Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Human Values, Environmental Awareness, and Attitudes on the Intention to Purchase Cannabis-Based Skincare Cosmetics
Previous Article in Journal
The Trend of Grassland Restoration and Its Driving Forces in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China from 1988 to 2018
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/su141610405
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

The Association between Mindfulness and Resilience among University Students: A Meta-Analysis

by
Xuepeng Liu
1,*,
Qing Wang
1 and
Zhenzhen Zhou
2
1
School of Management, Tianjin University of Commerce, Tianjin 300134, China
2
Department of Management Engineering, Qingdao University of Technology, Linyi 273499, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(16), 10405; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610405
Submission received: 12 July 2022 / Revised: 5 August 2022 / Accepted: 15 August 2022 / Published: 21 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Education and Approaches)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Based on the concept of education for sustainable development (ESD), both individual mindfulness and resilience play a vital role in developing students’ competences in ESD. Across 20 samples, this meta-analysis investigated the association between mindfulness and resilience among the university student population. The results revealed that (1) the two constructs were significantly correlated, with a moderate effect (r = 0.465); (2) cultural background and national economic development level, as well as the type of resilience measurement scale, did not moderate the relationship between the two constructs; (3) the type of the mindfulness measurement scale was a statistically significant moderator of the relationship between mindfulness and resilience among university students; (4) the mindfulness dimension of observing presented the lowest correlation with the university students’ resilience, while acting with awareness and non-reacting were shown as the two most relevant dimensions for the target group. The findings of the meta-analysis study convey important implications for ESD within the university context.

1. Introduction

Education for sustainable development (ESD) aims to develop competences that empower individuals to reflect on their actions from the perspective of sustainability [1], thus promoting positive sustainability behaviors [2,3]. A complete and integrated view about competences for sustainable development (CSD) includes six main blocks: responsibility, emotional intelligence, system orientation, future orientation, personal involvement, and the ability to take action [4]. Mindfulness, defined as the capacity to focus attention on the present moment both externally and internally [5], is deemed a core competence for ESD since it fosters CSD as emotional regulation, self-awareness, and future orientation [6,7,8]. Conceptualized as either a stable personality trait, a state-like exploitable capacity, a process, or an outcome [9,10,11,12], psychological resilience at the individual level refers to positive adaptation despite adversity [13,14]. The process conceptualization of psychological resilience involves exposure to adversity and the mechanism of response to adversities through cognition, affect, and behavior [15,16]. Therefore, resilience can be closely related to the competences of ESD. Based on the concept of ESD, this paper aimed to explore the relationship between mindfulness and resilience among the population of university students through meta-analysis.
Mindfulness refers to intentionally directing one’s attention to the present-moment experience through an accepting stance [17,18,19]. It involves being aware of one’s ongoing internal and external experiences without nonintentional judgment or reaction, as well as being able to describe various aspects of one’s subjective experience [20]. A number of studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of mindfulness on individuals’ positive outcomes (either physical or psychological) [21,22].
As an important psychological character, resilience has been defined as an individual’s capacity to achieve positive adjustment and development during adverse and stressful circumstances [11,12]. In spite of experiences of significant adversity or trauma, resilient individuals have a tendency to alleviate the negative effects of stress, adapt to change and adversity, and keep an optimistic state [14,23]. Therefore, resilience is considered an important factor that can help individuals maintain physical and psychological health and sustain a normal state of balance despite exposure to exceptionally stressful situations [15].
Particularly, resilience is vital for university students who, generally, have to adapt to new social and educational environments for the first time [24]. During this transition process, life can be rather complex and demanding, as they are faced with new forms of stress related to academic demands, study–life balance, money problems, social challenges, as well as pressures coming from self-development and employment after graduation [25]. Therefore, university students are more vulnerable to psychological problems compared with their non-university peers [26]. In adverse situations, some individuals experience long-term emotional maladjustment and depressive symptoms [27]. In recent years, many researchers have recognized resilience as a developmental process rather than a “hard-wired” personal trait (e.g., hardiness) [28,29] and believe it can be strengthened through effective strategies [30].

1.1. The Relationship between Mindfulness and Resilience among University Students

A literature review showed promising evidence that mindfulness is associated with individual resilience. Neurologically, mindfulness strengthens the connections between the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala, promoting an equanimity that can help keep people from spiraling down the setback thoughts [31] and provides insights into the understanding of the mindfulness–resilience association.
At the conceptual level, resilience has been discovered to share close mechanisms with mindfulness. On the one hand, mindfulness requires nonjudgmental acceptance of one’s ongoing internal and external experiences. On the other hand, resilience endows people with an accepting stance towards their life experiences [32], which is a key factor for flexibility and adaptability [19]. Resilience should be more outstanding in mindful individuals as they generally engage in less rumination and habitual worrying [33,34,35], maintain a problem-solving orientated outlook, and tend to better cope with thoughts and emotions without getting overwhelmed or shutting down [36,37].
Within the university environment, a literature review showed the association between mindfulness and the university students’ resilience. Intervention studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of mindfulness-based training on resilience enhancement among university students [38,39,40]. For example, Vidic and Cherup examined the effect of a seven-week-long mindfulness-based relaxation course on the resilience level of undergraduate students [39], and the results suggested that the experimental group demonstrated a larger increase and overall higher level of resilience at the end of the intervention. Roulston et al. measured the impact of a six-week-long mindfulness course on the resilience of undergraduate social work students in Northern Ireland through a pilot study [38] and found significant changes in the scores of resilience for the intervention group but not for the control group.
In addition, correlation studies have also suggested a positive relationship between mindfulness and resilience among university students. For example, according to Pidgeon and Pickett [41], compared with highly resilient university students, the low resilience group students were found to have significantly lower levels of mindfulness. Focusing on African American college students, Freligh and Debb suggested that mindfulness was positively associated with resilience [42], and the non-reactivity facet of mindfulness explained the largest amount of the unique variance. To explore the role of resilience and mindfulness in predicting university students’ psychological well-being, McArthur et al. found that students with higher levels of nonjudgmental and nonreactive mindfulness had higher levels of resilience [43]. In addition, taking undergraduate university students in India as the research sample, Bajaj and Pande also found the positive link between mindfulness and resilience [44].

