something specific like our breathing (Hadash & Bernstein, 2018; Levit-Binnun et al., 2019; Lutz et al.,  2008; Steidle, 2017). Many Buddhist traditions start with focused attention practices before moving on  to other practices that enable insight (Hölzel et al., 2011b). A second category, open monitoring,  usually builds upon the focused attention skills and involves bringing a more general awareness,  moment-to-moment, to everything happening inside and around us with non-reactivity and non judgment (Hadash & Bernstein, 2018; Levit-Binnun et al., 2019; Lutz et al., 2008). Open monitoring  practices do not require any sustained attention on any one target, but instead involve more open  attention on whatever may arise into one’s awareness from bodily sensations, emotional material, the  activities of the mind, and the circumstances of the environment around the practitioner. The third  category involves seeking deeper understanding about ourselves, others, and our experiences by using  mindfulness practices that invite insight. Often, as in Vipassana meditation, the purpose of open  monitoring practices is to recognize patterns in our emotions and thoughts, which naturally leads to  greater insights into the nature of reality (Lutz et al., 2008). These may allow us to more easily dismantle  our distorted and subjective perceptions as we become our own observers and separate our identity  from our experiences (Levit-Binnun et al., 2019). The fourth category involves working to cultivate  certain qualities like compassion and lovingkindness through intentional contemplative exercises. For  example, Lovingkindness meditation, involves a practitioner visualizing offering a blessing or wish to  themselves and others and visualizing the other receiving that blessing, such as “May they be happy”  (Stell & Farsides, 2015). The broader family of Mindful Compassion Activities use various techniques  including a focused attention on the body and emotions, active listening, or moment-to-moment open  awareness with curiosity to develop a deeper understanding of how thought influences emotion  regulation and to cultivate a more wholesome and prosocial orientation (Levit-Binnun et al., 2019;  Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). While there are similarities between the categories of practice, they can  activate different parts of the brain. 

Mechanisms of Mindfulness 

As mentioned earlier, there are five facets of mindfulness: non-reactivity, observing, acting with  awareness, articulating experience, and non-judgment (Baer et al., 2006). As we develop these  capacities through mindfulness practice, there are certain neural mechanisms driving our experience.  The mechanisms behind mindfulness can be organized into two primary sets of cognitive processes (1)  present-centered attention regulation and meta-awareness, involving the mindfulness facets of  observing, aware acting, and articulating experience, and (2) emotion acceptance and insight, involving  the facets of non-judging and non-reacting, aided by the process of perspective taking, reappraisal and  self-inquiry (Dahl et al., 2015; Jones, et al., 2019). 

Attention Regulation and Meta-Awareness 

Attention regulation requires the following primary actions – consciously initiating, directing and  monitoring the focus of attention (such as on your breathing), recognizing a distraction (perhaps an itch  or memory), disengaging from that distraction, and then switching attention back towards the original  target focus of sustained attention (Dahl et al., 2015; Lutz et al., 2008). Focused attention meditation 

results in a decrease in emotional reactivity in part because it is not possible when sustaining focused  attention on something in the present moment (Lutz et al., 2008). This attention regulation is critical,  especially in the early stages of learning mindfulness, to stay consciously aware of the present-moment  without becoming distracted. The process of self-monitoring and regulating attention, then, necessarily  involves meta-awareness.  

Meta-awareness is being aware of the processes of consciousness and observing your own thought  patterns, feelings, and sensations and being able to differentiate that you are separate from and not  fused with those experiences (Bishop et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2015). For example, meta-awareness  would involve observing that you are experiencing a feeling of sadness, yet not getting wrapped up in  the sadness and thinking you are a sad person or that the emotion is who you are. This process involves  the brain not only monitoring and controlling one’s attention, but the direct inhibition of unrelated and  secondary elaborative processing of what is arising – that means, keeping yourself from mind wandering, ruminating, daydreaming and other mental content to maintain present-moment awareness  (Bishop et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2015). In other words, in order to stay aware of the present moment,  you need to be aware of when you are not in the present moment so that you can bring your attention  back to the present. Too much mental activity leads to scattered attention, and too little mental  activation leads to a reduced capacity to monitor attention (Isbel & Summers, 2019). Mindfulness with  meta-awareness, however, sustains attention and reduces mind-wandering.  

Mindfulness meditation stimulates the parts of the middle prefrontal cortex associated with self knowledge and meta-awareness (Davis & Hayes, 2011). Further, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC)  enables executive attention, and the front-insular cortex is involved in switching between different brain  networks for cognitive control (Hölzel et al., 2011b). Experienced meditators have shown greater  activation in the rostral ACC. However, over time, it is also seen that with greater expertise, these  functions become more automatic, as greater activation may not be as needed to manage the ongoing  control of attention (Hölzel et al., 2011b). From self-report findings, an attention on bodily sensations,  such as is conducted in focused attention practices targeting one’s breath, leads to greater clarity of  more subtle interoception measured through an increase in insula activation (Hölzel et al., 2011b).  Interoception is the sense of what is going on in your body, such as knowing when you are hungry.  

Further, metacognitive awareness and decreased mind-wandering result in improvements in working  memory that result in enhanced attention capacities and better emotional regulation (Davis & Hayes,  2011; Isbel & Summers, 2019). The meta-cognitive functions of regulating awareness of consciousness may share neural pathways with the regulation of emotion (Isbel & Summers, 2019). This is fostered by  the capacity to recognize and reflect on such emotions in the present moment. First the mindfulness  practitioner will notice the distressing thought or emotional challenge, then they use inhibitory cognitive  control to pause and not react, then working memory allows the practitioner to consciously consider  alternative responses, then they use improved cognitive flexibility to put things into context, and then  they finally initiate their response with self-regulation (Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). Mindfulness practice  can improve working memory capacity and, thus, emotion regulation, which often is diminished in times  of stress (Davis & Hayes, 2011). In fact, through metacognition and the shifts in mental activity and  emotion regulation, mindfulness can indirectly influence behavioral responses, such as promoting active  listening and empathy (Jones, et al., 2019).  

The training of attention in mindfulness meditation results in functional and structural changes in the  brain, especially the attention-relevant neural networks (Dahl et al., 2015). When people are unable to  regulate their attention and emotions or separate themselves from these experiences with greater awareness, we see disfunctions in the form of ADHD, addiction, depression and other forms of anxiety  that affect mental health (Dahl et al., 2015; Isbel & Summers, 2019). While mind-wandering results in  greater unhappiness, increased capacity for meta-awareness allows for an individual to adapt more  easily to accepting reality and promotes wellbeing (Baer, 2011; Bishop et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2015;  Isbel & Summers, 2019; Killingsworth & Gilbert, 2010). 

For novice practitioners to sustain such attention requires high levels of cognitive control and still results  in frequent failures due to distraction (Isbel & Summers, 2019). Yet with experienced meditators (i.e.,  44,000 hours of practice vs 19,000), as capacities get stronger, attentional control becomes increasingly  automated, leaving room for insight, clarity and interpretation, and a corresponding reduction of  activation in the areas of the brain responsible for such attention (Isbel & Summers, 2019; Lutz et al.,  2008). 

Still, Shapiro et al (2006) note that mindfulness requires more than just attentional practice, but  intention and attitude too. Intention is the purpose behind the attentional practice, and tends to move  on a continuum from stress management to self-knowledge to self-realization. Shapiro’s work has found  that the outcomes of such practice are correlated with the intentions set for such practices (Shapiro et  al., 2006). Further, the attitude with which the attention is applied – the orientation of curiosity,  openness, and self-acceptance – matter too. In particular, an attitude of non-judgment supports the  capacity to detach from and be able to increasingly disidentify with the content of experience. This, in  turn, helps self-regulation by disrupting maladaptive and automatic behavior and creating more  opportunity for finding acceptance, changing one’s perspective, and acting with greater choice (Shapiro  et al., 2006). Let us look closer at these transformative mechanisms.  

Emotion Acceptance and Insight 

Under the second family of mechanisms, mindfulness promotes a change in perspective. This happens  through two primary functions – cognitive reappraisal and perspective-taking, both capacities fostered  by the facets of non-judgment and non-reactivity developed through mindfulness practice.  

Buddhist doctrine teaches that there is no permanent self, and that if we can become aware of our  internal processes, we will find clarity and understanding of the roots of our suffering by releasing our  identity and attachment to our rigid sense of self, and instead recognizing the impermanence of the  nature of things (Hölzel et al., 2011b). Usually after developing proficiency in focused attention  practices, practitioners begin to learn the open monitoring practices where they observe and  contemplate their bodily sensations, emotions, and thoughts, leading to greater insights, especially a  recognition that these experiences are always changing (Dahl et al., 2015; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Isbel &  Summers, 2019). The processes of sustaining present-moment awareness and drawing insight through  self-inquiry and deconstructing experience are very different, though meta-awareness fostered by the  former enables the latter (Dahl et al., 2015). Open monitoring meditation supports a greater level of  emotional flexibility, integrating present-moment information so that responses are less reactive and  automatic (Davis & Hayes, 2011; Lutz et al., 2008). Bringing an intention of non-judgment and non reactivity to whatever comes into awareness during meditation practice allows us to cultivate a more  objective orientation towards our experiences. With this decentered attitude of curiosity and open  acceptance, mindfulness can lead an individual to shift their perspective around what causes them  discomfort and begin to experience those things as less distressing (Bishop et al., 2004; Shapiro et al.,  2006; Davis & Hayes, 2011). Dahl et al. (2015) describe insight as “a shift in consciousness with a feeling  of knowing, understanding, or perceiving something that had previously eluded one’s grasp” (p. 6). This,  in part, happens through the mechanism of cognitive reappraisal. 

Cognitive reappraisal involves changing the content of thoughts and emotions by reframing them as  beneficial, meaningful or unharmful, often by replacing underlying negative judgments and conceptions  with a more adaptive orientation (Dahl et al., 2015; Hölzel et al., 2011b). To do so requires non judgmental detachment from identifying with these emotional and mental experiences. As a  mindfulness practitioner comes to process emotion more selectively, reappraisal fosters more positive  emotions, a decrease in anxiety and other negative emotions, greater emotion regulation, and increased  wellbeing, in part by activating the brain networks that involve adapting to stress (Bishop et al., 2004;  Dahl et al., 2015; Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Isbel & Summers, 2019; Luberto et al., 2019).  Jones et al. (2019) found that non-judging and non-reacting had different effects on people depending  upon their level of meditation experience, suggesting that it takes practice for new meditators to let go  of their own inner-critic and find acceptance of their emotional states.  

In addition to non-judgment, the mindfulness facet of non-reactivity also supports cognitive reappraisal.  Increasing awareness of bodily sensation including one’s physical responses to emotion and reframing  our experiences, allows individuals to change their reactions to their experiences, disengaging automatic  and habitual pathways, and enabling more conscious responses that integrate present-moment  information (Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b). This does not take place through avoidance.  Instead, in mindfulness practice, the individual leans in, allowing the uncomfortable stimuli to come into  awareness, then contemplates any emotional reaction. This then enables reappraisal, if not complete  extinction of the previously habitual reaction (Hölzel et al., 2011b). This reduces unconscious reactivity  and increases more adaptive emotional and behavioral responses (Bishop et al., 2004; Shapiro et al.,  2006; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Lutz et al., 2008).  

The processes behind self-inquiry and insight include questioning one’s basic beliefs and assumptions,  deconstructing one’s experiences into various parts, and identifying patterns in the dynamics of  experience for the self, others, and the broader world around us (Dahl et al., 2015). Mindfulness reduces  the activity of the default mode network responsible for internally-interpreted processes. This includes  the middle prefrontal cortex associated with self-knowledge, morality, intuition and fear management,  and the posterior cingulate cortex and precuneus, which involve assessing the relevance or significance  of something and its integration into our autobiographical sense of self (Dahl et al., 2015; Davis & Hayes,  2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b). Cognitive reappraisal is associated with activity in the prefrontal cortex and  the anterior cingulate cortex (Hölzel et al., 2011b). Experienced meditators demonstrate more detached  awareness of internal and external sensations, functions controlled by the insula and somatosensory  cortex, and demonstrate more cognitive control over default systems that drive more emotional and  self-referential responses (Hölzel et al., 2011b).  

Mindfulness also increases the activation of the ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and reduces the  activation of and gray matter concentration in the amygdala, which is associated with improved emotion  regulation and inhibitory control (Hölzel et al., 2011b). The elimination of fear-based reactivity, which  improves with mindfulness, involves the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the hippocampus, which  also reduces amygdala activity (Hölzel et al., 2011b). This supports a reduction in stress, an increase in  parasympathetic activity that allows for relaxation, and a prevention of depressive symptoms (Davis &  Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b).  

