Introduction
I recently wrote an article about if mindfulness could aid in insight problem solving. The problem with the study, I referenced to in my article, was that it did not strictly investigate the mechanism behind mindfulness’ effect, or the impact of different techniques. However, last week a new study by a group of Dutch scientist got published that looked at if focused awareness (FA) and open monitoring (OM) had different effects on convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent thinking means simply that your thinking “converges” toward the right answer. Generally meaning that you give a correct answer, i.e. the type of accurate and logical thinking required on many intelligence tests, were not a whole lot of creativity is required. Divergent thinking, on the other hand, is about “diverging” your thinking and generating many new ideas and explore different solutions, sort if like a brainstorming session.
The experiments
The Dutch researchers reasoned that since open awareness relies less on top-down control than focused awareness, it should be beneficial in tasks requiring divergent thinking. To test this theory they recruited nineteen meditation practitioners with an average meditation experience of 2.2 years (in both FA and OM). In order to test convergent thinking the study subjects were presented with three unrelated words and asked to find a common associate (Remote Association Task [RAT]). Divergent thinking were measured by the Alternate Uses Task (AUT), which consists of finding as many different uses of six common household items as you can. The subjects’ answers were then rated by their originality, fluency, flexibility and elaboration by independent blinded assessors. In total, the subjects participated in tree 45 minutes sessions separated by 10 days. Each session consisted of either 35 minutes of FA, OM or a guided visualization exercise used as a baseline measure.
Results
As the researchers expected, after the OM session the scores for divergent thinking were significantly higher than after the FA and baseline sessions. They write that “OM meditation was assumed to induce a relatively ‘distributed’ cognitive-control state that is characterized by weak top-down biasing of information processing and weak local competition among alternative thoughts, while FA meditation was assumed to induce a relatively focused cognitive-control state characterized by strong top-down control and strong local competition. If so, OM meditation practice would be expected to facilitate divergent thinking, as assessed by the AUT, but not convergent thinking. And this is exactly what the data show”.
Quality of the evidence
This study utilized a within-subject design, where the same individuals were tested under the different conditions, and in principle each individual served as its own control. The researchers controlled for the major confounder in this type of design; sequence effects, both by counterbalancing and by statistical analyses, and none were found. They also utilized blinded assessors, which is a good thing. However, the participants were self-selected so it’s hard to say how that biased the experiment. Performing the experiment with mediation-naive subjects would’ve been a better choice. Now it’s impossible to rule out that subjects performed better after OM simply due to having practiced it more, or that OM primed them for divergent thinking by some other confounding variable, and that the effect is not a testament to the efficacy of meditation. Though, it is interesting that a difference were found between OM and FA.
Colzato LS, Ozturk A, & Hommel B (2012). Meditate to create: the impact of focused-attention and open-monitoring training on convergent and divergent thinking. Frontiers in psychology, 3 PMID: 22529832
I agree with you that this study might have benefited by using mediation-naive subjects. However, I believe that research in mindfulness and mediation in general is in dire need of longitudinal studies using subjects new to mindfulness and meditation to show the benefits over time. I have often worried about the use of subjects that are said to be “experienced” in mindfulness and meditation since mindfulness and meditation are used in a variety of Eastern Religions along with other meditative practices which may confound the results.
I suppose the big question that needs to be answered when concerning research in mindfulness and meditation is there a qualitative difference between those that use these practices for religious practices and those that use these practices in a therapeutic manner? I know advocates of ACT Therapy have championed these practices while at the same time attempting to divorce them from their religious origins, but in doing so is something lost in the process? I’m sort of thinking out loud and I admit that I am not entirely versed in research in mindfulness and meditation. Therefore, if in my ignorance I over look a key study that addresses my concerns then I apologize for my making a fool out of myself in your comments area.
I absolutely agree that mediation studies need longitudinal studies over time, preferably a randomized controlled trail with subjects without any prior meditation experience.
Regarding religious vs therapeutic practices I know there’s been some discussion about it, for instance Lorenza S. Colzato, Ayca Ozturk and Bernhard Hommel (2012) wrote in their discussion:
Moreover, it seems important to replicate our results using other types of OM meditation than Mindfulness and FA meditation, such as the traditional Samatha. It would also be interesting to explore possible commonalities with other more or less ritual practices with and without religious backgrounds. In previous studies we have found that religious belief systems, like Calvinism, Catholicism, and Judaism, affect cognitive-control parameters in rather specific ways (Hommel and Colzato, 2010). In particular, practicing a particular religion seems to bias the preferred values of cognitive-control parameters toward a range that is likely to generate behavior that is approved by one’s social environment (Colzato et al., 2008, 2010a). Similar findings were obtained with non-religious factors like sexual orientation (Colzato et al., 2010b), which suggests that it is not religion per se but the selective reward of particular behavioral outcomes – and of the cognitive-control parameters producing these outcomes – that matter. From that perspective, mediation may be seen as one of many cultural practices that systematically shape the way people control their cognitive processes.
From their perspective I would say that it’s possible that something is lost in the process. I’m not religious myself, but I would imagine that the cultural context regarding meditation is considerably different among practitioners of eastern religion than among secular westerners. I’m also thinking that the subjective feeling of reward might be greater for a religious person that’s meditating as part of a belief system.
Thanks for posting, and there’s no need to worry about making a fool out of yourself. All comments are welcome on my site, it doesn’t matter if your just thinking out loud or presenting scientific research.