1.2. Rationale and Objectives of the Study

As the transition period from adolescence to adulthood is accompanied by various upcoming challenges from the outside world, university life can be particularly stressful and create both short- and long-term impact on the university students’ future lives [45,46]. Depending on their behavior and thinking patterns, these impacts can be advantageous or disadvantageous. Fortunately, previous studies showed that students with higher resilience at the transitional phase of university are better capable of meeting the emerging challenges and sustaining positive subjective well-being [47]. Empirical studies have also discovered the close relationship between mindfulness and the university students’ resilience, which is inspiring for reducing the overall symptoms of psychological distress and increasing the subjective well-being among university students. However, based on the relevant literature review, the following problems have been discovered.
First of all, since it is an emerging research field with a relatively small pool of studies, the risk of publication bias should be assessed in order to identify if the consensus is a result of a selection effect where only studies with the largest effect sizes and/or statistically significant tests are published and available.
Secondly, even though previous correlation studies reported the close relationship between mindfulness and resilience among university students, they are based on various samples with different sample sizes or sample features (i.e., sample background). Therefore, these studies may be vulnerable to sampling bias or sampling idiosyncrasies.
Thirdly, correlations of these studies ranged from as low as 0.12 [48] to as high as 0.68 [42], which makes it difficult to precisely estimate the magnitude of the relationship between the two constructs.
In addition, the association between the two constructs may be influenced by study-level moderators (e.g., measurement instruments, cultural background, etc.). For example, Abi-Hashem emphasized that individual resilience also stems from the individual’s culture [49]. It is critical to analyze the effects of such study-level moderators, which can bring to light the boundary conditions of correlation stability and generalization.
Lastly, even though many researchers measure mindfulness as a one-dimensional construct with scales such as the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) [50], more researchers view it as multidimensional and adopt such scales as the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) [20], the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI) [51], the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale, Revised (CAMS-R) [52], etc. It is quite important to investigate the differential associations regarding the different mindfulness dimensions with the university students’ resilience, not only for understanding the effect mechanism of mindfulness on resilience among the target group in-depth, but also for providing theoretical reference for effectively designing targeted mindfulness-based interventions. However, the related research is quite limited and has reported various results, which makes it difficult to derive relatively more precise estimates.
In light of the issues above, the meta-analysis method was adopted in this research in an attempt to systematically reveal the association between mindfulness and resilience among the target group of university students. Meta-analysis is an analytical tool to synthesize results across related studies. By cumulating results across individual studies, meta-analysis can help to increase the sample volume, as well as correct for the biasing effects of sampling error and other statistical artifacts such as measurement error [53]. By synthesizing the studies on the same issue and providing comprehensive analysis, meta-analysis can provide the most precise estimate and reveal the boundary conditions through moderator analysis across individual studies.
Therefore, the objectives of this meta-analysis study were to (a) estimate the effect size of the relationship between mindfulness and resilience among university students; (b) investigate the effects of moderator variables (i.e., measurement instruments, cultural background, etc.) through exploratory meta-analytic moderator analysis; (c) investigate the levels of correlations between resilience and the different mindfulness dimensions among university students; and (d) assess the risk of publication bias.

2. Method

2.1. Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

To extract studies investigating the relationship between mindfulness and resilience among university students, a systematic literature search was conducted in the PsycNet, Web of Science, and Scopus databases between June and August 2020. Considering the quality and recognition of studies, we attempted to identify relevant conference papers and journal articles in the electronic database search using the following keywords: “mindful * OR meditate *” AND “resilienc *” (the * symbol represents the wildcard function). No time restrictions were placed on the search strategy, with all studies up to August 2020 considered. After removing the duplicated studies, a total of 1556 abstracts were identified for consideration.
Studies for inclusion must satisfy the following criteria: (a) written in English; (b) not a literature review; (c) a quantitative study; (d) must have mentioned mindfulness; I must have mentioned resilience; (f) must have incorporated a scale to measure mindfulness; (g) must have included a scale to measure resilience; (h) the research sample must be students in a university setting; (i) must have reported the zero-order correlation data between mindfulness and resilience; (j) must belong to correlation studies rather than mindfulness-based training intervention studies, as the primary interest of this meta-analysis was the relationship between mindfulness and resilience rather than the effect of a mindfulness training intervention.

2.2. Literature Selection Process

Based on the criteria above, literature selection proceeded in the following three phases [54]: (a) abstract screening; (b) full-text eligibility assessment; and (c) manual search for supplementation. In the phase of abstract screening, the abstracts of the 1556 studies identified were screened. This process excluded 1470 sources and resulted in 86 studies for inclusion. Then, full text reading and assessment of eligibility of the 86 studies were conducted. Finally, to ensure all relevant studies were covered and detected, the 16 selected studies were manually back-traced (identifying relevant articles based on the reference list in each article) and forward-searched (identifying relevant articles by reviewing studies that have cited that study) [54]. After removing duplicates, four additional articles met the selection criteria for inclusion. Overall, 20 studies, including 20 independent samples, were included in the meta-analysis sample. Figure 1 shows the literature selection process. Studies included in this meta-analysis are marked with an asterisk in the References section.

2.3. Data Coding

The following information in the studies of the meta-analysis sample was extracted and coded: (a) authors and year of publication; (b) participants’ characteristics (nationality, mean age, major background, education level, and gender proportion); (c) measures (the number of participants and instruments to measure mindfulness and resilience); (d) correlation coefficients between resilience and mindfulness (or the subscales of mindfulness, if provided). Twenty studies were included, all of which were published in peer-reviewed journals.

