No abstract

Background: A number of meta-analyses of mindfulness have been performed, but few distinguished between different facets of mindfulness, despite it being known that facets of mindfulness behave differently in different populations; and most studied the outcome of interventions, which tend to involve additional ingredients besides mindfulness. Furthermore, there has recently been some concern regarding possible publication bias in mindfulness research.Objective: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the relationship of different facets of mindfulness with various outcomes, taking into account possible moderators, and controlling for publication bias using a method appropriate given the substantial heterogeneity present.Methods: Random effects meta-analysis with a number of robustness checks and estimation of the possible impact of publication bias on the results. Included are all studies that report correlations of outcomes with all five FFMQ facets, in English, French, German, or Spanish.Study Registration: PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016041863.Results: For the designated primary measure (SWLS) estimated correlations were: 0.15 [0.07, 0.22] for the Observing facet, 0.31 [0.27, 0.36] for Describing, 0.35 [0.31, 0.38] for Acting-with-Awareness, 0.30 [0.10, 0.47] for Non-judging and 0.28 [0.18, 0.37] for Non-reacting. Grouping all desirable outcomes together, Describing has the highest zero-order (though not partial) correlation; Non-judging the highest effect on avoiding undesirable outcomes. Results seem to be reasonably robust even to severe publication bias.

The present paper discusses attentional focus in motor learning and performance from the point of view of mindful movement practices, taking as a starting point the Feldenkrais method. It is argued that earlier criticism of the Feldenkrais method (and thereby implicitly of mindful movement practices more generally) because of allegedly inappropriate attentional focus turns out to be unfounded in light of recent developments in the study of motor learning and performance. Conversely, the examples of the Feldenkrais method and Ki-Aikido are used to illustrate how both Western and Eastern (martial arts derived) mindful movement practices might benefit sports psychology.

No abstract

The present paper discusses the claim that value-free science is impossible. After applauding the observation of Colombo et al. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 7: 743-763, (2016) that this is at least to a considerable extent a psychological question, and should therefore be studied using the methods of psychological science, the studies performed by these authors were examined and unfortunately found seriously wanting in various respects. Beyond the merits or demerits of that particular piece of work, the discussion lead to a conclusion likely relevant to the entire discussion about the alleged impossibility of value-free science: Showing the impossibility of value-free science would entail at least a) defining what the term science is intended to cover, b) providing high level evidence that few if any scientists in the relevant area(s) are immune to nonepistemic influences (else one could presumably achieve value-free science by having scientific hypothesis only evaluated by those who are immune), c) that these influences meaningfully bias the results of science, d) that there is no way to correct for these influences, and e) explain whyunlike epistemic appraisal in sciencethe epistemic appraisal of this argument can be trusted. 1 Errare Humanum Est To err is human: the realization of this unfortunate fact goes back at least to the ancient Romans. But not only do we err, in many ways we humans err in systematic ways that impinge on our ability to accurately learn about the world: Optical illusions, for example, are well-known and have provided not only examples used since ancient times and throughout the history of philosophical theorizing (Burnyeat 1983), but they also provide input into psychological and neuroscientific research (Macknik et al. 2010; Ekroll et al. 2017). In addition, research has also found strong evidence for the