Perspective-Taking, Self-Compassion, Empathy and Compassion 

Mindfulness not only supports changes in self-awareness, insight, and emotion regulation, but it also  changes our perspective on others and our external situations, called perspective taking (Hölzel et al.,  2011b). Perspective taking is where we consider how another might feel, and includes empathy and  compassion. Where empathy is a process of being able to put yourself in another’s shoes and imagine  feeling the way they feel, compassion is slightly different. Compassion similarly involves perceiving and  appraising another’s feelings, but also includes a desire to help alleviate the other’s suffering. When  someone comes in contact with someone who is distressed, they tend to experience one of three things:  empathetic perspective-taking, emotional distress, or compassion (Berry et al, 2018). With empathy,  there is sometimes the danger of empathetic fatigue and negative emotional experiences like distress  and overwhelm (Cameron & Frederickson, 2015; Luberto et al., 2018). This may be because empathetic  distress involves a feeling of imagining oneself in someone else’s situation, versus compassion, which  involves feeling with someone else. Empathy can thus lead to a sense of emotional contagion that drives  aversion or a withdrawal from the situation (Berry et al, 2018). Empathy and compassion both require  maintaining a distinction between the observed and simulated state of the other and one’s own state;  failure to maintain such distinctions may influence burn-out (Garbarg & Brown, 2019). Empathy is seen  as activity in the ventromedial prefrontal-striatal neural networks responsible for self-relevance, value  and affiliation (Berry et al, 2018). In contrast, feelings of compassion are associated with the premotor  and somatosensory networks responsible for processing the self and mirroring other’s physical states  (Berry et al, 2018). Feelings of compassion always involve a positive emotional orientation and altruistic  stance towards helping. Through reappraisal, individuals are able to replace negative self-perceptions  with more adaptive concepts of self, which can include patience and kindness and can also shift  empathy into compassion (Dahl et al., 2015).  

Self-compassion is “compassion directed inward” (Neff & Pommier, 2012, p. 1), which includes having  kindness for the self without criticism, a sense of being connected to our common human experience,  and being able to use mindfulness to be aware of and regulate thoughts and emotions without overly identifying with them (Hölzel et al., 2011b). Mindfulness promotes self-compassion, which is partially  responsible for the relationship between mindfulness and wellbeing (Hölzel et al., 2011b).  

Overall, studies show that with non-judgment and non-reactivity fostered through mindfulness, we are  able to shift our perspective towards ourselves - driving self-compassion – as well as towards others – resulting in less distress in response to others’ suffering and more feelings of kindness, compassion, and  interconnection (Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Neff & Pommier, 2012). Levit-Binnum et al.  (2019) hypothesize that brain activity previously spent on our defense mechanisms and avoidances for  our own self-preservation are then freed up through the process of mindfulness and compassion to  allow one to more easily connect with others. Neff and Pommier (2012) demonstrated that self compassion is directly enabled by perspective taking skills and highly correlated with other-oriented  concern, but that this is somewhat dependent on one’s level of meditation experience as well as age  and gender (more often witnessed among women). This suggests that as we age and egocentric  behavior declines, and as meditation practitioners increase their level of compassion and  interconnectedness, these capacities may drive altruistic behavior (Neff & Pommier, 2012).  

Outcomes  

“At the heart of this transformative process is the intention to think and act more positively  towards the world, other people, and oneself. Both ethical and psychological frames of  reference see this as a positive direction of development. Within an ethical framework, this  should bring about a more socially compassionate action, and should reduce aggressiveness and  conflict. From a psychological point of view, positive affect brings about a sense of connection,  which is usually positively experienced and is linked to wellbeing, secure attachment, and other  positive outcomes. Positive outlook reduces negative bias, and creates a sense of wholeness and  satisfaction” (Levit-Binnun et al., 2019, p. 9). 

Outcomes from developing these facets are wide ranging, including compassion, greater positive  emotions and reduced negative emotions, improved concentration and clarity, deeper understanding of  one’s sense of self and reality, and general wellbeing (Bishop et al., 2004; Davis & Hayes, 2011; Levit Binnun et al., 2019; Luberto et al., 2018). Physiologically and psychologically, mindfulness has been  shown to slow the markers for aging (Epel et al., 2009); reduce anxiety (Khoury et al., 2013); reduce  depression (Way et al., 2010); reduce stress and anxiety (Davis & Hayes, 2011); decrease rumination  (Corcoran et al., 2009); improve emotional regulation (Erisman & Roemer, 2010); and strengthen the  immune system (Davidson et al., 2003). It is believed that meditation results in a relaxation response  countering stress, which lowers negative emotion and improves positive emotion (Luberto et al, 2008).  

With a decrease in stress and greater self-awareness and emotional regulation, mindfulness helps  reduce anger, hostile aggression and the misinterpretation of hostile acts (Bergman et al., 2016;  Christopher et al., 2015).  

As a practice, mindfulness supports social and emotional intelligence as well (Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018).  Social-emotional learning (SEL) involves the process by which an individual develops the capacity for  managing emotions, experiencing empathy for others, building and sustaining positive relationships,  setting goals, and making responsible decisions towards those goals (Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). The skills  needed for social and emotional intelligence include self-awareness, self-management, and social  awareness, among others. These are many of the same capacities that mindfulness fosters – self-control  and emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility, a sense of belonging, openness, and interpersonal skills  (Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). As in the mindfulness field, the SEL literature recognizes these skills are  challenging to measure, there is little consensus on the duration and frequency of which SEL practices  are necessary to foster social and emotional intelligence, and that an individual’s temperament and  personality can also strongly influence such capacities (Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). Still, mindful  compassion practices can help an individual notice emotional distress, reflect on the experience with  curiosity, use inhibitory control for nonreactivity, draw upon working memory to consider more  adaptive responses, then use cognitive flexibility to integrate present moment information, and respond  consciously (Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). This results in a reduction in conflict and bias, increased empathy  and social connectedness, improved interpersonal relationships and happiness, and greater engagement  in prosocial behavior (Dahl et al., 2015; Davis & Hayes, 2011; Jones, et al., 2019; Kang et al, 2013;  Luberto et al., 2018).  

Despite the fact that Buddhist communities have been practicing mindfulness purposely to achieve  these results for centuries, and many of the studies in this paper show promising results, the scientific  community considers these outcomes preliminary. Meta-analyses show inconsistent impacts stemming  from the wide variations in definition, practice, method, and measure. Van Dam et al., (2018) writes,  “…There is a common misperception in public and government domains that compelling clinical  evidence exists for the broad and strong efficacy of mindfulness as a therapeutic intervention” (p. 12).  The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality found that mindfulness-based interventions,  compared to controls, had only moderate, low or no efficacy depending upon the disorder (Van Dam et  al., 2018). A recent meta-analysis of 69 randomized controlled trials representing 55 samples of a total  4,743 subjects explored mindfulness-based interventions using mindfulness meditation for a specific  disorder and found that MBIs showed larger changes in self-report measures of mindfulness (58.18% using the FFMQ or Kentucky Inventory of Mindfulness) than both active and waitlist control conditions  at post-treatment, but that these gains were less evident at a later follow-up (Goldberg et al., 2019). Yet,  this should not diminish the impact it has had or the fact that it could be an effective intervention for  non-clinical outcomes.  

Measuring Mindfulness 

Because mindfulness involves several facets and predicts a broad range of behavioral, neurological and  felt-sense outcomes, there are a wide-variety of tools that can be used to measure it and its related  capacities.  

Baer (2006) evaluated the most utilized mindfulness scale, including the 39-Item Kentucky Inventory of  Mindfulness Skills (KIMS, Baer, Smith & Allen, 2004), the 15-Item Mindfulness Attention Awareness  Scale (MAAS, Brown & Ryan, 2003), the 30-Item Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI, Buchheld, Grossman & Wallach, 2001), the 12-Item Cognitive & Affective Mindfulness Scale (CAMS, Feldman,  Hayes, Kumar & Greeson, 2004), the 16-question Mindfulness Questionnaire (MQ, Chadwick, Hember,  Mead, Lilley & Dagan, 2005), and found KIMS most relevant. Thereafter, Baer created a new tool to  integrate the most important and validated features, called the 39-Item Five Facet Mindfulness  Questionnaire (FFMQ, Baer, Smith, Hopkins, Krietemeyer, & Toney, 2006). This measures the five facets  of mindfulness: observing, describing, acting with awareness, nonjudging of inner experience, and  nonreactivity to inner experience. Tools measuring mindfulness are often validated by using a range of  established scales that measure other relevant components, such as attention regulation, emotion  regulation, meta-awareness, cognitive reappraisal, self-concept, self-compassion, stress and resilience,  bias, compassion, prosocial behavior, wellbeing and social-emotional intelligence (Baer et al., 2006;  Bishop et al., 2004; Hick and Furlotte, 2010; Christopher et al., 2015; Hölzel et al., 2011b ; Jones, et al.,  2019; Kang et al., 2013; Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). The FFMQ has been validated and versions have been  adapted for use in Spanish, Hindi, Chinese and French and in a wide range of applications. Appendix A contains a list of those key tools and others that measure more specific capacities. 

Challenges with Measuring Mindfulness 

There has been little standardization in the research around the study design, type of mindfulness-based  interventions, and measures used, which results in several challenges:  

Definition: Studies are usually limited in scope, testing one particular practice, facet or outcome without  reference to the range of other facets or their interrelationship, which makes building a balanced  consensus and validation for a complete definition difficult (Van Dam et al., 2018). For example,  Buddhist scholars say mindfulness entails attention, awareness, memory/retention and discernment,  but self-report measures may exclude various capacities (Van Dam et al., 2018). This has implications for  the metrics used, as most questionnaire developers are not Buddhist scholars. They may apply different  definitions of mindfulness, isolate unique components that were not meant to exist alone, and offer  different instructions for their interventions, which may diverge from the original intentions of  mindfulness practices (Baer, 2011). 

Practices and Study Design: In terms of the practice utilized, across studies there is a lack of consistency  in the technique and its instructions, whether the participants complied with instructions, the intensity  and duration of the practice, whether the participants were experienced meditators or novices (and  what even constitutes having meditation experience), how mindfulness is defined within the study, and  what was subsequently measured and how (Berry et al, 2018; Cullen, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018; Lutz et al., 2008; Van Dam et al., 2018). Further, there may be bias among the  experimenters themselves, especially those leading the practice instruction, as they can unintentionally  communicate their preferences related to outcomes (Baer, 2018; Van Dam et al., 2018). Most of the  studies reviewed by Van Dam et al. (2018) did not involve the gold standard for randomized controlled  studies, and among those that did, only nine percent moved to Stage 2b of comparing to an active  control, according to the NIH stage model for clinical science. Only one percent of studies were  conducted outside research contexts (Van Dam et al., 2018). And, while MBSR is the most frequently  studied mindfulness practice, the practices used across the research vary in type, duration, and  frequency. This leaves no consistent intervention that can yet be adopted as the gold standard for clinical treatment by other practitioners (Van Dam et al., 2018). That being said, non-clinical  applications of mindfulness, as will be detailed below, show significant promise, and practitioners can be  thoughtful about selecting the mindfulness intervention and corresponding measurement tool that has  the most promising connection to their desired outcomes.  

Measures: Self-report, behavioral, and neural imaging measure different aspects of mindfulness  mechanisms, states, and outcomes, without enough clarity on the relationship between all the various  aspects and without standardized methods for interpreting results (Van Dam et al., 2018). Further, there  is not enough construct validity in measures. It is not easy to determine how the mind changes through  practice or how increased mindfulness affects other brain functions or psychological symptoms, which  may just be a function of personality and temperament (Hölzel et al., 2011b; Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018;  Van Dam et al., 2018). Mindfulness is not easily observed externally and behavioral measures cannot  describe the neural mechanisms of mindfulness (Baer, 2011; Isbel & Summers, 2019). While  neuroimaging can track improvements in sustained attention and working memory, they do not allow  for observing neural activity in daily life circumstances (Baer, 2011; Van Dam et al., 2018). They can also  be easily affected by differing levels of experience between meditators, such as breathing rates (Baer,  2011; Van Dam et al., 2018). Further, many researchers assume mindfulness is a trait that is consistent  over time and circumstances, when in reality it changes with practice and experience and in various  situations (Baer, 2011). As a result, the interpretations of data involving the neural mechanisms may be  questionable (Van Dam et al., 2018).  

Yet, self-report scales may also be distorted by bias among experienced meditators who understand,  interpret, and value facets differently, have more experience noticing these capacities, or who may  recognize how much more mindful they may be able to be, underreporting mindfulness (Baer, 2011, Van  Dam et al., 2018). There may also be issues among novices who may have self-selected into the study  and want to appear mindful (overreporting mindfulness) or have little experience noticing such  capacities and interpret them differently than experienced meditators (Baer, 2018; Van Dam et al.,  2018). Further, some practices may be attractive and helpful in different ways to different people  (Hölzel et al., 2011b). Similarly, it is hard to validate the claims in self-report studies of changes in mental  and physical aspects after conducting the mindfulness practice, because the practice itself involves  introspection (Van Dam et al., 2018). Finally, many self-report studies involve reverse-scored items that  contribute to an overall score, where the absence of a quality does not necessarily suggest the opposite  (Baer, 2011).  