2.4. Data Analysis

The data were analyzed using comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) software (version 3.0) (Biostat Inc., Englewood, NJ, USA). The reported correlation coefficient Pearson’s r (accompanied by sample size N) served as the effect size index of the influence of mindfulness on subjects’ resilience. Publication bias was tested, first, through the visual inspection of the funnel plot, and then through Rosenthal’s fail-safe test [55] and Kendall’s tau test [56]. Assuming that the effect sizes across studies varied randomly and the observed total relative variance among the studies was due to heterogeneity of (between and within) the studies, we used the random-effects model since it can compare scores between and within subgroups, balance weights, and make large studies less dominant [53]. Nevertheless, fixed-effect estimates were also presented for comparison. In addition, heterogeneity was measured using I2, adopting the cutoffs of low, moderate, and high—25%, 50%, and 75%, respectively [57]. For significant heterogeneity, exploratory meta-analytic moderator analysis was conducted to find reasons for the variance [58]. The measurement scale types of mindfulness and resilience, as well as the cultural background and national economic development level, were considered potential moderators. The effects of moderators were estimated with several mixed-effects models, one estimated separately for each moderator [59]. Some studies, which applied the FFMQ as the measurement scale of mindfulness, reported correlation coefficients between resilience and five mindfulness dimensions (i.e., acting with awareness, nonjudgmental, non-reacting, observing, and describing). Thus, it provides a beneficial opportunity to test which dimensions of mindfulness could better contribute to the resilience of the university student population.

3. Results

3.1. Study Characteristics

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the studies. Twenty studies (k = 20) with the total sample size of 7988 (n = 7988) were included. These studies were published between 2013 and 2020. Three studies, which applied the FFMQ as the measurement scale of mindfulness, reported the correlation coefficients between the university students’ resilience and five mindfulness dimensions (i.e., acting with awareness, non-judgment, non-reacting, observing and describing) [42,43,60]. In instances where multiple effect sizes rather than the comprehensive one were reported (e.g., for different dimensions of mindfulness), they were averaged to yield a single-effect size, such as the study by McArthur et al. [43].

3.2. Publication Bias

Visual inspection of the funnel plot indicated approximate symmetry, suggesting little evidence of publication bias (see Figure 2). Rosenthal’s fail-safe N test suggested that there would have to be at least 6987 missing studies to raise the overall p-value to greater than 0.05, which was considered robust. Kendall’s Tau was not significant (Tau = 0.10, p = 0.538), which further indicated an absence of publication bias.

3.3. Analysis of the Overall Effects and Heterogeneity

Figure 3 presents the forest plot of effect sizes for studies in this meta-analysis. The random-effects model indicated that the correlation between mindfulness and resilience among university students was 0.465 (95% CI, 0.367; 0.552), z = 8.345, p < 0.001, demonstrating a moderate correlation coefficient. The estimate was larger than that of the fixed effect, r = 0.370 (95% CI, 0.350; 0.388), z = 34.537, p < 0.001, indicating that giving less weights to smaller studies could influence the estimate.
Through heterogeneity analysis, the results were obtained as Q(16) = 491.097, p < 0.001, τ2 = 0.048, I2 = 93.131. The heterogeneity estimate (I2) indicated that 93.131% of the variability in the effect sizes was not caused by sampling error [57], higher than the benchmark of 75%, which suggested significant heterogeneity.

3.4. Moderator Analysis

The significant heterogeneity among the studies suggested that there could exist significant moderating effects. Therefore, an exploratory meta-analytic moderator analysis was conducted in order to explore the source of heterogeneity and investigate the effects of potential moderators such as the mindfulness and resilience measurement scale types, as well as the cultural background and national economic development level. The results are reported in Table 2.
The moderator analysis results suggested that only the mindfulness measurement scale type moderator significantly moderated the correlation coefficient (Qb = 22.167, p < 0.001). The studies yielded the largest effect size when adopting the mindfulness measurement of CAMS-R, followed by those adopting FMI and FFMQ, with MAAS yielding the smallest one. However, the resilience measurement scale type, cultural background, and national economic development level moderators did not show significant moderating effects.

3.5. Analysis of Subgroups within the Studies

The subgroup analysis within the studies was conducted in order to investigate the relationships between the university students’ resilience and five mindfulness dimensions (i.e., acting with awareness, nonjudgmental, non-reacting, observing, and describing) measured using the FFMQ scale. The results are reported in Table 3.
Overall, no significant difference was shown among the correlation coefficients between the five dimensions of mindfulness and the university students’ resilience (Qb = 4.993, p = 0.288 > 0.05). In addition, effect sizes based on the fixed-effect model were reported in the third column of Table 3. It was discovered that the dimensions of “acting with awareness” and “non-reacting” yielded the largest effect sizes (r = 0.475 and 0.428), which indicated they associated more with the university students’ resilience. However, the dimension of “observing” reported the lowest correlation coefficient with the university students’ resilience (r = 0.083), which was consistently demonstrated in all the three studies (I2 = 0.00, p = 0.497 > 0.05).
Further, differences between two of the five mindfulness dimensions were tested based on the random effect. As shown by the results presented in Table 4, there would be significant difference in the correlation coefficients between “observing” and “acting with awareness” (Qb = 5.916, p = 0.015 < 0.05), as well as between “observing” and “non-reacting” (Qb = 29.285, p = 0.000 < 0.001). This draws attention to the finding that “observing” showed the weakest connection with the university students’ resilience, while “acting with awareness” and “non-reacting” showed the strongest one.

