The field of mindfulness practice and research has expanded over recent years and become more established in the public consciousness. In this paper we explore four key tensions for the mindfulness community to hold in awareness. These include: Mindfulness for me vs. mindfulness for others (an awareness of the loss of the spiritual and collective elements historically essential to mindfulness), Mindfulness for some vs. mindfulness for all (understanding why mindfulness may be more appealing for some more than others), The whole vs. the sum of its parts (the need to understand the mechanisms of mindfulness and still preserve its integrity), and Improving access vs. preserving fidelity (balancing modifications to address issues such as accessibility with retaining core components). Recognising such challenges is a vital aspect of ensuring that mindfulness researchers and practitioners continue to work in a way that retains authenticity and trust within this burgeoning field and helps to support engagement from a diverse range of people across the modern world.

Previous research has found behaviors associated with personality traits can be found in the dreams of those who possess them, suggesting a continuum between dreaming and waking life. The present study sought to investigate the association between dark tetrad traits (psychopathy, narcissism, Machiavellianism, and sadism) and dream content. One hundred thirty-seven participants completed questionnaires measuring dark tetrad traits and fighting, sexual, and grandiosity themes of dream content. Correlation analyses revealed significant positive relationships between all dark tetrad traits and fighting, sexual and grandiosity dreams. Regression analyses revealed that psychopathy and gender predicted fighting dreams, and sadism uniquely predicted sexual and grandiosity dreams. The results suggest that waking life dark tetrad personality traits are reflected in dream content. The continuity hypothesis, which posits a continuity between waking life and dreaming, may in part explain the results.

ObjectivesWe aimed to investigate the effects of directly manipulating response style to simulated voice hearing on emotional and cognitive outcomes in a non‐clinical population.DesignA between‐subjects design with one independent variable, response style (with two levels: mindful acceptance vs attentional avoidance). The dependent variables were subjective distress and anxiety (primary outcomes) and performance on a sustained attention task (secondary outcomes).MethodsParticipants were randomly assigned to one of two response styles (mindful acceptance vs. attentional avoidance). They completed a computerised attention task (continuous performance task) whilst listening to a simulation of voice hearing. Participants rated their experience of anxiety and distress before and after completing the sustained attention task which was used to measure their accuracy and response times.ResultsOne hundred and one participants took part (mindful acceptance (n = 54); attentional avoidance (n = 47)). There were no statistically significant group differences on post‐test distress and anxiety scores, correct response rate or response times on the computerised attention task. Participants reported a range of different response styles along the spectrum of avoidance to acceptance, but this had no association with their assigned experimental condition. Adherence to task instructions was therefore low.ConclusionsWe are unable to conclude from this study whether experimentally inducing people to respond to voices under cognitively demanding conditions in an avoidant or accepting way has an impact on their emotional or cognitive outcomes. Further research should focus on the development of more robust and reliable procedures for inducing differences in response style under experimental conditions.