Contraindications: There are potential adverse effects from practicing mindfulness that are not always  well-documented or known, such as in anxiety-based disorders like bipolar disorder, schizophrenia,  PTSD, suicidality, and psychosis (Van Dam et al., 2018). In fact, less than 25 percent of studies actively  explore adverse effects (Van Dam et al., 2018). And, there are inconsistent results as to the efficacy of  mindfulness as a therapeutic intervention (Kreplin et al, 2018). There is little regulation of mindfulness practices, and risk is managed primarily through informed consent overseen by those developing and  testing interventions. So far, two universities – University of Massachusetts and Oxford - have created  recommendations for exclusion criteria for practicing MBSR and MBCT (Van Dam et al., 2018).  

Future Recommendations for Research 

To improve upon the mindfulness research, there are several recommendations. Rather than using  mindfulness as a broad and generally-defined term, researchers should be specific about exactly how  they are defining mindfulness, what practices are being taught, and what they are measuring (Cullen,  2011; Van Dam et al., 2018). What exactly constitutes a mindfulness-based intervention also needs  further clarification. Further, given mindfulness is always practiced in a particular context, future studies  should clearly define and explore the effect of those contexts (Lutz et al., 2008). 

Given the tension and inconsistencies between Buddhist doctrine and practice and clinical research and  instructions, more collaboration and the accessibility and translation of Buddhist texts in secular  contexts for their study in the psychological and scientific communities would be useful (Baer, 2011).  Further, given mindfulness involves engagement with the practitioner’s inner and outer life perspectives  and behavior, it should be clear under what ethical expectations mindfulness is to be applied, and an  agreement that mindfulness used for harm is not actually mindfulness (Cullen, 2011).  

In terms of study design, more randomized controlled studies are needed with double-blind procedures,  larger and more diverse sample sizes, that are longer in scope (Kreplin et al, 2018; Luberto et al., 2018).  Studies should also seek to show some consistency in definitions, practice and measures, and only use  meditation teachers that are not related to the study and analysis to avoid bias that may come from  how instructions are presented (Kreplin et al, 2018).  

With each mindfulness-based intervention, it is critical to not only measure whether it had a significant  effect on a particular symptom, but also deconstruct the mechanisms that underlie the changes to  understand how and why it works. (Baer, 2011; Dahl et al., 2015; Goldberg et al., 2019; Kreplin et al,  2018). It is a best practice to utilize a range of behavioral, neurobiological, and self-report measures to  validate results rather than simply assessing the aggregate of “mindfulness” (Baer, 2011; Van Dam et al.,  2018). Researchers can also use observable behavior tests that allow self-report with third party  validation of changes (Van Dam et al., 2018). Further, it is important to continue to study and  disentangle the impact of temperament, personality, cultural context, belief systems, ethics and  interpersonal dynamics on mindfulness experiences (Dahl et al., 2015). Given mindfulness as a state can  vary over time, it is suggested that test instruments are conducted immediately after a practice to  reduce any memory bias, and that it is understood they are testing mindfulness within the context of a  specific situation (Bishop et al., 2004). Studies should avoid reporting only moderately significant results  and ensure consistency in evaluating pre vs. post or post vs. follow-up, or between participants (Kreplin  et al, 2018).  

Within the international development context, researchers and practitioners need to be conscientious  of the spiritual, religious and cultural context in which mindfulness practices are being taught and used,  including misconceptions about practices that may foster distrust and opposition. Further, as will be  touched upon in the wellbeing literature, it is important to be careful that if there are increases in an  individual’s acceptance of reality due to mindfulness practice, that such gains are not used as rationale  to uphold inequality or to suggest that material progress is no longer necessary. 

Finally, there needs to be additional research on the possible adverse effects of meditation (Van Dam et  al., 2018). Given the uncertain impacts and contraindications, with little regulatory oversight of  practices, it is recommended that mindfulness not be used as an initial or primary intervention with  certain anxiety-based disorders without further study (Van Dam et al., 2018). 

Applications of Mindfulness for Social Impact 

Mindfulness has been studied in a wide range of applications, but most have to do with its impacts on  individual emotional, psychological, and physiological health. There are fewer studies that explore the  outcomes that may have social impact implications. Most fall into two categories: perception of others  (compassion and bias) or behavior towards others (prosocial or helping behavior and ethical decision making).  

Perception of Others 

Compassion can result in a permanent change in one’s motivation and feelings towards others (Berry et  al, 2018; Leiberg et al., 2011). Because mindfulness builds our awareness, non-judgmental acceptance,  and non-reactivity, it also fosters shifts towards more positive, other-regarding emotions. (Jones, et al.,  2019; Kang et al., 2013; Stell & Farsides, 2015).  

After six to seven weeks of compassion training, participants showed improvements in positive affect,  life satisfaction, and stress (Leiberg et al., 2011). Mindfulness also results in greater relationship  satisfaction, likely because of improved interpersonal communications, empathy, and a reduction in  conflict due to lower reactivity (Davis & Hayes, 2011). Jones et al. (2019) found that the three  mindfulness facets of observing, describing, and non-judging directly affected the ways people  reappraised their views of others with higher levels of empathy and active listening. Mindfulness also  helps with comfort in silence and the ability to align responses with clients’ needs among therapists  (Davis & Hayes, 2011). The relaxation response experienced during mindfulness meditation may also  involve oxytocin-mediated improvements in attachment and distress tolerance, which can improve  feelings of connectedness (Luberto et al., 2018). 

One particular practice, lovingkindness meditation, where a practitioner visualizes offering a blessing or  wish to themselves and others, has been shown to increase connectedness and compassion, and  decrease implicit bias (Cameron & Frederickson, 2015; Kang et al., 2013). This may be due to  mindfulness creating more positive associations through reappraisal and perspective taking (Kang et al.,  2013). Implicit bias - the unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that affect our beliefs - and explicit  (conscious) bias involve different cognitive processes. Kang et al. (2013) found implicit bias is a better  predictor of actual behavior. The researchers studied 101 non-blacks and their attitudes towards blacks  and homeless people before and after participating in a six-week lovingkindness practice. The study  found that bias against blacks involved fear and vulnerability, whereas bias against the homeless  involved feelings of disgust and contempt (Kang et al., 2013). Lovingkindness meditation overall helped  to decrease implicit bias towards race (Kang et al., 2013). Stell & Farsides (2015) also found that just  seven minutes of lovingkindness meditation reduced prejudice against target racial out-groups.  

Behavior towards Others 

Mindfulness increases compassion and decreases anxiety, which helps drive prosocial behavior (Leiberg  et al., 2011; Luberto et al., 2018; Lutz et al., 2008). Prosocial behavior can include helping another in  need, advocating for fairness, reciprocity, inclusivity, active listening, and charitable giving (Leiberg et  al., 2011). Because mindfulness results in people becoming less reactive and more accepting, people are more likely to respond constructively, and be more likely to engage in helping others (Davis & Hayes,  2011; Luberto et al., 2018). 

Kreplin et al. (2018) and Luberto et al. (2018) both conducted meta-analyses of the prosocial effects of  meditation, reviewing 22 RCTs involving 1685 people and 26 studies with 1714 subjects, respectively.  Kreplin et al. (2018) found that meditation improved compassion and empathy, while Luberto et al.  (2018) found that in 85 percent of studies meditation showed improvement, compared to controls, in at  least one prosocial outcome, including connectedness and awareness of other’s suffering. A third review  of six formal meditation studies found that compassion meditation resulted in an increased social and  emotional sense of connection, which resulted in increased altruism, measured as charitable giving  (Luberto et al., 2018). A few specific studies involving helping behavior as well as active listening  deserve mention.  

Mindfulness drives inclusive helping behavior through the facets of present-focused attention and non judging acceptance, which increase compassion and more positive, other-oriented feelings even during  distressing experiences (Berry et al., 2018; Cameron & Frederickson, 2015; Leiberg et al., 2011).  Researchers propose that with present-focused attention, the individual can focus on their intentions,  engage in more perspective taking, and avoid rumination, so that they end up experiencing the positive  benefits from helping (Cameron & Frederickson 2015). Berry et al. (2018) studied college students  engaged in a ball tossing game, and found that mindfulness was correlated with empathetic concern,  helping, and inclusion. Leiberg et al. (2011) found that compassion training increased prosocial behavior,  especially with experiences of reciprocity, even if the costs of helping went up. The effects lasted up to  five days after the training, influencing behavior in unrelated situations and with strangers (Leiberg et  al., 2011). Similarly, Cameron & Frederickson (2015) found that among 313 adults, especially  experienced meditators, present-focused attention resulted in more positive feelings during helping,  including openness and connectedness, while non-judgmental acceptance predicted a decrease in  negative feelings like disgust or guilt.  

Mindfulness also has a particular impact on active listening. Jones et al. (2019) studied 183 college  students for mindfulness’ influence on person-centered communications. The study found that  mindfulness facets of observing and describing positively impacted empathy, reappraisals, and active  listening (Jones, et al., 2019). But the study found that non-judging was negatively correlated to  empathy and active listening (Jones, et al., 2019). These outcomes were different with experienced  versus novice practitioners. This may mean that it takes new meditators longer to let go of one’s own  emotional experiences to be able to focus on others, but that with experienced meditators, mindfulness  encourages greater acceptance of others and provides the discernment needed for meaningful and  compassionate conversations that enable others to accept themselves (Jones, et al., 2019).  

Mindfulness has also been shown to increase ethical decision-making (Ruedy & Schweitzer, 2010). In  two series of tests, Ruedy & Schweitzer (2010), demonstrated that individuals with higher self-reported  mindfulness were more likely to act ethically, uphold their moral identity, and value and apply ethical  standards. They believe this is due to mindfulness’ promotion of self-awareness, which improves the  likelihood of one recognizing with acceptance an ethical issue, one’s own potential conflict of interest  and biases versus reacting with self-protective (and potentially unethical) behavior (Ruedy & Schweitzer,  2010). They also found that mindful participants were more inclined to act in accordance with their  internal values and self-image of being ethical versus any external rewards of appearing ethical (Ruedy  & Schweitzer, 2010). This suggests that with mindfulness practice, increased levels of awareness, insight, and positive, other-oriented feelings will be complemented by more ethical and prosocial action  as well.  

Applications 

While there are many examples of mindfulness employed in the field of social justice, the scientific  research field has been slow to study, validate, and explain the mechanisms that underlie the  relationships of mindfulness to social change. Only a few studies have evaluated realms where  mindfulness could have a concrete impact on social change issues, though it was mostly related to  perspective shifts and behavior orientation. No study yet identified in this review has actually studied  how mindfulness has resulted in positive social impact. For example, while Kang et al. (2013) has studied  in a clinical setting the impact of mindfulness on racial bias, the study has not gone on to see how  mindfulness has resulted in improved racial relations between groups or other social impact when used  as a practical application. One study by Hick and Furlotte (2009), assessed an intentional application of  mindfulness among homeless people or those at risk of becoming homeless to explore how mindfulness  shifted their views towards the systems of inequity. The study found that mindfulness positively  impacted participants’ perspective on their experience, and had the potential to empower people to act  towards social change (Hick and Furlotte, 2009). However, the study stopped short of examining or  demonstrating that any shift in perspective actually resulted in transforming systems of oppression by  those same participants. What it does provide, though, is a valuable theoretical proposal for the  mechanisms of how mindfulness can support greater social awareness and agency to act on such  information towards greater equity.  

Hick and Furlotte (2009) propose that without awareness we participate in maintaining a status quo of  inequity. The more we foster self-awareness, the more we develop self-compassion and compassion,  including an understanding of our interdependence and participation in the common human experience  (Hick and Furlotte, 2009). This offers the opportunity to examine how we are affected by and  contributing to social inequity through our unconscious behavior, including bias and reactivity.  

In the Hick & Furlotte 2010 study, the researchers went on to train a very small sample of 11 severely  economically disadvantaged people in an adaptation of MBSR called Radical Mindfulness Training (RMT).  RMT integrates mindfulness practice and interpersonal skills with an analysis of social justice themes,  such as power, political and economic structures, and oppression to understand the systemic roots of  poverty affecting the participants (Hick & Furlotte, 2010). The program found improvements in social  connectedness, a decrease in self-judgment, and an increase in self-compassion and wellbeing - defined  as life satisfaction - among participants (Hick & Furlotte, 2010). The researchers believe that through  self-acceptance, participants could change how they perceived, connected with and accepted others,  leading to greater personal wellbeing (Hick & Furlotte, 2010). They also could improve relationships with  others and their interactions with structures around them, through the reduction in reactivity and  improvements in adaptive responses fostered by mindfulness (Hick & Furlotte, 2010).  