4. Discussion

4.1. Findings

This is the first meta-analysis on the association between mindfulness and resilience among university students. It was demonstrated that the two constructs in the university context were significantly correlated, with a moderate effect. The moderate correlation coefficient between mindfulness and resilience among university students across the samples suggested that their close relationship may be universal.
By examining the potential moderators, it was shown that cultural background, national economic development level, as well as resilience measurement scale type were not significant moderators of the correlation, suggesting that the effect size was consistent across backgrounds of different cultures and development levels regardless of the resilience measurement instrument. In addition, although the results reported positive relationships between the two constructs when the different mindfulness measurement instruments (e.g., FFMQ, FMI, MAAS, and CAMS-R) were adopted, there existed a significant difference between the effect sizes, which indicated that the mindfulness measurement scale type performed as a significant moderator. Particularly, compared with the adoption of other mindfulness measurement scales (e.g., FFMQ, FMI, MAAS, and CAMS-R), adopting the MAAS scale as a mindfulness measurement instrument generated the lowest effect size.
Through investigating the differential associations regarding the different mindfulness dimensions (i.e., acting with awareness, nonjudgmental, non-reacting, observing, and describing) with the university students’ resilience, no significant moderating effect was found. However, the results indicated that the dimension of “observing” obviously presented the weakest connection with the university students’ resilience, while “acting with awareness” and “non-reacting” were shown as the two most relevant dimensions to the construct of students’ resilience in the university context.
In addition, no serious evidence of publication bias was found, which largely suggested the meta-analysis results to be both accurate and robust.

4.2. Implications of the Findings

Based on the concept of ESD, both individual mindfulness and resilience play a vital role in developing students’ competences in education for sustainable development (ESD). Findings of the meta-analysis offer us further empirical foundations for ways to improve the level of mindfulness and resilience among university students. Even though previous studies reported various correlations between mindfulness and resilience among university students, the results support that mindfulness does appear to be positively related to the university students’ resilience. This result is not conditional on idiosyncrasies of sample characteristics and appears robust to publication bias effects. Researchers and practitioners can be reasonably confident that results of the previous studies reflect a population effect and not overrepresentation in significant studies. Therefore, they provide promising evidence that mindfulness-based interventions may be an effective strategy to enhance the university students’ resilience level. From the standpoint of practitioners, it also provides an effective theoretical basis and reference for promoting the mindfulness curriculum within universities across nations, which is rather beneficial for educators and university students themselves.
The moderation analysis results suggested that the relationship between mindfulness and resilience among university students was stable across culture, national economic development level, and the resilience measurement instrument, which revealed the universal effectiveness of this association. However, the mindfulness measurement scale type could significantly moderate the relationship between mindfulness and resilience among university students. Particularly, adopting the MAAS scale generated the lowest effect size. Compared with other mindfulness measurement scales (e.g., FFMQ, FMI, and CAMS-R), which can measure multiple facets of mindfulness, MAAS solely refers to attention and awareness, measuring mindfulness as a one-dimensional construct. The results imply that the construct of the university students’ resilience connects to their multidimensional mindfulness rather than solely attention and awareness. Thus, MAAS may not be the best choice as a mindfulness measurement tool when exploring the relationship of the two constructs among university students.
Perhaps, from the perspective of measurement flaws, there may be other reasons accounting for the lowest effect size generated by MAAS. As noted by Quinn-Nilas [82], MAAS was pointed out with problems such as not measuring nonjudgmental awareness [20], potentially only measuring perceived inattention [83], concerns about construct validity [83], reliance on negatively worded items, etc. Therefore, this emphasizes the importance of measurement development, perfection, and selection in the research field of mindfulness. As for the current research problem, we cannot be too cautious to select the optimum mindfulness measurement tool in order to reveal the essential link between mindfulness and resilience among university students.
Among the multidimensional mindfulness measurement instruments, FFMQ can produce not only a total score for the mindfulness level, but also dimensional scores for its five facets such as “acting with awareness”, “describing”, “observing”, “nonjudgmental”, and “non-reactive” [84]. Though generally associated with one another, the five facets have been demonstrated to represent distinct capacities [85]. By investigating the differential associations regarding the different mindfulness dimensions with the university students’ resilience through meta-analysis with the data reported in three studies in the research sample, it was discovered that the dimension of “observing” showed no significant association with resilience within the university student population, while the dimensions of “acting with awareness” and “non-reacting” emerged to be significantly associated with the university students’ resilience above and beyond the other facets.
The results highlight the insufficiency of observing to boost students’ resilience within the university context and the importance of acting with awareness and non-reacting in the ability to enhance the university students’ resilience. The observing facet gauges individuals’ ability to decompose experience into smaller observable fractions and take conscious notice of them. However, allowing for the stressors and challenges in college life and emerging adulthood, it is far from enough for the university student population to acquire adequate resilience by just observing them.
With regard to acting with awareness and non-reacting, the former refers to an individual’s ability to focus on and become fully involved in the present activities, while the latter corresponds to the ability to refrain from immediately reacting to one’s inner experiences (e.g., emotions, thoughts, sensations, etc.) despite the perception of them. For individuals, the two components enable a shift into the being mode, in which no standard is set up for how things “should” be and, therefore, it is needless to resolve any discrepancy. For university students, the being mode may facilitate the building of resilience, the reduction of negative impacts from stress, and the positive momentum in meeting the challenges of university life and beyond. As for acting with awareness, it enables individuals to notice their behavior patterns and simultaneously focus on the present activities, which helps to hold back their habitual negative ways of reaction. When faced with stressful events, university students with high levels of acting with awareness tend to be better at restraining the habitual rumination and depression and involving themselves in more meaningful activities (such as assignments). Regarding non-reacting, it expands the space between the stimulus and the response by enabling an individual to pause before reacting, which can interrupt the momentum of the stimulus–reaction chain and allow for a reduction of habitual actions. It may even be accompanied by physiological changes, such as a quicker return to baseline via parasympathetic nervous system reactivation [86]. The capacity for non-reacting plays a primary role in allowing for the switch of gears from the doing mode to the being mode, the pausing space, and, therefore, the increased resilience [42]. It can be expected that university students with a high level of non-reacting tend to find it easier to let go and return to baseline by accepting the current difficult experience without having to immediately change it.

4.3. Limitations and Future Research Directions

One limitation of this meta-analysis study was the small number of studies that met the inclusion criteria. This small number is understandable in light of this newly-developing research domain. Regardless, compared with any individual primary study, this meta-analysis with even limited studies provides a more precise estimate of the relationship between mindfulness and resilience among the university student population on account of the advantages of the meta-analysis method itself. Researchers can include more emerging studies in this field in future meta-analysis studies and try to obtain new insights.
Another limitation of this meta-analysis study was that it included primarily cross-sectional studies using self-report measures and did not collect intervention studies or use study design (i.e., correlational study vs. intervention) as a moderator. This is partly because intervention studies rely on different assumptions, and the small cell sizes would make the comparisons untenable. Moreover, the focus of this meta-analysis study was on reviewing the correlational studies on the current issue. Future research can be further saturated by embracing more studies using experimental, dyadic, or longitudinal design in order to explore the mechanism of effects between mindfulness and resilience among students within the university context.
In addition, even though this meta-analysis study analyzed the differential associations regarding the five mindfulness dimensions with the university students’ resilience, the results were based on only three studies, given that the relative data were reported by just these limited studies. Allowing for both theoretical and practical values for researchers and practitioners in this field, more studies, either correlational or interventional, should try to explore these differential associations in the future. Therefore, it calls for a wider adoption of multidimensional mindfulness measurements scales (e.g., FFMQ) over one-dimensional ones in future studies, which requires an ongoing debate on the underlying dimensionality of the mindfulness construct. Finally, future research should explore further how mindfulness, the specific dimensions, and resilience interact with or relate to the other competences of education for sustainable development (ESD).