Mindfulness has also been used in the realm of politics with initial positive outcomes. Since 2013, over  200 members of the UK Parliament have attended 8-week MBCT sessions (Bristow, 2019). Self-reported  benefits have included heightened attention in concentrating despite the barrage of information,  greater kindness and decreased reactivity towards political opponents, and the capacity to consider  their own bias, reduce defenses, and de-identify with their emotions (Bristow, 2019). The experiment  has also catalyzed conversations about the positive implications of integrating mindfulness into policy  for national wellbeing, including lower-cost preventative mental health treatments and increased  compassion in medical care. Very obviously here, though not yet scientifically studied, there may be benefits from an investment in mindfulness for both self-management and interpersonal relations which  can then extend into policy-making and public benefit.  

Two studies have shown the promise of mindfulness among law enforcement officers, where high stress  levels and elevated cortisol levels have significant implications for health and public safety decision making including hostility from uncontrolled anger (Bergman et al., 2016; Christopher et al., 2015). In  policing, anger decreases ethical and constructive problem-solving, increases the interpretation of cues  as hostile as well as aggressive responses, and can result in emotional exhaustion (Bergman et al., 2016).  Trauma and chronic stress can compound the situation. In a study of 37 police officers who undertook a  program in Mindfulness-Based Resilience Training, an adaptation of MBSR, Bergman et al., (2016) found  that the mindfulness facets of nonjudging and aware acting reduced such anger and stress (Bergman et  al., 2016). Christopher et al. (2015), found that an 8-week intervention in mindfulness training among  law enforcement officers resulted in significant increases in resilience, mental and physical health, and  emotional intelligence. Overall, mindfulness is negatively correlated with hostile attribution and  aggressive reactions, anger, fatigue, stress, sleep disturbances, burnout, and rumination (Bergman et al.,  2016; Christopher et al., 2015). This may be due to an increase in awareness and open acceptance that  drive greater emotion regulation and decreases in rumination (Bergman et al., 2016). However one  study noted a slight lag before benefits were accrued, as mindfulness started increasing before stress  started decreasing (Christopher et al., 2015).  

Wamsler et al. (2017) conducted a literature review of the role of mindfulness in sustainability and  climate change science, practice, and teaching. The review found a blind spot in the research explicitly  examining the active role of mindfulness in sustainability, yet also found scientific support for the  positive contributions of mindfulness to the field, including its influence on intrinsic core values,  wellbeing, consumption behavior, a connection to nature and indigenous wisdom, social activism and  equity, as well as adaptive responses (Wamsler et al., 2017). Most of the actual scientific research  involves the use of MBIs towards treating resilience after natural disaster, though the review recognizes  the growing integration of mindfulness in actual practice outside of scientific study (Wamsler et al.,  2017). This particular intersection is only emerging; the researchers found that nearly all the relevant  literature had been published in the most recent five years preceding the review (Wamsler et al., 2017).  The reviewers propose that the importance of mindfulness to sustainability includes recognition of the  interconnectedness of beings; the importance of consciousness and compassion in motivating adaptive  behavior and minimizing habitual and harmful actions; the contribution of mindful awareness towards  increased social activism for climate change mitigation; its use in education for a more positive  interpersonal and reflective learning environment; and MBIs for coping with climate adversity (Wamsler  et al., 2017). The study concludes that mindfulness can be a critical asset for sensitizing people to a  more holistic and interdependent understanding of our environment and for fostering more just  behavior towards adapting to and addressing climate change (Wamsler et al., 2017). Yet, more scientific  research is necessary to help understand on a micro-level how mindfulness influences disposition and  personal transformation towards more sustainable action, as well as on a macro-level how mindfulness based interventions actually translate into structural and systemic change (Wamsler et al., 2017).  

In the realm of youth education, mindfulness and other contemplative practices like Transcendental  Meditation has been shown to improve student wellbeing and increase prosocial behavior and social  competence (Waters, et al., 2015). There is not enough evidence yet to demonstrate reliable impact on  academic performance, but studies do show that mindfulness practice improves cognitive performance  and emotion regulation, both of which may contribute to student success (Waters, et al., 2015). 

Though no scientific studies have been found explicitly validating the contributions of mindfulness to social impact in the following fields, it is increasingly found as a complementary practice, if not, a core  and integral strategy towards positive outcomes in many other fields as well: 

• Law and criminal justice reform: assisting better performance during arguments, more positive  client relationships, more ethical community engagement, decreased implicit age and race bias,  and stress management (Magee, 2016) 

• Therapeutic and social work: for their client’s self-knowledge, their own self-care, better  listening, improved attention and awareness, empathy towards clients, and enhanced  accountability (Davis & Hayes, 2011; McGarrigle & Walsh, 2011) 

• Education: for treatment of youth symptoms of psychopathology (Zoogman et al., 2014) and for  supporting teachers as mindful, aware and emotionally-stable role models (Jennings, 2015) ● Health care professionals: for combating empathetic fatigue, promoting resilience and building  support systems, trust and rapport between providers and patients (Duerr, 2008). ● Economics: to mitigate the impact of systemic over-consumption and the destruction of natural  resources driven by unsustainable growth, systemic inequality, and systemic instability of  markets driven by speculation with more mindful approaches to social justice, equity, ecological  sustainability and stability (Magnuson, J., 2007).

 SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE

Emotional intelligence, social intelligence, social empathy, and social and emotional learning (SEL) are  overlapping concepts increasingly accepted in western literature as key to effective leadership and  lifelong success. There is a slight difference between these concepts, though they are related. 

History of Social and Emotional Intelligence 

In the 1920s, the concept of social intelligence was first proposed by Thorndike as a singular concept  involving the “ability to understand and manage people” (Crowne, 2009, p. 151). Intelligence theorist  Howard Gardner further refined the concept in the early 1980s with his proposal of multiple  intelligences that included interpersonal and intrapersonal capacities; emotional intelligence capacities  were a subset of social intelligence (Crowne, 2009; Pfeiffer, 2000). Building upon this early work, Peter  Salovey and John Mayer (1990) are credited with helping coin the term Emotional Intelligence (EI),  which Daniel Goleman later helped firmly establish in the mainstream as a valid and legitimate realm of  intelligence with his best-selling book, Emotional Intelligence (1995a). Goleman (1995a) proposed that  our success is dictated by how intelligently we act, which is driven by our capacity for both rational and  emotional intelligence – two sets of mental activity that act as partners. In the years since, neuroscientists have been able to demonstrate more insights into the relationship between the  emotional domain, rational decision-making, and leadership.  

In 1994, a gathering was held at the Fetzer Institute to discuss strategies to support students’ social and  emotional capacities, as well as their academic performance. The Fetzer Group introduced the term,  Social and Emotional Learning as a conceptual framework to coordinate programming between schools,  families and communities to address such goals among young people (Weissberg et al., 2015). It was at  this convening that the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) was  established.  

Definitions of Social and Emotional Intelligence 

Emotional intelligence (EI) definitions tend to involve three components – (a) awareness of and the  regulation of one’s emotions, (b) the perception and appraisal of another’s emotions, and (c) the use of  both to inform one’s action in relationship. Daniel Goleman (1995a) defines EI as, “being able to rein in  emotional impulse; to read another’s innermost feelings; to handle relationship smoothly.” (p xiii).  Salovey and Mayer (1990) propose EI as, "the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feeling and  emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions.”  (p 189). Essentially, EI requires self-awareness to perceive and appraise one’s emotional state, the  capacity to regulate one’s emotional state, empathy towards another’s emotional state, and the ability  and willingness to integrate such understandings into adaptive responses (Salovey & Mayer, 1990).  Examples include our level of fear, sadness, anger, and joy, among other emotional experiences that  influence our attunement to and empathy for others, motivation and persistence, impulse control and  gratification delay, frustration tolerance, hopefulness, and mood regulation (Goleman, 1995a). People  with high EI are better at using emotional information to achieve goals and solve problems (Kilgore et  al., 2017). “Such individuals [with EI] should be perceived as genuine and warm by others, while  individuals lacking these skills should appear oblivious and boorish.” (Salovey & Mayer, 1990, p 195). 

Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) is more specifically defined as "the process through which children  and adults understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions." (CASEL website,  2020) This involves policy and program interventions utilized in education to support an increase in self awareness and prosocial behavior, such as altruistic responses to suffering. 

SEL has become a powerful force in transforming how youth education is approached today, though  there is some debate about how much and for how long to practice SEL interventions (Ludvik &  Eberhart, 2018). A 2011 meta-analysis of educational programs that incorporate social-emotional  learning revealed remarkable impact on youth academic performance, classroom behavior, decision making, maturity, emotional stability, and motivation to learn (Durlak et al., 2011). Objectives for the  outcomes of SEL programs include fostering skills and attitudes for personal development that enable  positive relationships, effective and ethical decision-making, and caring and concern for others  (Weissberg et al., 2015). Research also indicates that mindful compassion practices result in similar  outcomes (Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018).  

Social Intelligence & Social Empathy: Where emotional intelligence is the capacity to recognize and act  on the emotions of self and other, and social and emotional learning is the process by which individuals  develop certain skills and attitudes involving self-awareness and empathy which they apply to a whole  range of competencies for self-regulation, relationships, and decision-making, social intelligence and  social empathy involve our impact on others, often at a societal level. Social intelligence involves being  socially aware and being able to get along with other people, including reading non-verbal cues,  understanding social rules, decoding and being flexible and sensitive in different social situations and  other interpersonal behavior for navigating successful relationships (Crowne, 2009). Thorndike defined  social intelligence as involving both a cognitive component of understanding others and a behavioral  component of acting wise in relationship (Frankovsky & Birknerová, 2014). Marlowe saw social  intelligence also as the capacity to understand other people and their social interactions, and then to  use this insight in positively influencing other people for mutual benefit (Frankovsky & Birknerová,  2014). Emotional Intelligence is an aspect of being socially intelligent, because to be able to understand  and relate appropriately to others, you have to also draw upon a capacity to self-reflect, interpret and  regulate emotion and behavior, and develop social skills to create and manage positive relationships  (Crowne, 2009; Frankovsky & Birknerová, 2014). Socially intelligent behavior is generally considered  prosocial, ethical and moral (Frankovsky & Birknerová, 2014).  

Empathy and emotional attunement to others, along with other interpersonal capacities developed  through SEL and as a part of emotional intelligence, can affect both an individual and the other’s brain  chemistry (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008). This, called social intelligence, results in “neural circuits (and  related endocrine systems) that inspire others to be effective.” (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008, p 3). Going  further, the concept of social empathy was proposed as “the ability to more deeply understand people  by perceiving or experiencing their life situations and as a result gain insight into structural inequalities  and disparities” (Segal, 2011, p 266).  

Mechanisms of Social and Emotional Intelligence 

There are two kinds of emotional intelligence that are measured by researchers – ability EI – which  includes one’s maximal performance with respect to their theoretical understanding of emotion and their cognitive capacities for perceiving and using emotional information, and trait EI – which involves subjective, self-perception and normal behaviors in social situations where emotion is relevant (Kilgore,  et al, 2017; O’Connor et al., 2019). 

Neural network activity differs between these two ways of understanding emotional intelligence (Kilgore  et al., 2017). Emotional intelligence involves activation of several neural networks that are involved in  emotion, perception, regulation, and decision-making (Kilgore et al., 2017; Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018).  Any form of emotion regulation involves top-down regulation by the pre-frontal cortex (PFC) of the  limbic system (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018). These include the amygdala, insular cortex, ventromedial PFC,  and ACC, many of which are also engaged through mindfulness practice (Bishop et al., 2004; Dahl et al.,  2015; Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Isbel & Summers, 2019; Kilgore et al., 2017; Luberto et  al., 2019; Ludvik & Eberhart, 2018). There is also little correlation between the mechanisms and  outcomes of Trait EI and Ability EI (Brackett et al, 2006; Kilgore et al., 2017; Salovey, et al., 2009). More  on these measures below. 

Studying 54 adults, Kilgore et al. (2017) compared Trait EI and Ability EI for activity within four neural  networks: 

• Basal Ganglia/Limbic Network (BGN) 

• Posterior Default Mode Network (DMN) 

• Reward Learning 

• Self-Referential Processing Network 

Researchers found no effects associated with Trait EI (Kilgore et al., 2017). They acknowledge that these  findings on Trait EI are in contrast to Takeuchi et al., (2013) – a study in Japan of Trait EI involving  younger participants, which was shown to activate the medial frontal cortex and ACC, responsible for  self-knowledge, intuition, self-referential and autobiographical thought, and was anti-correlated with  certain regions of the default mode network (DMN) and task positive network (TPN), an indicator of  higher cognitive performance requiring more demanding attention and inhibitory control (Kilgore et al.,  2017).  

With Ability EI, researchers found there was no activation of Reward Learning or Self-Referential  Processing Networks. But, the study found that Ability EI was significantly negatively associated with the  connectivity of the BGN and the Posterior DMN (Kilgore et al., 2017). These are networks that involve  emotion regulation processes such as threat assessment (amygdala), interoception of internal  experience (insula), autobiographical memory recall (posterior cingulate), conflict monitoring of external  stimuli (ACC), reward processing (ventral striatum) and behavioral control (lateral orbitofrontal cortex  (OFC)) (Kilgore et al., 2017). This means that the capacity to reason about emotion information (ability  EI), as opposed to just your perception of your emotional competencies (trait EI) is what is actually  related to your assessment and regulation of emotional experience. 