Author Contributions

X.L.: conceptualization, data collection, analysis, original and final draft preparation, writing—review. Q.W.: advising and supervising. Z.Z.: data collection and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The publication of this study was supported by the Research Project of Tianjin Education Commission for the project entitled “Retailer purchasing decision-making under the interactive effect of supply interruption risk and strategic customer behavior”, with the Grant No. 2017SK071.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset generated and analyzed in this study is not publicly available. The dataset is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Tejedor, G.; Segalàs, J.; Barrón, A.; Fernàndez-Morilla, M.; Fuertes, M.T.; Ruiz-Morales, J.; Gutiérrez, L.; García-Gonzàlez, E.; Aramburuzabala, P.; Hernàndez, A. Didactic strategies to promote competencies in sustainability. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Weiss, E.B. United Nations conference on environment and development. Int. Leg. Mater. 1992, 31, 814–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cebrián, G.; Junyent, M. Competencies in education for sustainable development: Exploring the student teachers’ views. Sustainability 2015, 7, 2768–2786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lambrechts, W.; Mulà, I.; Ceulemans, K.; Molderez, I.; Gaeremynck, V. The integration of competences for sustainable development in higher education: An analysis of bachelor programs in management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Vidal-Meliá, L.; Estrada, M.; Monferrer, D.; Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. Does Mindfulness Influence Academic Performance? The Role of Resilience in Education for Sustainable Development. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cheng, X.; Ma, Y.; Li, J.; Cai, Y.; Li, L.; Zhang, J. Mindfulness and psychological distress in kindergarten teachers: The mediating role of emotional intelligence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Erus, S.M.; Deniz, M.E. The mediating role of emotional intelligence and marital adjustment in the relationship between mindfulness in marriage and subjective well-being. Pegem J. Educ. Instr. 2020, 10, 317–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Teal, C.; Downey, L.A.; Lomas, J.E.; Ford, T.C.; Bunnett, E.R.; Stough, C. The role of dispositional mindfulness and emotional intelligence in adolescent males. Mindfulness 2019, 10, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hartmann, S.; Weiss, M.; Newman, A.; Hoegl, M. Resilience in the workplace: A multilevel review and synthesis. Appl. Psychol. 2020, 69, 913–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fisher, R.; Maritz, A.; Lobo, A. Does individual resilience influence entrepreneurial success? Acad. Entrep. J. 2016, 22, 39–53. [Google Scholar]
  11. Connor, K.M.; Davidson, J.R.T. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress. Anxiety 2003, 18, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ong, A.D.; Bergeman, C.S.; Bisconti, T.L.; Wallace, K.A. Psychological resilience, positive emotions, and successful adaptation to stress in later life. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 91, 730–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ahern, N.R.; Kiehl, E.M.; Sole, M.L.; Byers, J. A review of instruments measuring resilience. Issues Compr. Pediatric Nurs. 2006, 29, 103–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Richardson, G.E.; Neiger, B.L.; Jensen, S.; Kumpfer, K.L. The resilience model. Health Educ. 1990, 21, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ryff, C.D.; Singer, B. Flourishing under fire: Resilience as a prototype of challenged thriving. In Positive Psychology and the Life Well-Lived; Keyes, C.L.M., Haidt, J., Eds.; APA: Washington, DC, USA, 2003; pp. 15–36. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hoegl, M.; Hartmann, S. Bouncing back, if not beyond: Challenges for research on resilience. Asian Bus. Manag. 2021, 20, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kabat-Zinn, J. Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life; Hyperion: New York, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kabat-Zinn, J. Mindfulness-based intervention in context: Past, present, and future. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 2003, 10, 144–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Germer, G. What is mindfulness? In Mindfulness and Psychotherapy; Germer, G., Siegel, R., Fulton, P., Eds.; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 1–27. [Google Scholar]
  20. Baer, R.A.; Smith, G.T.; Hopkins, J.; Krietemeyer, J.; Toney, L. Using self-report assessment methods to explore facets of mindfulness. Assessment 2006, 13, 27–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Keng, S.; Smoski, M.J.; Robins, C.J. Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 31, 1041–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hopwood, T.L.; Schutte, N.S. A meta-analytic investigation of the impact of mindfulness-based interventions on post traumatic stress. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2017, 57, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ferreira, R.J.; Buttell, F.; Cannon, C. COVID-19: Immediate predictors of individual resilience. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hicks, T.; Heastie, S. High school to college transition: A profile of the stressors, physical and psychological health issues that affect the first-year on-campus college student. Cult. Divers. 2008, 15, 143–147. [Google Scholar]
  25. Friedlander, L.J.; Reid, G.J.; Shupak, N.; Cribbie, R. Social support, self-esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to university among first-year undergraduates. J. Coll. Stud. Dev. 2007, 48, 259–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stallman, H.M. Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Aust. Psychol. 2010, 45, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gall, T.L.; Evans, D.R.; Bellerose, S. Transition to first-year university: Patterns of change in adjustment across life domains and time. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2000, 19, 544–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Reivich, K.; Shatte, A. The Resilience Factor; Broadway Books: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lightsey, O.R. Resilience, meaning, and well-being. Couns. Psychol. 2006, 34, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McEwen, B.S.; Gray, J.D.; Nasca, C. Recognizing resilience: Learning from the effects of stress on the brain. Neurobiol. Stress 2015, 1, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Davidson, R.J.; Begley, S. The Emotional Life of Your Brain: How Its Unique Patterns Affect the Way You Think, Feel, and Live—And How You Can Change Them; Hudson Street Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  32. Grabbe, L.; Nguy, S.T.; Higgins, M.K. Spirituality development for homeless youth: A mindfulness meditation feasibility pilot. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2012, 21, 925–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Thompson, R.W.; Arnkoff, D.B.; Glass, C.R. Conceptualizing mindfulness and acceptance as components of psychological resilience to trauma. Trauma Violence Abus. 2011, 12, 220–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shapiro, S.L.; Brown, K.W.; Biegel, G.M. Teaching self-care to caregivers: Effects of mindfulness-based stress reduction on the mental health of therapists in training. Train. Educ. Prof. Psychol. 2007, 1, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Verplanken, B.; Fisher, N. Habitual worrying and benefits of mindfulness. Mindfulness 2014, 5, 566–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Langer, E.J.; Moldoveanu, M. The construct of mindfulness. J. Soc. Issues 2000, 56, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wallace, B.A.; Shapiro, S.L. Mental balance and well-being: Building bridges between Buddhism and western psychology. Am. Psychol. 2006, 61, 690–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Roulston, A.; Montgomery, L.; Campbell, A.; Davidson, G. Exploring the impact of mindfulnesss on mental wellbeing, stress and resilience of undergraduate social work students. Soc. Work Educ. 2018, 37, 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Vidic, Z.; Cherup, N. Mindfulness in classroom: Effect of a mindfulness-based relaxation class on college students’ stress, resilience, self-efficacy and perfectionism. Coll. Stud. J. 2019, 53, 130–144. [Google Scholar]