The findings suggest that someone with low Ability EI would have trouble separating their emotional  experience from self-reflective processing (Kilgore et al., 2017). Further, participants with low Ability EI  showed the strongest connectivity of the BGN between the vmPFC, anterior insula, amygdala (emotion  regulation related to risk appraisal), and lateral OFC (emotion regulation related to reappraisal),  suggesting low EI means difficulty regulating emotional experiences via cognitive control within the  prefrontal regions (Kilgore et al., 2017).  

One of the capacities of emotional intelligence is empathy. Empathy usually involves three mechanism:  (a) perceiving and mirroring another person’s emotions, (b) perspective taking and making meaning of  those emotions through the awareness of self and other, and (c) taking empathic action based on that  information - a form of compassion (Gerdes & Segal, 2009; Segal, 2011). Emotional responses are largely controlled unconsciously by mirror neurons, which result in the automatic mimicking of another’s  feelings as well as facial expressions and movements or gestures, giving us a felt sense of what someone  else is experiencing (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008; Segal, 2011). The other mechanisms involve voluntary  cognitive effort in discerning a difference between self and other and managing emotions to avoid  empathetic overwhelm (Segal, 2011). 

Like empathy, social intelligence also engages mirror neurons as well as what has been called by  neuroscientists, our “social guidance system” responsible for our intuition (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008).  This system is activated whenever we need to choose the best response among many choices, and  involves the activation of neurons called spindle cells - owing to their size at four times other neurons - which help to transmit thoughts, beliefs, judgments, and feelings about people or situations more  quickly to other parts of the brain (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008). This helps us make split-moment  decisions involving gut-level instincts around trust, for example (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008).  

Segal (2011) posits that empathy alone is not enough to guarantee moral action. But a deeper  understanding of the context and personal experiences are necessary to catalyze social responsibility  and action towards social justice (Segal, 2011). Because we are more likely to identify with those who  are like us, empathy requires a foundation of strong personal values and a social justice lens to help  overcome stereotyping and blaming of outgroups (Segal, 2011). As such, the framework for social  empathy also has a three-part mechanism: (a) experiencing empathy, (b) gaining insight and knowledge  about inequality and disparity, and (c) embracing and acting towards social justice (Segal, 2011). 

“One way to enhance social empathy is through a three-tiered approach, developing exposure,  explanations, and experiences with groups who are different from our own...At a minimum, we need to  find ways for people from different groups—economic, political, social, racial, cultural, gender—to be exposed to each others’ living situations. Once we have promoted opportunities for cross-exposure, we  can pursue opportunities for explanation. We can help people talk about their differences and what they  mean and why they exist. Experience is the most impactful level.” (Segal, 2011, P 274). 

In terms of social-emotional learning, there are five competence domains that are developed through  SEL programs (CASEL website, 2020): 

1. Self-awareness: The ability to accurately recognize one’s emotions and thoughts and their  influence on behavior. This includes accurately assessing one’s strengths and limitations and  possessing a well-grounded sense of confidence and optimism.  

2. Self-management: The ability to regulate one’s emotions, thoughts, and behaviors effectively in  different situations. This includes managing stress, controlling impulses, motivating oneself, and  setting and working toward achieving personal and academic goals. 

3. Social awareness: The ability to take the perspective of and empathize with others; recognizing  and appreciating individual and group similarities and differences; recognizing and using family,  school, and community resources. This includes prosocial behavior, empathy, compassion and  gratitude.  

4. Relationship skills: The ability to establish and maintain healthy and rewarding relationships with  diverse individuals and groups. This includes communicating clearly, listening actively, cooperating, resisting inappropriate social pressure, negotiating conflict constructively, and seeking and offering  help when needed. 

5. Responsible decision making: The ability to make constructive and respectful choices about  personal behavior and social interactions based on consideration of ethical standards, safety  concerns, social norms, the realistic evaluation of consequences of various actions, and contributing  to the wellbeing of self and community. 

SEL involves the concept of fluid intelligence, which is a form of learning that involves cognitive flexibility  (taking into account another’s perspective or solving problems in multiple ways), working memory  (recalling information and applying it meaningfully), and inhibitory control (redirecting attention after a  distraction or impulse) (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018). It works like this: In order for a student to engage in  proactive emotion regulation, there is a series of mechanisms that take place: first they notice the  emotional charge, then they use inhibitory control to pause and avoid reacting, then they use cognitive  flexibility to make sense of the situation and the other’s perspective, then they can respond with greater  self-regulation (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018). This process is basically identical to the process of emotional  regulation driven by mindfulness practice. This form of fluid intelligence is composed of two influential  factors: temperament and personality, as well as positive, goal-oriented actions. The temperament and  personality dimension of fluid intelligence includes traits like openness, grit, growth mindset, a sense of  belonging and conscientiousness (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018). Positive goal directed behavior includes  actions such as self-control, proactive problem solving, emotional regulation, planning, prosocial goals,  academic self-efficacy, positive future self, reflective learning and persistence (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018).  The internal capacities of self-regulation help lead to interpersonal competencies in understanding  others and responding with adaptive behavior towards them (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018).  

Measuring Social and Emotional Intelligence 

Initial measures of emotional intelligence were catalyzed by the early interest in the concept catalyzed  by Salovey, Mayer and Goleman’s research and writings. There are more than 30 different and frequently used measures of EI as of the date of this review, in part due to the commercial opportunities  for developing such tests (O’Connor et al., 2019). Most explore participant’s perception and regulation  of emotions in oneself and others and using emotions and emotional understanding purposefully  (O’Connor et al., 2019).  

The measurement tools that assess trait EI use self-report questionnaires that explore typical behavior  related to emotion (O’Connor et al., 2019). Over a dozen approaches focus on trait EI, such as the Bar On Emotion Quotient Inventory (Bar-On, 1997) which measures perceptions on handling relationships  

and other traits like optimism (Brackett et al, 2006; Pfeiffer, 2001). One study showed that trait EI  predicts long-term career success and satisfaction (Kilgore et al., 2017; O’Connor et al., 2019).  

Other instruments involve task-based tests of various emotional capacities and abilities. The ability EI  questionnaires require respondents to solve emotion-related problems to show they understand how  emotions work (e.g., what emotion might you feel if you lost your wallet?) (O’Connor et al., 2019).  Studies have shown that individuals with high ability EI tend to be better decision-makers and problem solvers because of their increased capacities at perceiving and understanding emotions, and among  children, there are associations with social competence (O’Connor et al., 2019). The task-based, ability  questionnaires are better able to assess capacity on emotional tasks than the self-report, trait  questionnaires previously used (Brackett et al, 2006; Kilgore et al., 2017; Salovey, et al., 2009). But, these measures do not predict typical behavior and are weak predictors of outcomes (O’Connor et al.,  2019).  

There are also a series of mixed EI tests that measure a combination of traits and emotional  competencies, most often self-report as well as 360 degree assessments conducted by peers or  colleagues, which are intended for workplace performance (O’Connor et al., 2019).  

The Emotion Perception Tests (EPT, Mayer et al., 1990) attempted to measure emotional perception  (Pfeiffer, 2001). A more comprehensive test, the Multifactor Emotional Intelligence Scale (MEIS, Mayer,  Caruso, & Salovey, 1999), assesses and individual’s ability to perceive, express, understand, regulate,  and use emotions to enable thoughts or other cognitive activity (Salovey, et al., 2009). The MEIS was  further refined into the briefer Mayer-Salovey-Caruso Emotional Intelligence Test (MSCEIT) which has  helped reduce the time needed for such a comprehensive four-part assessment (Salovey, et al., 2009).  The MSCEIT has been deemed reliable and distinct from other measures of personality (Brackett et al.,  2006). There is also the Self-Report Emotional Intelligence Test (SREIT, Schutte et al., 1998); the Trait  Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue, Petrides and Furnham, 2001), the Bar-On Emotional  Quotient Inventory (EQ-I 2.0, Bar-On, 2004) and the Emotional and Social Competence Inventory (ESCI,  Boyatzis and Goleman, 2007). 

SEL is hard to measure even if it is easy to define what the outcomes should look like and in what ways it  can be cultivated (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018). The interest in and proliferation of social and emotional  learning programs has also exploded over the last two decades, with more than 500 studies of SEL  programs (Weissberg et al., 2015). SEL outcomes are often measured through self-report surveys of  students, educator observational assessments and scoring of simulated game-like scenarios to evaluate  behavioral responses (Elias, 2019). There are tools that measure various aspects of SEL, including the  temperament/personality dimensions as well as the positive, goal-directed behavior, including tools like  the Growth Mindset Scale (Dweck, 2006), Grit Scale (Duckworth, 2007) among others (Ludvig &  Eberhart, 2018). 

A large-scale meta-analysis of 213 studies among more than 270,000 students verified that SEL  programs result in positive outcomes (Weissberg et al., 2015). These include several benefits for the  individual: academic achievement, self-awareness, emotional regulation, lower risk-taking and good  decision-making, decreased stress, and positive attitudes such as self-efficacy, confidence, persistence,  and a sense of purpose (Weissberg et al., 2015). SEL also has a positive impact on the ways students  relate to others, including: perspective-taking, better relationships with peers and adults, prosocial  behavior, empathy and feeling interconnected (Weissberg et al., 2015). 

Social intelligence is usually measured through self-evaluation along three sets of capacities – social  information processing, social skills and social awareness (Frankovsky & Birknerová, 2014). The  psychometric approach towards social intelligence involves evaluating a person as high or low in a set of  abilities, whereas the personality approach assesses behavior within a variety of interpersonal  circumstances (Frankovsky & Birknerová, 2014). One such tool is the 21-item Tromsø Social Intelligence  Scale (TSIS, Silvera, Martinussen & Dahl, 2001), a self-report scale that evaluates social information  processing, social skills and social awareness. The MESI Methodology (Frankovsky & Birknerová, 2014) is  a 21-item self-report tool using the psychometric approach to evaluate social intelligence along three  factors of manipulation, empathy, and social irritability. 

See Appendix A for a list of such instruments.

Challenges with Measuring Social and Emotional Intelligence 

Overall, there is a lack of scientifically, objective measures of emotional intelligence (Pfeiffer, 2001). It is extremely challenging to measure emotion-focused questions of ability where there is no right answer  or where it is difficult for experts to judge accuracy or distinguish between normal or optimal responses  (O’Connor et al., 2019). The self-report, trait EI instruments do not provide levels of internal consistency  or standardization, and almost none provide any data to back up the test developer’s interpretations of  what the tests are designed to assess (Pfeiffer, 2001). Self-report surveys measuring trait emotional  intelligence have tended to focus on a very wide range of psychological and personality constructs, are  prone to bias related to social desirability, and are not easily validated or precise enough measures of  exclusively emotional intelligence (Brackett et al., 2006; Kilgore et al., 2017; Pfeiffer, 2001; Salovey, et  al., 2009). Further, like in the self-report measures of mindfulness, a person’s level of emotional  intelligence may also distort their ability to assess their own EI; individuals with low EI may not have the  capacity to accurately self-assess, while those with high EI may overestimate the EI of others (Brackett et  al., 2006; O’Connor et al., 2019).  

In contrast, the ability EI assessments that do not use self-report questionnaires cannot be manipulated,  as they seek to measure maximal performance (O’Connor et al., 2019). But they have challenges with  reliability and validity (O’Connor et al., 2019). Ability-based measures of emotional intelligence seem  more promising for assessing theoretical emotion understanding, such as determining the competencies  of professionals in decision-making and negotiating (O’Connor et al., 2019; Salovey et al., 2009). But  trait EI measures are better predictors of typical behavioral, such as stress coping styles in adults and  children (O’Connor et al., 2019). Overall, O’Connor et al. (2019) recommend the Trait Emotional  Intelligence Questionnaire (TEIQue, Petrides and Furnham, 2001) as the best comprehensive measure of  trait EI and the Caruso Emotional Intelligence test (MSCEIT, Mayer, Salovey, Caruso, 2002a,b, 2003) as  the best tool for measuring ability EI.  

More research is needed into the process by which emotional intelligence works within interpersonal  relationships and a social context (Brackett et al., 2006). For example, emotional intelligence may be  impacted by the quality of relationships, gender, collaborative experiences, cultural context, inequitable  power dynamics, or the influence of mood on social interactions (Brackett et al., 2006; Salovey et al.,  2009). Further, it is unclear how individual capacities that contribute to emotional intelligence, such as  emotional regulation or perception, influence social functioning (Brackett et al., 2006). Because  emotional intelligence involves both self-awareness, subjective perceptions as well as behavioral  capacities, utilizing some form of both trait and ability-based EI measures will provide the most  comprehensive assessment of emotional and social intelligence (Kilgore et al., 2017). 

In terms of SEL programs, like mindfulness practices, there is no consensus on what activities these  should entail, how long they should be utilized and how to measure the impact (Ludvig & Eberhart,  2018). Additional research is needed to understand the key drivers of successful outcomes among  

environmental factors (e.g., classroom, teachers, community, etc.), student capacities (e.g., emotional  regulation, decision-making, etc.), age, and ethnic and cultural contexts (Ludvig & Eberhart, 2018;  Weissberg et al., 2015). It is also important to understand any differing priorities between assessment  developers, researchers, educators, and mental health professionals which may influence programs,  assessments and reported outcomes (Elias, 2019). Within the SEL field, self-report is also a frequent  technique, which presumes students have enough emotional intelligence to be able to monitor and  report on their social and emotional learning, and may also involve bias when students respond according to how they would like to be perceived by teachers (Elias, 2019). Educators or independent  third-parties can also provide assessments, which may prompt “best behavior” distortions, and may also  be biased in their capacity to subjectively rate the internal experience of students, such as students’  levels of empathy (Elias, 2019). Simulated scenarios are a third assessment method, but may lack  accuracy due to the lack of authentic circumstances and because they do not account for the influence  of the context or background of students, such as age, gender or culture (Elias, 2019). 

Future Recommendations for Research  

For future research and programs involving the contribution of social and emotional intelligence  towards social change, there are a few important recommendations: 

• Utilizing a combination of trait and ability measures of social and emotional intelligence may  provide additional insights (Brackett et al., 2006; Kilgore et al., 2017; Pfeiffer, 2001; Salovey,  et al., 2009).  

• It is suggested that practitioners use the TEIQue or MSCEIT, currently the most reliable  measures of emotional intelligence, but any measure used should have good evidence of  reliability and validity in multiple studies (Brackett et al., 2006; O’Connor et al., 2019). 

• More research is needed to evaluate the role of gender, relationships, cultural context,  power dynamics and other interpersonal relationships on emotional intelligence, and to  determine how emotional intelligence influences social functioning (Brackett et al., 2006;  Salovey et al., 2009). 

• Similarly, for SEL programs, additional research is needed to understand the influence of  learning environment factors, student capacities, cultural contexts, program priorities, and  potential bias in evaluation methods, which may distort findings (Elias, 2019; Weissberg et  al., 2015). 

• When investigating the drivers of prosocial behavior, it is important to consider the influence  of internalized principle of care vs. empathy and to ensure altruistic and universalist  approaches to helping to avoid egoism and bias towards in-groups (Wilhelm and Bekkers,  2010). 

• More studies that confirm theories that increased levels of emotional intelligence result in  more social intelligence and prosocial behavior that then fosters greater social impact. 

Applications of Social and Emotional Intelligence for Social Impact 

Social intelligence and social empathy - arising from our emotional intelligence, prosocial perspectives  and behavior from SEL programs, along with an understanding of structural inequity - can lead to action  that can benefit positive social change (Segal, 2011). With an accurate understanding of the needs,  conditions, and perspectives of others, and an understanding of the context of structural disparities,  people are more inclined to feel and act socially responsible (Segal, 2011). According to Segal (2011)  this may be due in part to the experience of empathy and moral values that drives cooperation. 

Dispositional empathetic concern is a determinant of prosocial behavior. Also significant is a moral  orientation towards helping behavior, otherwise known as the “principle of care”, stemming from an  internalized value that helping is good and right and one should help someone in need (Wilhelm &  Bekkers, 2010). In a study of 2680 people across 10 types of helping behavior, Wilhelm and Bekkers  (2010) found that such an internalized value towards helping others was more consistently associated  with helping behavior than just empathy, especially with out-groups. While empathetic concern is still a  driver of helping behavior, its influence is less significant when the principle of care is eliminated  (Wilhelm and Bekkers, 2010). Without an internalized value towards helping, empathetic concern was  only supportive of spontaneous assistance involving contact with a person in need, but was not a driver  of helping that involved longer-term planning for an abstract population (Wilhelm and Bekkers, 2010).  Further, the principle of care was associated with helping that was purely altruistic versus egoic, where  behavior is instead driven by guilt or the anticipation of feeling good about such actions (Wilhelm and  Bekkers, 2010). For example, studies of those who rescued or did not rescue Jews during the Holocaust,  found that rescuers speak of care in universal principle terms (Wilhelm and Bekkers, 2010). Because the  principle of care is an internalized value, it is important to understand when and how it is fostered,  including through parents and other institutions like schools, especially during adolescence when the  internalization of values is most likely (Wilhelm and Bekkers, 2010). This suggests that the elements of  SEL programs that foster prosocial helping behavior as a result of cultivating empathy, social awareness,  responsible decision-making, and relationship skills are of critical importance in reinforcing principle of  care values.  

SDG Goal 4 is to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning  opportunities for all (UN, 2020). Target 4.7 says that by 2030, “all learners acquire the knowledge and  skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for  sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a  culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of  culture’s contribution to sustainable development (UN, 2020). To foster the SDG notion of global  citizenship, this requires a sense of belonging with greater humanity, which is built upon empathy,  knowledge about others, shared values, respect for diversity, and social responsibility (Ludvig &  Eberhart, 2018). Social and emotional intelligence may, then, be a necessary force that supports  movement towards the Sustainable Development Goals. In the following table, Ludvig and Eberhart  (2018, p. 12) mapped all the SEL outcomes and mindful compassion practices to the specific SDG  outcomes and appropriate measurement tools:

INSERT TABLES

If the development of emotional intelligence is based on self-awareness, emotion regulation,  perspective-taking and appraisal, (Gerdes & Segal, 2009; Goleman, 1995a; Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008;  Salovey & Mayer, 1990), then one-way emotional intelligence can be fostered is likely through  mindfulness, given mindfulness also cultivates these capacities (Bishop et al., 2004; Dahl et al., 2015;  Davis & Hayes, 2011; Hölzel et al., 2011b; Isbel & Summers, 2019; Luberto et al., 2019). We know that  mindfulness and emotional intelligence both contribute to empathy and compassion, which in turn leads  to prosocial behavior (Goleman & Boyatzis, 2008; Segal, 2011; Weissberg et al., 2015). But we also know  that helping behavior that goes beyond a spontaneous, empathetic response and a more fully developed social justice orientation also requires (a) an understanding of the context of social inequity  and (b) strong, internalized values towards beneficial action (Segal, 2011; Weissberg et al., 2015;  Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010). SEL programs, especially during adolescence when such internalized values  are established, can then be significant in driving prosocial behavior that can contribute to advancing  social change (Wilhelm & Bekkers, 2010). This includes outcomes from the SEL capacities of social  awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision-making that result in feeling connected, helping  behavior, empathy and gratitude, active listening, cooperating, negotiating conflict constructively,  ethical choices, and contributing to the wellbeing of all (CASEL, 2020; Weissberg et al., 2015).

 COMMUNITY AND BELONGING

History of Community and Belonging 

The literature on community, especially in international development discourses, is much less extensive  than the academic research on empowerment and agency. Much of the early literature explored  loneliness and alienation in Western culture and the decline in a sense of community due to urbanization, individualism, industrialization, and imbalances between centralized bureaucracy and local  autonomy (Durkheim, 1964; Glynn 1981; Stevens et al., 2011). There has also been a longstanding  interest within social psychology in understanding what it means to have a sense of community, and it is  well-documented and increasingly discussed that feelings of belonging are important aspects of mental  health and community wellbeing (Herman, 1994; Fullilove, 2017; Norris et al, 2007; Sherrieb et al., 2010;  Steidle, 2019). This has been particularly relevant to the realms of community resilience and  participatory development, where processes that draw upon the participation of and adaptive capacities  of community as a whole are a desired outcome of development interventions (Arnstein, 1969; DFID, 2012; Norris et al, 2007). 

Definitions of Community and Belonging 

Community is somewhat difficult to define as a single, narrow concept, as it is multifaceted and self determined. But it almost always involves some form of common thread that binds its members through  relationship, if not also place. Community is conventionally defined as existing within a geo-political  boundary, such as a county line (Sherrieb et al., 2010). Yet, in an age where displacements from war  and natural disaster continue to rise, a sense of community is increasingly understood as context dependent, not necessarily always place-based. As such, community can also be defined by common  experience between individuals (e.g., veterans) or a form of connection fostered through webs of  alternative networks, like online social networks.  

In addition to establishing the concrete boundaries of what defines community membership, definitions  also involve the multidimensional nature of what makes up a sense of community. Kitto (1951) offers,  “A sense of community was present in its ideal form in the [ancient Greek] poli and was based on  loyalty, commitment, and primary interactions among people” (Glynn, 1981, p. 791).  

The McMillan and Chavis (1986) definition of a sense of community (SOC) is most often sited, and  includes four primary components: (1) membership: a feeling of belonging or relatedness, (2) influence:  a sense of mattering or making a difference to the members of the group and vice versa, (3)  reinforcement: an integrated feeling that the members needs will be met by shared resources through  membership, and (4) shared emotional connection. Membership involves boundaries that dictate in group and out-group belonging, which provides emotional, if not physical, safety against social threats  to those who are members so as to allow needs, feeling, and connection to develop (McMillan & Chavis,  1986). A personal investment in the group as well as common symbols of membership (e.g., language,  dress) contribute to feelings of membership and SOC (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). There is then, a strong  pressure to conform that is seen with group cohesiveness, even while there is often still space to  appreciate individual differences (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Reinforcers of group membership include  status, competence, rewards, shared values, and other resources that meet individual needs (McMillan  & Chavis, 1986). Finally, shared emotional connection is built on a community’s history, quality of  interactions, investment of its members, intimacy, rewards that honor versus humiliate, and spiritual  bonding (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). In general, emotional safety and feelings of belonging lead to someone investing in their community and then feeling that they have earned their place as a member  (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). 

SOC seems to be made up of the values, relations, and other social capital that help foster community  bonds and the degree of social cohesion (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). Social capital can be defined as the  shared group resources among the network of relationships that allow that community to function. It is  often divided into two categories – (1) structural social capital, which involves the various organizations  and networks that contribute, and (2) cognitive social capital, which includes the mental processes and  perceptions that reinforce cooperative behaviors, including perceived fairness, perceived helpfulness,  shared identity, social support, shared norms, values, and beliefs, community bonds and trust (Jeeyon et  al., 2020; Kawachi et al., 1997; Norris et al., 2007; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion,  2020; Sherrieb et al., 2010). Social cohesion denotes the strength of those relationships and a sense of  solidarity, shared purpose, trust, and support that extends from them (Jeeyon et al, 2020; Kawachi &  Berkman, 2000; Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2020). Jeeyon et al. (2020) identify  six of the most commonly measured qualities of social cohesion that contribute to the sense of shared  trust and purpose and a wiliness to cooperate in order to thrive together: trust, collective action norms,  belonging, common group characteristics, attitudes toward out-groups and civic participation to  improve the collective wellbeing.  

Glynn (1981) studied what contributed to a psychological SOC among three different towns, finding that  the strongest predictors of a SOC include how long one expects to live in a community and the number  of community members that one can identify by first name. These same variables in addition to not  having to need a car to get around in the community also drove community satisfaction and community  competence (Glynn, 1981). The conclusions from the Glynn study suggest that a SOC is something that  varies based on its members’ behaviors, needs and perspectives, giving the collective the power to  cultivate SOC intentionally (Glynn, 1981). For example, if not having a need for a car is a predictor of a  greater sense of community, urban planners can work to create more connective infrastructure like foot  paths, public transportation or bike paths to foster interconnection within community.  

Hand in hand with the definition of community is the definition of belonging, and how we define a sense  of being a part of something larger than ourselves, including community. In particular, people need  frequent positive interactions within an ongoing relationship or bond, and resist the dissolution of such  relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Belonging has been critical to our evolutionary flourishing, because  being accepted and included within a group means we partake in the collective resources that enable us  to survive, if not thrive (Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2008). It is here where the individual and societal  level is bridged.  

Belonging involves a sense of connectedness among a set of significant relationships, which can be  found in two forms. Belonging can be defined by strong interpersonal and interdependent relationships  built on common bonds (e.g., a parent-child relationship or the relationship between people who are  members of a small, connected group) or belonging can be defined by a common identity (e.g.,  membership in a larger political party or being a cancer survivor), which involves a depersonalized sense  of self and collective identity (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). “[T]he belongingness hypothesis is that human  beings have a pervasive drive to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and  significant interpersonal relationships” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497). This requires emotionally pleasant interactions on a frequent basis with a minimum number of other people to whom one feels  connected, and the relationships must be stable, ideally reciprocal, and endure over time to produce a  feeling of connection and membership (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). 