  40. Reyes, A.T.; Muthukumar, V.; Bhatta, T.R.; Bombard, J.N.; Gangozo, W.J. Promoting resilience among college student veterans through an acceptance-and-commitment-therapy app: An intervention refinement study. Community Ment. Health J. 2020, 56, 1206–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Pidgeon, A.M.; Pickett, L. Examining the differences between university students’ levels of resilience on mindfulness, psychological distress and coping strategies. Eur. Sci. J. 2017, 13, 103–113. [Google Scholar]
  42. Freligh, C.B.; Debb, S.M. Nonreactivity and Resilience to Stress: Gauging the Mindfulness of African American College Students. Mindfulness 2019, 10, 2302–2311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. McArthur, M.; Mansfield, C.; Matthew, S.; Zaki, S.; Brand, C.; Andrews, J.; Hazel, S. Resilience in veterinary students and the predictive role of mindfulness and self-compassion. J. Vet. Med. Educ. 2017, 44, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bajaj, B.; Pande, N. Mediating role of resilience in the impact of mindfulness on life satisfaction and affect as indices of subjective well-being. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 93, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Arthur, N.; Hiebert, B. Coping with the transition to post-secondary education. Can. J. Couns. 1996, 30, 93–103. [Google Scholar]
  46. Lefkowitz, E.S. Things have gotten better: Developmental changes among emerging adults after the transition to university. J. Adolesc. Res. 2005, 20, 40–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zubair, A.; Kamal, A.; Artemeva, V. Mindfulness and Resilience as Predictors of Subjective Well-Being among University Students: A Cross Cultural Perspective. J. Behav. Sci. 2018, 28, 1. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tubbs, J.D.; Savage, J.E.; Adkins, A.E.; Amstadter, A.B.; Dick, D.M. Mindfulness moderates the relation between trauma and anxiety symptoms in college students. J. Am. Coll. Health 2019, 67, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Abi-Hashem, N. Resiliency and Culture: An Interdisciplinary Approach. RUDN J. Psychol. Pedagog. 2020, 17, 586–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Brown, K.W.; Ryan, R.M. The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 822–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Walach, H.; Buchheld, N.; Buttenmüller, V.; Kleinknecht, N.; Schmidt, S. Measuring mindfulness-The Freiburg mindfulness inventory (FMI). Personal. Individ. Differ. 2006, 40, 1543–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Feldman, G.; Hayes, A.; Kumar, S.; Greeson, J.; Laurenceau, J.P. Mindfulness and emotion regulation: The development and initial validation of the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale-Revised (CAMS-R). J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2007, 29, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hunter, J.E.; Schmidt, F.L. Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings, 2nd ed.; Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  54. White, H.D. Scientific communication and literature retrieval. In The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2nd ed.; Cooper, H., Hedges, L.V., Valentine, J.C., Eds.; Russell Sage Foundation: New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 51–71. [Google Scholar]
  55. Rosenthal, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol. Bull. 1979, 86, 638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Egger, M.; Smith, G.D.; Schneider, M.; Minder, C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997, 315, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thompson, S.G.; Deeks, J.J.; Altman, D.G. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003, 327, 557–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cortina, J.M. Apples and oranges (and pears, oh my!): The search for moderators in meta-analysis. Organ. Res. Methods 2003, 6, 415–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Borenstein, M.; Hedges, L.V.; Higgins, J.P.; Rothstein, H.R. Introduction to Meta-Analysis; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, Y.J.; Xu, W.; Luo, F. Emotional Resilience Mediates the Relationship between Mindfulness and Emotion. Psychol. Rep. 2016, 118, 725–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Zarotti, N.; Povah, C.; Simpson, J. Mindfulness mediates the relationship between cognitive reappraisal and resilience in higher education students. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 156, 109795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ghanizadeh, A.; Makiabadi, H.; Navokhi, S.A. Relating EFL University Students’ Mindfulness and Resilience to Self-Fulfilment and Motivation in Learning. Issues Educ. Res. 2019, 29, 695–714. [Google Scholar]
  63. Younes, M.S.; Alzahrani, M.R. Could Resilience and Flourishing be Mediators in the Relationship between Mindfulness and Life Satisfaction for Saudi College Students? A Psychometric and Exploratory Study. J. Educ. Psychol. Stud. [JEPS] 2018, 12, 708–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Zahra, S.T.; Riaz, S. Mindfulness and resilience as predictors of stress among university students. J. Postgrad. Med. Inst. 2018, 32, 378–385. [Google Scholar]
  65. Mathad, M.D.; PraDhan, B.; Rajesh, S.K. Correlates and predictors of resilience among baccalaureate nursing students. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. JCDR 2017, 11, JC05. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Benada, N.; Chowdhry, R. A Correlational Study of Happiness, Resilience and Mindfulness among Nursing Student. Indian J. Posit. Psychol. 2017, 8, 105–107. [Google Scholar]
  67. Chamberlain, D.; Williams, A.; Stanley, D.; Mellor, P.; Cross, W.; Siegloff, L. Dispositional mindfulness and employment status as predictors of resilience in third year nursing students: A quantitative study. Nurs. Open 2016, 3, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Rees, C.S.; Osseiranmoisson, R.; Chamberlain, D.; Cusack, L.; Anderson, J.; Terry, V.; Hegney, D. Can We Predict Burnout among Student Nurses? An Exploration of the ICWR-1 Model of Individual Psychological Resilience. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cole, N.N.; Nonterah, C.W.; Utsey, S.O.; Hook, J.N.; Hubbard, R.R.; Opare-Henaku, A.; Fischer, N.L. Predictor and moderator effects of ego resilience and mindfulness on the relationship between academic stress and psychological well-being in a sample of Ghanaian college students. J. Black Psychol. 2014, 41, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pidgeon, A.M.; Keye, M. Relationship between resilience, mindfulness, and pyschological well-being in University students. Int. J. Lib. Arts Soc. Sci. 2014, 2, 27–32. [Google Scholar]
  71. Keye, M.; Pidgeon, A.M. An Investigation of the Relationship between Resilience, Mindfulness, and Academic Self-Efficacy. Open J. Soc. Sci. 2013, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Charbonneau, D. Model of mindfulness and mental health outcomes: Need fulfillment and resilience as mediators. Can. J. Behav. Sci. /Rev. Can. Des Sci. Du Comport. 2019, 51, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. McGillivray, C.; Pidgeon, A.M. Resilience attributes among university students: A comparative study of psychological distress, sleep disturbances and mindfulness. Eur. Sci. J. 2015, 11, 33–48. [Google Scholar]
  74. Pirson, M.; Langer, E.J.; Bodner, T.; Zilcha-Mano, S. The development and validation of the Langer mindfulness scale-enabling a socio-cognitive perspective of mindfulness in organizational contexts. In Fordham University Schools of Business Research Paper; SSNR: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  75. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shin, W.Y.; Kim, M.G.; Kim, J.H. Developing measures of resilience for Korean adolescents and testing cross, convergent, and discriminant validity. Stud. Korean Youth 2009, 20, 105–131. [Google Scholar]