It is important to note that belongingness goes beyond a need for simple affiliation. Belonging impacts  our self-esteem, the relationships we form, and our sense of a collective self - the social groups with  which we identify (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Belonging may be at the root of a range of other needs,  including the need for power, the desire for achievements that are valued by others, the need for  approval, and intimacy (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Finally, belonging and community have a bi directional nature - individuals affect and are affected by community, and connection manifests both as  “belonging” at the individual level and as “community” at a group level, sometimes simultaneously, but  not always.  

Mechanisms of Belonging 

When we do not feel a sense of belonging 

When people’s need for belonging is not being met sufficiently, it is responsible for significant negative  affect, including loneliness, jealousy, rejection, anxiety, grief or depression (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). When people feel that they do not belong and are members of the “out-group”, they use up significant  

cognitive energy being hypervigilant towards threats, including threats that might put them at risk of  confirming a negative stereotype about themselves (Laldin, 2016). This anxiety uses up working  memory, our short-term capacity to manage information.  

Social threats seem to be processed in the brain the same way as a threat of real physical harm (Ladin,  2016; Eisenberger, 2013; Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2008). This includes (1) the activation of the  amygdala, which manages threat processing and the expression of fear; (2) stimulation of the  sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system (SNS), our stress response system responsible for  our fight or flight response; (3) activation of the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), which also  increases the SNS response; (4) increased activity in the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis,  which secretes the stress hormone, cortisol; and (5) decreased activity in the hippocampus, which is  responsible for learning, memory, and stress management (Eisenberger, 2013; Eisenberger & Cole,  2012). In essence, an experience of social exclusion activates the body’s threat response system. The  brain may have evolved to respond to threats of social rejection in the same way as other survival  threats because it was more dangerous to exist alone (Eisenberger, 2013).  

Also activated is the body’s pain system, which involves (1) the somatosensory cortex, which helps  identify where the pain is happening; (2) the insula, which provides insight into the overall physical  state; (3) the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC), which is related to the distress associated with  pain, and (4) the right ventrolateral PFC, which is associated with pain regulation (Lieberman &  Eisenberger, 2008). It is possible to separate the experience of physical pain from the distress related to  it, finding pain as more or less distressing, which is correlated with activity in the dACC (Lieberman &  Eisenberger, 2008). In an experiment of social exclusion, those who felt excluded compared to when  they were included demonstrated greater activity in the dACC and right ventrolateral PFC, indicating  that social pain is processed in the same way that physical pain is (Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2008). Follow-up studies have shown that people with greater tolerance for physical pain also have greater  tolerance for social pain, and, in contrast, those with greater sensitivity to rejection resulted in greater  activity in the dACC in response to social exclusion (Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2008). In summary,  exclusion causes us real pain. 

When we feel that we belong 

When people experience feelings of belongingness, it results in positive affect including happiness,  contentment, calm and elation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In fact, experiences of social connection  appear to activate the reward centers in the brain that help inhibit our stress response and process a  sense of safety (Eisenberger, 2013; Eisenberger & Cole, 2012; Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2008). The  ventral striatum, the brain’s reward system, is activated as strongly, if not more so, when experiencing  social rewards (including fairness, choosing philanthropic altruism, and receiving positive feedback from  others), as it is when receiving extrinsic rewards (e.g., money) (Lieberman & Eisenberger, 2008). Studies  have also shown that the formation of bonds stimulate the brain opioid system, whereas the dissolution  of such bonds impedes the opioid system, suggesting that social bonding is reinforced by neurochemical  mechanisms (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).  

The systems that process safety include the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and posterior  cingulate cortex (PCC). Activity in these regions reduce SNS activity, increase parasympathetic nervous  system activity – the rest and relaxation system, and signal the absence of negative threats (Eisenberger,  2013). This can also be experienced as diminished fear and rewards. Two studies have shown that just  seeing a photograph of a supportive relationship partner during both physical pain and a negative social  experience can increase activity in the VMPFC and PCC, and decrease activity in the insula (Eisenberger,  2013). Experiencing social support enhances stress coping, which may be due to belonging mitigating  the stress-inducing experience of a lack of belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).  

When we feel that we belong, our sense of identity can also be reshaped to represent the most salient  features shared with others within the in-group, where a sense of social attraction involves a preference  for in-group characteristics over out-group qualities (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Individual and group  self-concepts are stored in separate locations in our brain; information about out-group members are  organized on the basis of attribute and traits, whereas in-group information is processed on the basis of  the person with whom there is a connection (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Brewer & Gardner, 1996). This  “collective self” involves internalizing the norms, values and characteristics of the group that are  consistent with the self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Further, self-worth is developed in assessing the in group’s status as compared with other groups (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). Once the definition of self is  held in the realm of the group, the motivations also shift towards the group with a concern for and  altruistic motivation to benefit others and contribute toward shared problems (Brewer & Gardner,  1996). This can happen even without interpersonal communications or attachment to group members,  but simply from the knowledge of sharing a common group identity.  

Yet, the more that assimilation between self and in-group takes place, this can also lead to the  mistreatment of out-groups (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). People tend to be more optimistic or favorable  about their closest relationships or in-group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Studies have shown that  despite being organized into groups on a random basis, the preferential treatment of in-group members  takes shape almost immediately (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Group identities to which there is little  opportunity to change your membership, such as race and ethnicity, are often the characteristics that  experience the most common prejudice (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In fact, a great deal of maladaptive  and harmful behavior has to do with responding to perceived threats to belongingness or reacting from  difficulty in establishing a sense of belonging (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Studies have shown external  threats improve social cohesion within the group, but interaction between groups tend to be, and are  expected to be, more confrontational than interactions between individuals (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).  One study found that 67% of college students gave in to an act of cheating, theft and lying to conceal  their actions in response to the request of a group partner, and loyalty has been shown repeatedly as a driver of action overriding personal morals, including violence (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). As another  example of harmful behavior, Baumeister & Leary (1995), noting the work of Hans Morgenthau, suggest  that the pursuit of power may have at its core, the desire to belong - individuals may be seeking to  improve the sense of connection and overcome loneliness by bending others to their will. Mitigating  the maladaptive behavior of groups, some interventions have helped decrease in-group bias with an  increase in interaction with members of out-groups, although other interventions have not shown as  much effectiveness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; FitzGerald et al, 2019).  

People invest energy in building relationships and forge them easily. It does not take much to form  social bonds – even mere proximity is a significant factor, and just being in the presence of someone is  comforting (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). People also strongly resist the dissolution of such social bonds  (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Not only do bonds result in positive emotions, but positive emotions may  also help solidify the bond and be a key driver of the formation of small groups (Baumeister & Leary,  1995). Overall, helping and altruistic behavior seems to be improved by the strength of social bonds,  especially a sense of familiarity and interpersonal dependency (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Studies have  shown that feelings of belonging can overcome unhelpfulness: In particular, the bystander effect – a  phenomena where bystanders do not tend to come to the aid of someone in need when there are many people present out of a desire to avoid any negative impact to themselves – is strong among strangers,  but the opposite is true among cohesive groups (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Further, cohesive groups  can build a sense of common duty - when people feel they can make a unique and meaningful  contribution to a group, they are more likely to give beyond the minimal effort necessary to enjoy the  benefits of the group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Another study showed that when people feel that  they belong, they are less likely to use up collective resources for personal gain and instead retrain their  needs for the good of the group (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).  

Outcomes 

Early SOC work found that when people feel safe, they desire greater neighbor interactivity, but not  when people indicate a desire for greater privacy and anonymity (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Studies  show that SOC is driven by high behavioral rootedness (e.g., length of residency, owned home) and high  social bonding (e.g., feeling satisfied and part of community, the number of neighbors that could be  named) (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Further, the strength of interpersonal relationships within  community contribute to satisfaction, commitment and loyalty to community, as well as more problem focused behavior and community contributions in response to a perceived threat (McMillan & Chavis,  1986). Further, SOC also is associated with an individual’s capacity to function competently within the  community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986).  

On an individual level, belonging has a significant, positive effect on emotional and mental processes,  whereas a lack of belonging or the threat of the loss of a bond – from social exclusion to a child’s  separation anxiety - is shown to create significant negative affect and have negative impact on health  and wellbeing (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Glynn, 1981; Mellor et al., 2008). Belonging promotes  wellbeing by reducing stress and generating happiness through relational bonds and a sense of meaning  (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Lambert et al., 2013; Pogosyan, 2017). One study showed that loneliness  correlated to a decrease in immune functioning (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Another study found that  among people who report a higher need to belong, they also report higher levels of loneliness, and that  the less satisfied people are with their relationships, the lonelier they feel (Mellor et al., 2008).  Important in this study was that people have different needs for belonging and different experiences of  loneliness, and that this is not determined by whether people live alone or with others, but if someone has unmet needs for belonging, it will dictate their feelings of wellbeing (Mellor et al., 2008). For  example, among combat vets, a sense of social support was a significant determinant of whether  individuals experienced PTSD (Baumeister & Leary, 1995).  

In the international development field, it has been shown that participatory processes can foster a  strong sense of belonging that help reinforce community bonds. Jupp & Ali (2010) present a significant  case study of a community-based organization in Bangladesh called, The Movement, which started as a  youth organization and grew to advocate for land rights for the poor and indigenous beginning over 40  years ago. Now, despite relatively meager gains on one level – less than a third of the members  achieved successful outcomes – The Movement continued to grow and sustain its membership over  time, reaching 543,000 members as of 2007. A study was undertaken to understand the benefits of the  membership despite economic outcomes. The method involved a participatory rural appraisal process  that ensured local members led the process, determined metrics, obtained the data and conducted the  analysis using visual mapping, dialogue and local language that encourage unbiased, inclusive  participation. Over 8000 insights helped clarify along 132 indicators what engendered the powerful  bonds and collective empowerment, grouped into four categories (Jupp & Ali, 2010, p. 47):  

(1) Individual perceptions of increased power, including the ability to articulate and negotiate for  their own outcomes in formal and informal decision-making,  

(2) The mutual trust, support, respect and equity of the group 

(3) Access and use of economic resources 

(4) Sense of the group’s capability and independence 

Within each category, the group mapped a spectrum of progression: “(i) awareness, (ii) confidence and  capability, and (iii) effectiveness and self-sustaining” with an understanding of the time frame required  to move from one level to the next varied between eight and eleven years (Jupp & Ali, 2010, p. 50.) The grassroots-led process itself was empowering and enlightening, and demonstrated the importance of  the sense of community and belonging that sustained membership over the long-term. These member defined indicators included the McMillan and Chavis requirements of membership, as sense of  mattering, shared resources, and shared emotional connection and the social capital that incorporated  both the structural and interpersonal that helped to foster trust, shared values and community bonds  (Kawachi et al., 1997; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Norris et al., 2007; Office of Disease Prevention and  Health Promotion, 2020; Sherrieb et al., 2010). Outcomes in terms of empowerment and sense of  community, and their impact on wellbeing and political engagement were significant: 99 percent of  members voted, 80 percent followed up on complaints of human rights abuses, members from 63  percent of groups had been nominated for office, 88 percent of groups are sending their girls and boys  to school regularly, and in 72 percent of groups they had influenced village level politics in favor of the  poor, among other outcomes (Jupp & Ali, 2010). In some places, the choices of one group were adopted  and replicated by another group within The Movement. The successes were determined to be due to  experiences of solidarity that catalyzed a sense of confidence and agency to act collectively to work  towards change, defined according to the priorities of the local community (Jupp & Ali, 2010).  

In the field of education, studies have shown a sense of belonging improves academic performance (Laldin, 2016; Walton & Cohen, 2011). This is due, in part, to a capacity to reappraise experiences from a  non-threatening lens – seeing challenges as shared versus stemming from a personal deficit – which, in  turn likely counters the impact of perceived social threats on stress, working memory, and higher  thinking capacity (Laldin, 2016; Walton & Cohen, 2011). Similarly, four experiments conducted by  Walton et al., (2012) found that various experiences of belonging from sharing a birthday to having similar preferences affected important aspects of self, resulting in greater motivation for achievement of a series of goals.  

In health fields, research shows that social capital is a driver of social cohesion, which in turn, impacts  community wellbeing through encouragement of positive behavior along social norms (Sampson et al,  1997; Uchino, 2006). One study tested four measures of social capital (perceived fairness, perceived  helpfulness, group membership and trust) all of which were found to affect mortality (Kawachi et al.,  1997). Other studies have shown that there is a greater incidence of heart attacks, cancer, tuberculosis  and several other physiological and mental illnesses among those who are without a significant  relationship than among those who are attached (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Further, group therapy  builds upon a sense of belonging and acceptance in its effectiveness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). 

Measuring Community and Belonging 

Most measures of a sense of community or belonging are found in the realms of psychology and mental  health as well as economics.  

One of the early measures was the 40-Item Sense of Community Scale (SCS Doolittle and MacDonald,  1978), which attempted to differentiate between low, medium and high sense of community in their  level of informal interaction, safety, privacy, preferences for neighbor interaction and local participation  (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). Other measures have included components such as feeling at home,  agreement with common values, feelings of belonging, and interest in what goes on in the community  (McMillan & Chavis, 1986). 

Building out of this early work emerged the 12-Item short-form Sense of Community Index (SCI, Perkins,  Florin, Rich, Wandersman & Chavis, 1990) based on the 1986 McMillan and Chavis definition of a sense  of community. The SCI has been most widely used, and it attempts to blend both the internal, subjective  perception of and role of individuals in the collective (Stevens et al., 2011). The SCI measures across 12  

questions, four subscales, including (1) membership, (2) influence, (3) integration and fulfillment of  needs, and (4) shared emotional connection (McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Stevens et al., 2011). These four  categories are not necessarily independent, can be bi-directional, and are interconnected (e.g., shared  emotional connection needs a sense of belonging), which also makes them challenging factors for  measuring, especially as a cross cultural measure (Stevens et al., 2011). The SCI-2 (version 2) was  developed to address these concerns, and offers a more robust and validated 24-item questionnaire (Chavis et al, 2008).  

Another, revised, 8-item Brief Sense of Community Scale (BSCS, Peterson, Speer & McMillan, 2008) was  crafted to refine the earlier version, which was found to have good reliability, but some weakness due to  the limited number of questions per factor (Stevens, 2011).  

A few other measures look at specific components that contribute to community wellbeing. This  includes the Social Health Index (Shaw-Taylor, 1999), which assesses how well a community functions in  caring for its most disadvantaged populations and the Gini Coefficient or Index that measures inequality  in income distribution (Sherrieb et al., 2010). The Social Capital Assessment Tool (SOCAT) assesses  variations of social capital, to include structural and cognitive social capital, across a wide range of  contexts at the household, organizational and community (geographical) level to assess the level of  economic and social wellbeing, social participation and support, as well as community bonds (Sherrieb  et al., 2010). Finally, the Social Vulnerability Index (SOVI, Cutter et al., 2003) measures demographic and socioeconomic data to assess vulnerability that is negatively correlated with economic development,  social capital and community resilience measures (Sherrieb et al., 2010). 

A new, comprehensive measurement tool designed for international community-driven development  programs was developed by Mercy Corps and the World Bank. Built on a comprehensive survey of  available literature and the evaluation of 2600 survey questions from existing tools utilized around the  world, it proposes a 15-item survey for measuring social capital and social cohesion combined with a  qualitative contextualization guide that helps to adapt the tool for a particular context (Jeeyon et al.,  2020). Most common in the measurements of social capital and social cohesion are relationships,  resources, level of trust, shared purpose (including belonging, shared identity, and attitude towards  diversity) collective action norms, and civic participation (i.e., willingness to take action for the good of  the group) (Jeeyon et al., 2020).  

Another recent initiative – a working group of community-driven development organizations has been  working to define Community Intelligence, called “CQ”, which brings together many of the  aforementioned topics into one overarching scale. This concept draws upon standard concepts of IQ  (human intelligence) and emotional intelligence to establish a new form of intelligence that involves a  recognition and valuing of communities, a sense of being part of a bigger global network, and working  collaboratively and participatorily to improve “the health, impact, and sustainability of the global  philanthropic community” (Mercaldo, 2018). The CQ vision involves a global community of people and  organizations who trust local communities to realize their ambitions, value the contributions of all, share  power, and work with and for local communities to rebalance the distribution of power and agency  (Mercaldo, 2018). The working group is now collaborating to develop a tool for actors to assess their CQ  as High, Moderate, or Low, providing not just a set of metrics to evaluate the level of social capital and  cohesion at a particular snapshot of time, but to suggest processes and roles that actors would be using  to increase CQ across a continuum. Such examples include how research, programming, philanthropy,  market-based strategies, and government interventions are enacted with stakeholder participation,  fostering trust, addressing inequities, investing in support mechanisms, and respecting or fostering  positive local values, culture, systems and culture.  

Challenges with Measuring Community and Belonging 

Like many other measures of the intangible, there is a lack of consensus or consistency in the definition of and metrics for a sense of community.  

The challenges are four-fold. First, there is a lack of clarity on what components make up SOC, which is  multifaceted. SOC may not always relate to a geographical neighborhood, but may hinge on common  identity, such as SOC among members of a minority group embedded within a larger dominant group  environment (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). There is a need to understand further the differing impact of the  material, systemic and relational components of community on an individuals’ perception of SOC (Chavis  & Pretty, 1999). However, researchers caution in drawing conclusions on isolated conditions as  indicators of SOC. Though they may contribute to some measures of community wellbeing, they may not  have any relationship to the level of a sense of community (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). For example, owning  one’s home in a longstanding neighborhood versus owning a home in a neighborhood that recently  went through gentrification has different impact on SOC (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). 

Second, it is unclear how the various factors in the various scales making up SOC relate to each other.  The Sense of Community Index has been broadly validated across different types of communities, ages, and cultures, though its four subscales have not shown consistency, resulting in researchers picking and  choosing those subscales that are most useful, limiting broader research (Chavis & Pretty, 1999).  

Third, there is a need to understand more clearly how SOC manifests and differs on an individual versus  collective level. For example, research has found that an individual perception of a sense of community  is different from the overall community level of SOC measured through other conditions like crime level  

(Chavis & Pretty, 1999). Particular challenges include the bidirectional relationship between a  community and its individual members (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). For example, do strong communities  produce good citizens or vice versa or both?  

Finally, there is the question of who should be determining the definition and boundaries of community  and community membership. In most cases, the idea of community and sense of community must  involve some level of individual subjective perspective. But, as is true with all the self-report measures  considered for personal transformation, there may exist inherent biases and inaccuracies. People are  relatively good at reporting how they feel, but not skilled at identifying the reasons why they feel a  certain way, relying more on judgments and causal theory over true introspection (Nisbett & Wilson,  1977). For example, self-report measures of a sense of belonging to a community may accurately  determine that belonging exists, but may not be able to accurately assess the aspects of one’s life and  community that contribute to that sense of belonging.  

Future Recommendations for Research 

Research and the resulting definitions need to help clarify what constitutes SOC on an individual and  community level, what to assess on an individual versus group level, and the relationship between  individual belonging and SOC. There are other individual variables that need further study to understand  their impact on SOC, including size of community, similar or diverse cultures, proximity to larger cities,  rural versus urban, neighborhoods versus communities, and climate (Glynn, 1981). 

There is also a need for more refined tools that can reliably study the interrelationships between  category of factors (subjective perception, material resources, functioning and interrelationships)  contributing to a sense of community (Stevens, et al., 2011). For example, if the facets of SOC can be  defined, then what influences how strong a SOC is in a given community, and is there any correlation  between satisfaction with SOC and people’s competent functioning within that community (Glynn,  1981)?  

Once the factors contributing to strong SOC are better defined, research can contribute significantly to  understanding what actions or interventions support a strong and positive SOC and belonging. For  example, as practitioners increasingly adopt participatory and community-driven development  approaches, further research can validate the impact of such processes in fostering belonging, social  capital, and social cohesion as well as improvements in wellbeing.  

Finally, there is a need to understand the outcomes from long-term experiences of SOC and belonging,  or their absence. On an individual level, it will be helpful to study whether the current understanding of  how neural networks respond to social exclusion as a threat or social inclusion as a reward are affected  over long-term, chronic social experiences (Eisenberger, 2013). This may help understand how social  experiences contribute to mental wellbeing (Eisenberger, 2013). Similarly, there is a need for more  research in understanding the predictive capabilities of community. If we can measure what defines a community and how it functions, in what ways do its adaptive capacities predict functioning or  resilience, and how does this drive future SOC, wellbeing outcomes or certain behavior? 

Applications of Community and Belonging for Social Impact 

By its very nature, a strong, positive sense of community is likely fundamental to improvements in  collective wellbeing and social change. Trust and social support, both drivers of social capital and social  cohesion, play an important role in a sense of collective efficacy, a community’s ability to create change  and influence behavior through social norms (Sampson et al, 1997). Studies have shown, high levels of  social support can encourage people to make healthier lifestyle choices, like healthier diets (Uchino,  2006). Having a sense of community, including the relationships between members and the involvement  of community institutions, has also been shown to be a driver of civic engagement (Chavis & Pretty,  1999). This depends on the interrelationship and interdependence between the individual and  community. Areas where this is particularly evident include the realms of community healing, resilience,  restorative justice, social capital, participatory development, and community intelligence. 

Participation, or participatory development theory, involves the leadership of local communities in  defining priorities and designing solutions. Wall and Hedlund (2016) note that “‘Localisation’ is used  across the [humanitarian] sector to refer to everything from the practice of increasing numbers of local  staff in international organisations, to the outsourcing of aid delivery to local partners, to the  development of locally specific response models.” (p. 3). Such localized, bottom-up solutions are  increasingly advocated as more effective methods of development than top-down, outsider-imposed  interventions (Chambers, 2009; Mercy Corps, 2010). Still, there is not always a clear delineation  between the local level beneficiary communities and the international implementing bodies facilitating  the work. Without care, these programs can easily morph from facilitation at the grassroots level to  imposing solutions that are dictated from the top-down. Thus, in these approaches, the definition of  community, like the concept of wellbeing, is ideally determined by the community (or person) itself  (themselves) (Chambers, 2009).  

Under a participatory approach, when outsiders are involved, they facilitate and listen, not lead.  Methods and tools are shared, and rather than impose, experts invite and encourage local populations  to identify and express their needs, ideas, and visions (Chambers, 2009). Under these approaches, the  goal is sustainable wellbeing for all, including quality of life, economic, social, mental, spiritual, physical,  and mental wellbeing, as defined by the person or community themselves (Chambers, 2009). Participatory methods work slowly to build trust, aim to ensure the marginalized come first, and that  outcomes are economically, socially, institutionally, and environmentally sustainable (Chambers, 2009).  Such models of community-driven development are critical in forming an understanding of the whole  and building social capital, connection, and a sense of belonging. They ensure all stakeholders find  ownership in the diagnosis and solution, and thus participate in the behavior required to achieve the  desired outcomes (Steidle, 2017).  

A 2010 Mercy Corps study in Iraq and Afghanistan reveal that community leaders and community  members agree that community-led programs - and the more and different actors the better - lead to  optimal outcomes. Three main reasons they have found such success include (1) participation allows  ownership, (2) programs can be tailored more specifically to local urgent needs, and (3) it builds trusting  relationships (Mercy Corps, 2010). According to Mercy Corps, successful community-led approaches  involve capacity-building through constructive collaboration, transparency, and high accountability;  community-building through diverse stakeholder engagement, cooperation and minimal competition in addressing needs and identifying resources; and ownership-building to increase local willingness to  participate and invest in benefiting the community (Mercy Corps, 2010). In surveys assessing the role of  multiple actors, international NGOs were seen by local community members to play a significant role in  building trust, reducing corruption, cooperating with officials, achieving outcomes that benefit the  majority of community on time and at reasonable cost, and reducing local tension (Mercy Corps, 2010).  

What are the corresponding mechanisms on an individual level? Studies have shown that intrinsic or  internal rewards are significantly more effective than extrinsic or external rewards in motivating  behavior and driving greater interest, persistence and performance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, a  child doing their homework because they enjoy the subject matter is likely to perform better, persevere  when it gets challenging, and find satisfaction in doing so, more so than if they are just doing their  homework because they know they are required to do so by school or their parents. Incidentally,  though, there are factors that enhance intrinsic motivation that must take place within a relational  context. These influencers include positive feedback, feeling supported, opportunities for self-direction,  being given choice, and having personal feelings acknowledged (Ryan & Deci, 2000). 

In particular, research in the realm of self-determination theory, which explores the importance of inner  resources for the regulation of behavior and social development, has distilled these supportive  experiences into three primary factors – competence, autonomy and relatedness – that drive self motivation and mental health, and when absent reduce wellbeing and motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).  Relatedness involves a close, secure and supportive connection to another. Relatedness, belonging and  a sense of community, all hinge on the importance of connection and relationships. The key is that such  supportive relationships reinforce intrinsic motivation only if they contribute to a sense of internalized  and integrated competency and perceived autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000). People who feel close and  securely connected to other people, will see behavior modeled by those people, which they are more  likely to adopt, especially if they feel competent and encouraged, and feel they have choice in doing so  (Ryan & Deci, 2000). In contrast, though it seems natural to tell or pressure people to comply using  punitive measures or incentives, these types of extrinsic rewards, threats and directives consistently sabotage intrinsic motivation, in part because they result in a sense of a loss of autonomy (Ryan & Deci,  2000).  

In summary, relatedness and connection, fostered in relationships that offer positive support, honor  autonomy, and enable individuals to feel competent, will then allow people to internalize the values and  behaviors that are expected of them and find meaning in complying. This forms the collective self,  resulting in a greater level of perseverance and sustainability of expected behavior, as well as better  relationships and perceived well-being (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000). And so, feeling a  sense of belonging and experiencing high levels of social support from a sense of community, can  contribute directly to the intrinsic motivation that will result in behavior that is in alignment with the  shared values and norms of that community, especially towards a greater social good.