  77. Reivich, K.; Shatte, A. The Resilience Factor: 7 Keys to Finding your Inner Strength and Overcoming Life's Hurdles; Harmony: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wagnild, G.; Young, H. Resilience: Analysis and measurement. Gerontologist 1990, 30, 267–280. [Google Scholar]
  79. Zhang, M.; Lv, J.-M. A research on influencing factors of adolescent emotional resilience. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 34, 593–597. [Google Scholar]
  80. Block, J.; Kremen, A.M. IQ and ego-resiliency: Conceptual and empirical connections and separateness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 70, 349–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Campbell-Sills, L.; Stein, M.B. Psychometric analysis and refinement of the connor–davidson resilience scale (CD-RISC): Validation of a 10-item measure of resilience. J. Trauma. Stress Off. Publ. Int. Soc. Trauma. Stress Stud. 2007, 20, 1019–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Quinn-Nilas, C. Self-reported trait mindfulness and couples’ relationship satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 835–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Van Dam, N.T.; Earleywine, M.; Borders, A. Measuring mindfulness? An item response theory analysis of the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2010, 49, 805–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Gu, J.; Strauss, C.; Crane, C.; Barnhofer, T.; Karl, A.; Cavanagh, K.; Kuyken, W. Examining the factor structure of the 39-item and 15-item versions of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire before and after mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for people with recurrent depression. Psychol. Assess. 2016, 28, 791–802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Baer, R.A.; Smith, G.T.; Lykins, E.; Button, D.; Krietemeyer, J.; Sauer, S.; Williams, J. Construct validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in meditating and nonmeditating samples. Assessment 2008, 15, 329–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Weilgosz, J.; Schuyler, B.S.; Lutz, A.; Davidson, R.J. Long term mindfulness training is associated with reliable differences in resting respiration rate. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 27533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 10405 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the literature selection process.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the literature selection process.
Sustainability 14 10405 g001
Sustainability 14 10405 g002 550
Figure 2. Funnel plot to assess publication bias.
Figure 2. Funnel plot to assess publication bias.
Sustainability 14 10405 g002
Sustainability 14 10405 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot of the studies. The mentioned references in figure are [41,42,43,44,47,48,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
Figure 3. Forest plot of the studies. The mentioned references in figure are [41,42,43,44,47,48,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73].
Sustainability 14 10405 g003
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Study NameMindfulness MeasuresResilience MeasuresCountryCultureDevelopment LevelDimensions of MindfulnessSample Sizer
Zarotti et al. [61]FFMQBRSUKWestDeveloped 8110.612
Ghanizadeh et al. [62]LMSL2 RSIranEastDeveloping 2210.64
Younes and Alzahrani. [63]MAASBRSKingdom of Saudi ArabiaEastDeveloping 5340.36
Zahra and Riaz [64]FFMQCD-RISCPakistanEastDeveloping 3910.24
Zubair et al. [47]MAASERSPakistan and Russia// 4960.33
Pidgeon and Pickett. [41]FMIRFIAustralianWestDeveloped 1220.5
Mathad et al. [65]FMICD-RISC-10IndiaEastDeveloping 1940.471
Benada and Chowdhry [66]MAASRSIndiaEastDeveloping 700.295
Chamberlain et al. [67]CAMS-RCD-RISC-10AustralianWestDeveloped 2400.644
Bajaj and Pande. [44]MAASCD-RISC-10IndiaEastDeveloping 3270.27
Wang et al. [60]FFMQAERQChinaEastDeveloping 4040.47
Observing0.05
Describing0.3
Acting with awareness0.43
Nonjudgmental0.09
Non-reacting0.39
Rees et al. [68]CAMS-RCD-RISC-10AustraliaWestDeveloped 4150.627
Cole et al. [69]MAASERSGhana// 4310.18
Pidgeon and Keye [70]FMICD-RISCAustraliaWestDeveloped 1410.67
Keye and Pidgeon [71]FMICD-RISCAustraliaWestDeveloped 1410.67
Mcarthur et al. [43]FFMQBRSAustralianWestDeveloped 1720.243
Observing0.157
Describing0.045
Acting with awareness0.264
Nonjudgmental0.339
Non-reacting0.412
Freligh and Debb. [42]FFMQBRSAmericaWestDeveloped 1250.68
Observing0.09
Describing0.74
Acting with awareness0.78
Nonjudgmental0.66
Non-reacting0.56
Tubbs et al. [48]MAAS AmericaWestDeveloped 23360.12
Charbonneau. [72]MAASBRSCanadaWestDeveloped 3280.37
McGillivray and Pidgeon. [73]FMIRSAustralianWestDeveloped 890.57
Notes: LMS is briefshort for the Langer mindfulness scale [74]; BRS—brief resilience scale [75]; L2 RS—English version of the L2 resilience scale [76]; RFI—Resilience Factor Inventory [77]; RS—resilience scale [78]; AERQ—The Adolescents’ Emotional Resilience Questionnaire [79]; ERS—ego–resiliency scale [80]; CD-RISC—Connor–Davidson resilience scale [11]. CD-RISC-10 is a refined version for CD-RISC, consisting of 10 items [81].
Table
Table 2. Results of the moderation analysis.
Table 2. Results of the moderation analysis.
KR95% CIWithin-Group HeterogeneityTest for Subgroup Difference (Random Effect)
LowerUpperQwpI2Qbdfp
Mindfulness scale 22.16740.000
FFMQ50.4670.3410.57682.6800.00095.162
FMI50.5820.4660.67811.9620.01866.560
MAAS70.2750.1540.38754.7800.00089.047
CAMS-R20.6350.4740.7550.1220.7260.000
Other10.6400.3950.8000.0001.0000.000
Resilience scale 2.88250.718
BRS50.4690.2860.61970.0400.00094.289
CD-RISC-1040.5170.3210.67148.8600.00093.860
CD-RISC40.4470.2360.618118.4430.00097.467
ERS20.257-0.0710.5355.9270.01583.129
RS20.4460.1150.6884.4430.03577.494
Other30.5410.3150.7098.9240.01277.590
Culture 1.38910.239
E70.4030.2010.57150.0690.00088.017
W110.5360.3970.651419.9490.00097.619
Development level 1.38910.239
Developing70.4030.2010.57150.0690.00088.017
Developed110.5360.3970.651419.9490.00097.619
Notes: Mindfulness scale: “Other” comprised LMS used in one study. Resilience scale: “Other” comprised AERQ, L2RS, and RFI, each used in one study.
Table
Table 3. Results of the subgroup analysis within the studies regarding dimensions of mindfulness.
Table 3. Results of the subgroup analysis within the studies regarding dimensions of mindfulness.
Dimensions of Mindfulnesskr (Fixed Effect)95% CIWithin-Group
Heterogeneity		Test for Subgroup Difference
(Random Effect)
LowerUpperQwpI2QbDfp
4.99310.288
Acting with awareness30.4750.4160.53145.6440.0095.618
Nonjudgmental 30.2710.2010.33947.4200.0095.787
Non-reacting30.4280.3650.4874.6520.09857.008
Observing 30.0830.0090.1571.4000.4970.00
Describing 30.3430.2760.40760.3320.0096.684
Table
Table 4. Results of the subgroup analysis within the studies regarding two dimensions of mindfulness.
Table 4. Results of the subgroup analysis within the studies regarding two dimensions of mindfulness.
Test for Subgroup Difference
(Random Effect)		Dimensions of Mindfulness
AANRDNJAANJNRNJNRNJ
OOOODDDAAAANR
Qb5.91629.2852.0822.2200.2770.0060.0730.4190.2040.181
df1111111111
p0.0150.0000.1490.1360.5990.9370.7870.5170.6510.671
Notes: AA is short for “acting with awareness”, NR—non-reacting, O—observing, NJ—nonjudgmental, and D—describing.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, X.; Wang, Q.; Zhou, Z. The Association between Mindfulness and Resilience among University Students: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610405

AMA Style

Liu X, Wang Q, Zhou Z. The Association between Mindfulness and Resilience among University Students: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):10405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610405

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Xuepeng, Qing Wang, and Zhenzhen Zhou. 2022. "The Association between Mindfulness and Resilience among University Students: A Meta-Analysis" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610405

APA Style

Liu, X., Wang, Q., & Zhou, Z. (2022). The Association between Mindfulness and Resilience among University Students: A Meta-Analysis. Sustainability, 14(16), 10405. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610405

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop