This study took place in a high-level educational framework; it evaluated the effects of four contemplative practices: Focused Attention Meditation (FAM), Open Monitoring Meditation (OMM), Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM), and Self-Loving Kindness Meditation (self-LKM). The focus was on their impact on teamwork competencies, as well as how they were influenced by both the individual and the group mindfulness levels.
Method
Using a pre-post experimental design, three groups were compared: the first engaged in FAM, OMM, and LKM (Core Mindfulness Training); the second in OMM, LKM, and self-LKM (Empathy Expansion Training); and a control group participated in no meditation activities. The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) was used to evaluate state mindfulness and teamwork competencies in Empathy Expansion Training. Teamwork competencies were measured across two main categories: empathy skills and interpersonal skills.
Results
Both training interventions significantly increased teamwork competencies. Core Mindfulness Training enhanced Perspective-taking, Fantasy, Extraversion, and Initiating relationships. Conversely, Empathy Expansion Training more effectively improved Empathic concern and Openness. The study confirmed the influence of both individual and group state mindfulness on teamwork competencies, though the relationships did not reach statistical significance.
Conclusions
The integration of contemplative practices within educational settings significantly enhances teamwork competencies, with distinct effects of different meditation practices on various competencies. These findings suggest that training frameworks incorporating contemplative practices improve cognitive and emotional well-being. Additionally, they enhance essential interpersonal skills critical for effective teamwork.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
A key element of a high-level educational context, such as universities and advanced training courses, concerns the development of interpersonal skills, specifically teamwork competencies. Teamwork is a highly sought-after, multifaceted skill that holds significant personal and corporate value. On an individual level, it provides a sense of security, boosts self-esteem, grants access to collective benefits, and enhances sociability; from a corporate perspective, teamwork fosters synergy, engagement, professional development, effective communication, decision-making, adaptability, learning, and creativity (Acosta Antognoni et al., 2012; Bacon & Blyton, 2003). It combines different aspects: task knowledge, group performance, individual skills, and attitudes necessary for effective functioning (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2000). It integrates various competencies, including communication, social relations, conflict resolution, and goal achievement (Baker et al., 2005; Cannon-Bowers et al., 1995); collective identity; execution of planned actions; and regulation (Soria-Barreto & Cleveland-Slimming, 2020). Effective teamwork also includes valuing others’ contributions, maintaining positive attitudes about the team, demonstrating empathy, and giving/receiving feedback (Lower et al., 2017).
Given these benefits, contemporary educational objectives include preparing students also for engaged citizenship, with a significant focus on cultivating teamwork competencies (Guitert et al., 2007; Martínez & Millet, 2010). Nonetheless, Lower et al. (2017) underscore the difficulties in assessing teamwork competencies among young individuals from an individual standpoint. The challenge lies in the scarcity of tools that effectively measure these competencies, as existing methodologies tend to concentrate on group-oriented metrics such as cohesion, dynamics, and overall performance, rather than on the individual behaviors and attitudes that underpin successful teamwork.
Contemplative practices are systematic approaches designed to elicit heightened states of consciousness or awareness with roots in religious, philosophical, and humanistic traditions (Sarath, 2003). Key forms of contemplative practices include mindfulness meditation, contemplative reading and writing, deep listening, contemplation and observation, contemplative movement, and practices centered around compassion and loving-kindness. In contemporary settings, contemplative practices are gaining prominence as they facilitate transformative learning in higher education, promote a better work-life balance for both academic and administrative staff (Beer et al., 2015), and enhance social connections and psychological well-being (Davidson & Dahl, 2017). A short mindfulness induction can improve cognitive empathy (Winning et al., 2015). Despite their variety, contemplative practices are often inadequately grouped under the umbrella term “mindfulness” (Katyal et al., 2023). The emerging benefits of contemplative practices are numerous: stress reduction, active listening, concentration, and an enhanced ability to remain calm in difficult situations (Riskin, 2002; Zheng et al., 2024).
Drawing upon neuroscientific literature, dispositional mindfulness in adolescents and young adults is associated with neural activities in regions like the insula and frontal cortex, essential for regulating attention and emotions (Celen et al., 2024). Two reviews (Fox et al., 2016; Lippelt et al., 2014) highlight significant neuroplastic effects attributed to four distinct contemplative practices: Focused Attention Meditation (FAM), Open Monitoring Meditation (OMM), Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM), and Mantra Recitation Meditation. FAM and mantra meditation primarily involve the concentration of attention on a singular object, such as the breath or a mantra, facilitating disengagement from peripheral thoughts. OMM distinguishes itself by eschewing a specific focal point, instead cultivating an open awareness to any arising experience without selection, judgment, or attachment. LKM is designed to nurture prosocial emotions of love and compassion, initially directed towards oneself and subsequently extended to others. The specific focus of the intent of LKM determines its nomenclature, either as LKM or as Compassion Meditation. Sirotina and Shchebetenko (2020) delineate the small differences between LKM and Compassion Meditation: LKM is characterized by an intentionality towards universal benevolence and the happiness of others, whereas Compassion Meditation is aimed at the alleviation of suffering. In a study conducted within a sample of doctors, LKM did not significantly impact mindfulness levels, although it effectively improved both empathy and communication skills, which are critical components of interpersonal skills, in the doctors who received the training (Chen et al., 2021). Cahn and Polich (2006), through a meta-analyses involving various forms of meditation, including mindfulness meditation, identified changes in the dorsolateral prefrontal area and the anterior cingulate cortex; these findings suggest a direct influence of contemplative practices on empathy. Overall, contemplative practices offer a promising approach to improving attention regulation, emotional and motivational management, social cognition, and behavior, thereby contributing to enhanced outcomes in social and professional contexts.
In recent scholarly discourse, these practices have been integrated across a diverse array of secular educational environments, spanning kindergartens, elementary and secondary schools, community colleges, universities, and vocational institutions (Zajonc, 2016). The integration of contemplative practices within educational settings enhances empathy (Can Gür & Yılmaz, 2024; Snipes, 2020) and promotes social justice (Ross & Beardall, 2022), and reduces mental health issues such as anxiety and depression, improving emotional regulation and pro-social behavior (Weare, 2019) and increasing social connection, generosity, and loving-kindness towards ourselves and others (Barbezat & Bush, 2013). Moreover, mindfulness-based programs enhance prosocial behaviors among elementary school students (Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015) and self-regulatory skills and social competence among young learners (Flook et al., 2015). Although these studies suggest a positive influence of mindfulness practices in educational contexts, not all the school-based mindfulness programs offer the same results. Crompton et al. (2024) found an increase in prosocial behaviors and peer relationships, without a significant impact on self-reported empathy or mindfulness levels, and another study (Mettler et al., 2023) reported no significant effects for interpersonal skills among students.
The demand among university students for such practices is on the rise: 79% of students express a desire for their integration into academic curricula (Bonnardel et al., 2018). While proficiency in meditation tends to develop with time, enabling more seasoned practitioners to achieve deeper and more consistent states of meditation relative to novices (Sarath, 2003), research has revealed that even short meditation sessions prior to exams can lead to improved performance, notably in information recall (Ramsburg & Youmans, 2014). This finding sheds light on the research area of state mindfulness, which could impact state teamwork skills in a different manner than dispositional mindfulness could impact trait teamwork skills.
Focused Attention Meditation (FAM) emerges as the most extensively studied practice, linked to enhanced performance in university examinations (Baranski & Was, 2019) and increased attention and present-moment awareness (O’Hare & Gemelli, 2023). Interestingly, O’Hare and Gemelli (2023) compared FAM with Self-Compassion Meditation, finding the latter more effective in reducing anxiety and fostering self-kindness, especially beneficial in stressful contexts. The incorporation of Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM) into educational programs has been identified as particularly efficacious in enhancing overall well-being, in elevating positive emotions, augmenting empathy, influencing social connections, and mitigating problematic behaviors (Collins-McHugh, 2016). LKM could also offer long-term advantages in stress management and the promotion of psychological well-being among university students (Guo et al., 2024; Totzeck et al., 2020).
A critical point to consider is the way mindfulness meditation and other spiritual practices are integrated into organizational environments. Contemporary capitalism has appropriated many holistic elements from Eastern spirituality. These technê-zen practices are primarily focused on performance enhancement, stripped of their original spiritual essence, and applied without a critical perspective (Karjalainen et al., 2021). Over the past 15 years, many companies have adopted mindfulness programs aimed at reducing employee stress and improving productivity, framing stress as an internal issue rather than acknowledging external social, political, or economic factors (Healey, 2015; Purser, 2018). The introduction of mindfulness in corporate settings has raised concerns about its cooptation and transformation into a commercial product (Karjalainen et al., 2021). Rather than serving as a tool for individual well-being or self-awareness, corporate mindfulness has been repurposed to meet organizational demands. The processes of scientization, instrumentalization, and commodification have redefined mindfulness as a performance-oriented technique, potentially limiting its critical and transformative potential, turning it into a tool of control rather than liberation. This dynamic is particularly concerning in educational settings, where a more critical evaluation of contemplative practices could significantly influence the development of young adults.
The literature review reveals two significant gaps. Firstly, while mainstream mindfulness protocols, such as Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) introduced by Kabat-Zinn (2005), are noted for their progressively challenging nature, current research predominantly focuses on the effects of individual practices in isolation. Originally developed in the late 1970s to address chronic conditions like anxiety and depression (Salmon et al., 2011), MBSR has since been adopted in workplace settings as a managerial tool (Purser, 2015; Purser & Milillo, 2015). Moreover, there is a notable lack of research on the application of Open Monitoring Meditation (OMM) in high-level educational contexts. Secondly, there is a scarcity of studies exploring the relationship between contemplative practices and teamwork competencies. While some studies demonstrate increases in social constructs after contemplative practices training, there is limited evidence regarding the specificity of teamwork constructs. Teamwork competencies are particularly challenging to assess (Lower et al., 2017) and can be categorized into two main groups: empathy skills (e.g., Perspective taking, Fantasy, Empathic concern, Personal discomfort) and interpersonal skills (e.g., Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, Openness, Team orientation, Assertiveness, Initiating relationship, Self-disclosure, Asserting displeasure, Emotional support, Conflict management).
To address these gaps, this study investigates the effectiveness of four practices—Focused Attention Meditation (FAM), Open Monitoring Meditation (OMM), Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM), and self-LKM—within a high-level educational context. These practices are organized into two frameworks: Core Mindfulness Training (FAM, OMM, LKM) and Empathy Expansion Training (OMM, LKM, self-LKM). Core Mindfulness Training serves as a “classic and introductory” approach to mindfulness practices, starting with FAM to train focused attention, progressing to OMM to expand awareness to internal and external stimuli, and culminating in LKM to enhance prosocial attitudes and teamwork skills. Empathy Expansion Training incorporates an additional practice, self-LKM, tailored to empathetic and social constructs, to investigate whether this extra emphasis can yield equal or superior improvements in teamwork competencies compared to the Core Mindfulness Training.
The design rationale follows the progressively challenging nature of the MBSR protocol. The sequence begins with relatively basic practices like FAM (focused attention on the breath), progresses to OMM (expanding attention to various stimuli without judgment), and culminates in LKM or self-LKM, which require prior training to focus on internal stimuli and extend compassion toward others. Differentiating the two training frameworks by one practice is supported by prior research (Fox et al., 2016; Lippelt et al., 2014), which positions OMM conceptually between FAM and LKM. If Core Mindfulness Training yields greater increases in teamwork competencies, FAM may be necessary for introducing contemplative practices. Conversely, if Empathy Expansion Training proves more effective, FAM could be omitted in favor of practices more directly focused on interpersonal and empathic constructs.
The sequence of practices was determined based on the progressively challenging nature of MBSR protocol, starting with a relatively basic practice (FAM requires focusing solely on the breath) and gradually increasing to include attention expansion to various internal and external objects (OMM involves paying attention to all internal/external stimuli without judgment). This progression culminates with LKM (or self-LKM), which necessitates prior training in contemplative practices to fully focus attention on internal stimuli (thoughts and emotions) and extend it toward close others. The decision to differentiate Core Mindfulness Training from Empathy Expansion Training by just one practice is supported by the literature (Fox et al., 2016; Lippelt et al., 2014), which positions OMM conceptually between FAM and LKM, as the former requires complete attention to a single object, while the latter trains divided attention. If Core Mindfulness Training shows greater increases in teamwork competencies, then FAM is necessary to introduce contemplative practices; if Empathy Expansion Training shows greater increases in teamwork competencies, FAM can be set aside to make room for practices more focused on interpersonal and empathic constructs. The rationale for this design was to address two key questions:
a)
Is it necessary to start with foundational practices like FAM to achieve meaningful improvements in teamwork competencies?
b)
Does scaling to more socially-oriented practices, such as self-LKM, offer added benefits in fostering teamwork competencies?
Individual mindfulness level (Friese & Hofmann, 2016) is defined as the quantitative capacity of an individual to observe, describe, act with awareness, not judge, and not react (Baer et al., 2008), and group mindfulness level (Liu et al., 2022; Wu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018) as the quantitative capacity of a group to be focused on the present and to act without judgment. These refer to state mindfulness levels, measured through the Experience Sampling Method (ESM, Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014).
We have therefore formulated two experimental questions:
1)
What is the relationship between individual and group mindfulness states and individual teamwork competencies?
2)
Which contemplative practices training facilitates an enhancement in teamwork competencies in a high-level educational context?
Consequently,
a)
we hypothesized that there is a significant positive relationship both between individual mindfulness level and group mindfulness level and teamwork competencies;
b)
we hypothesized that practicing LKM significantly increases teamwork competencies; and
c)
we hypothesized that Empathy Expansion Training, compared to Core Mindfulness Training and the control group, allows for a more significant increase in teamwork competencies.
We expected that at least one of the many teamwork competencies considered will show positive results, to lay the groundwork for more precise future studies with numerically larger samples.
Method
Participants
This study was conducted over 2-year period in a high-level educational course context, where three groups work and study in teams to develop design projects. Three groups participated: Group 1 (second year of this high-level course of 2022), Group 2 (second year of this high-level course of 2023), and Group 3 (first year of this high-level course of 2023). Group 1 consisted of 33 students, 14 males and 19 females, aged between 17 and 34 years (M = 21.73 years, SD = 3.11 years); Group 1 students were divided into seven teams of four or five individuals each (M = 4.75, SD = 0.42). Group 2 had 25 students, 13 males and 12 females, aged between 19 and 28 years (M = 21.66 years, SD = 2.37 years); Group 2 students were divided into five teams of three or five individuals each (M = 4.12, SD = 0.91). Group 3 included 26 students, 13 males and 13 females, aged between 19 and 26 years (M = 21.20 years, SD = 2.45 years); Group 3 students were divided into six teams of four to five individuals each (M = 4.50, SD = 0.54).
Of the initial cohort of 84 participants, only 57 completed both the “pre” and “post” questionnaires, leading to a revised composition of the groups: Group 1 subsequently included 23 participants, Group 2 comprised 20, and Group 3 had 14. A further reduction in participant numbers for Group 2 was necessary during the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) phase due to incomplete questionnaire responses. To ensure the integrity of the ESM data and preserve statistical power, participants with a response rate below 60% were excluded. This threshold was chosen because a stricter threshold of 70% would have reduced the sample size to only 10 participants, while a less conservative threshold of 50% (as for example in Shackman et al., 2017) brought us to 18 participants. A priori power analyses was not conducted due to the constraints of the small sample size in this context. The final ESM cohort includes 16 individuals of group 2. Figure 1 shows the composition of the three groups, the attrition and the final sample.
Fig. 1
Flowchart presenting the composition of the three groups, attrition, and the final sample for both the “pre-post” and “ESM” measurements
×
Within this refined sample of 57 individuals, a majority of 38 participants (66.66%) reported no prior experience with any form of mindfulness meditation. Seven participants (12%) indicated that they regularly engage in mindfulness meditation more than once a week on their own, while the remaining 12 participants (21%) reported occasional practice, such as an average of once a month.
The attrition rates across the three groups was evaluated (Fig. 1) using a chi-square analyses (χ2(2) = 4.08, p = 0.13), which did not reveal significant differences between the groups. However, in Group 3, the observed number of drop-outs (12) exceeded the expected value (8.4), with a z-test (z = 1.80, p = 0.07) indicating a non-significant but noteworthy trend. These results suggest that while no significant overall differences were detected, contextual factors specific to Group 3 may warrant consideration, which will be held in the limitation section.
Procedure
Implementation of Contemplative Practices
The implemented design is of a pre-post type for Group 1 and Group 3, and a pre-ESM-post type (Myin-Germeys & Kuppens, 2022) for Group 2. An introductory lecture on mindfulness and its global industry applications was delivered to enhance participant engagement and underscore the importance of active participation in contemplative practices.
Given that the students convened only on Tuesdays for project work, contemplative practices sessions were limited to once weekly, totalling 12 mindfulness meditation sessions. Group 1 followed the model characterized by FAM, OMM, and LKM (Core Mindfulness Training). Group 2 followed the framework characterized by OMM, LKM, and self-LKM (Empathy Expansion Training). Group 3 was the control group; thus, it did not perform any contemplative practices. Mindfulness meditation sessions for the study were led by a certified Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) trainer, who curated the session content to suit the educational context. The trainer is an internal course instructor, integrating specialized expertise directly within the school’s existing educational framework as done by Maratos et al. (2024). The duration of the meditation sessions increased progressively—beginning at 5 min for the initial sessions, extending to 10 min in the subsequent sessions, and reaching 15 min in the final phase. This increment mirrors the MBSR protocol, which gradually intensifies the length and complexity of mindfulness practices. Although the MBSR training typically includes daily at-home practice, the sessions were conducted solely in the classroom. This approach aligns with the findings of Strohmaier and Bailey (2023), who emphasized the necessity of integrating mindfulness practices during school hours rather than assigning them as homework. This approach aims to enhance both adherence and efficacy of the programs. For further details on the contemplative practices, please refer to the checklist framework (Pilla et al., 2020) provided in the supplementary material (Online Resource 1). In this study, an Intention to Treat (ITT) approach (Tripepi et al., 2020) was adopted to preserve the initial comparability between groups and maintain the benefits of randomization, as well as to address the limitations associated with small sample sizes. All participants were included in the analyses based on their original group assignment, regardless of their level of adherence to the protocol. This decision ensures that our findings reflect the broader practical applicability of contemplative practices in educational settings, where participant adherence can vary significantly.
Data Collection
Data collection was facilitated through electronic means, directly within the classroom setting. The pre-post assessments and the ESM questionnaires were strategically scheduled to integrate smoothly with regular classroom activities. “Pre” and “post” questionnaires were administered respectively 1 week before and one week after the contemplative practices phase.
The Experience Sampling Method (ESM) is a research technique that collects real-time data on people’s experiences, thoughts, and behaviors in their natural environment (Larson & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). Participants are prompted throughout the day to provide information on their current experiences, in our case via smartphone. This method brings advantages such as high ecological validity and reduced memory bias, but also has limitations such as the burden on participants and limited generalizability (Myin-Germeys & Kuppens, 2022). ESM questionnaires were implemented in the contemplative practices phase. Two types of ad hoc questionnaires were administered: post-meditation (event-contingent, immediately after the contemplative practice) and teamwork (interval-contingent, between 30 and 60 min after the contemplative practice). The former aimed to measure the level of individual mindfulness and the level of group mindfulness and the latter the levels of state teamwork competencies.
Measures
Pre-Post Measurement
For both pre-post and ESM questionnaires, response scales in Likert 1–7 were used. The pre-post questionnaires and their subscales (Table 1) were selected with the aim of investigating differences in the measures of individual mindfulness traits (FFMQ) and individual teamwork competencies traits (IRI, BFI, YAICQ, BIP). From the BIP questionnaire, only two subscales of interest to this study were extracted (Team Orientation and Assertiveness). Moreover, McDonald’s omega values for each subscale were calculated and are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Questionnaires assessed for both “pre-post” and ESM phase with McDonald’s omega for trait and state measures
*Sub-scale integrated in the post-meditation ad hoc questionnaire
**Sub-scale integrated in the teamwork ad hoc questionnaire
The Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; Baer et al., 2006) assesses individual variations in dispositional mindfulness. The Italian version is derived from the work of Giovannini et al. (2014). Subscales of FFMQ are the following: Observe, the ability to notice or attend to internal and external experiences; Describe, the capacity to label internal experiences with words; Act with Awareness, engaging in activities with full attention and awareness rather than on autopilot; Nonjudge, the tendency to maintain a non-evaluative stance toward thoughts and feelings; Nonreact, the ability to allow thoughts and emotions to come and go without becoming entangled or overly reactive. One example item of the Italian version of FFMQ is “I am usually able to describe in considerable detail how I feel at a given moment.”
The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983), translated into Italian by Albiero et al. (2006), measures the multifaceted nature of empathy, divided in for subscales. Perspective Taking measures the cognitive ability to adopt another person’s viewpoint; Empathic Concern assesses the tendency to experience feelings of compassion and concern for others; Personal Distress evaluates the individual’s tendency to feel distress and discomfort in response to others’ distress; Fantasy measures the tendency to imaginatively transpose oneself into fictional situations, such as books, movies, or stories. One example item of the Italian version of IRI states: “When in disagreement with someone, I typically attempt to momentarily place myself in their shoes.”
The Big Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999), translated into Italian by Ubbiali and colleagues (2013), assesses the model of the five major dimensions of personality, also known as the Big Five personality traits: Openness—reflects the degree of intellectual curiosity, creativity, and a preference for novelty and variety; Conscientiousness—measures the tendency to be organized, responsible, and dependable; Extraversion—assesses the extent to which an individual is outgoing, sociable, and energetic; Agreeableness—evaluates the tendency to be compassionate, cooperative, and trusting towards others; Neuroticism—reflects the degree of emotional instability, anxiety, and moodiness. An exemplary item of the Italian version of BFI is “I see myself as someone who is extroverted and sociable.”
The Young Adult Interpersonal Competencies Questionnaire (YAICQ; Buhrmester et al., 1988) aims to assess the interpersonal competencies of young adults, focusing specifically on the essential skills for effective and satisfying interpersonal relationships. The subscales are described below. Emotional Support captures an individual’s ability to provide care, comfort, and reassurance to others during times of emotional distress; Self-Disclosure measures the propensity to share personal information, feelings, and experiences with others, reflecting openness in interpersonal relationships; Conflict Management assesses an individual’s ability to navigate and resolve interpersonal disagreements, reflecting negotiation skills and understanding; Asserting Displeasure measures an individual’s capacity to communicate dissatisfaction or discomfort in interpersonal contexts; Initiating Relationship measures the ability to effectively start and establish new social connections. All items in the YAICQ start with the question “How good are you at….” For example, 1 item elaborates: “Confiding in a new friend/date and letting him or her see your softer, more sensitive side.”
The Business-focused Inventory of Personality (BIP; Hossiep & Paschen, 2008) was designed to assess personality characteristics specifically within a professional environment. Team Orientation assesses an individual’s inclination to work collaboratively, emphasizing group goals, cooperation, and collective success; Assertiveness reflects an individual’s ability to express themselves confidently and firmly, ensuring that their rights and viewpoints are respected in professional settings. A representational BIP item is “When working in a group, I have no trouble asserting my ideas to others.”
ESM Measurement
Table 1 highlights the subscales from which some items were chosen for the questionnaires used in the ESM phase. Since individual mindfulness level and group mindfulness level are considered two psychological constructs created ad hoc for this study, McDonald’s omega was calculated for these constructs rather than for each subscale of the FFMQ and TMS.
The Team Mindfulness Scale (TMS; Wu & Zellmer-Bruhn, 2018), only assessed in the ESM phase, captures the collective mindfulness of a team, concerning the shared attention and awareness of team members in the present moment. The scale evaluates to what extent teams are collectively attuned to the current task, avoiding automatic behaviors and being aware of changes. The two subscales of TMS are the following: Present-Focused Attention assesses the extent to which team members collectively maintain focus on the present moment and current tasks; Nonjudgmental Processing measures the degree to which team members refrain from making immediate judgments, observing actions and behaviors objectively and without bias.
The post-meditation questionnaire consisted of individual mindfulness level and group mindfulness level. The individual mindfulness level variable was constructed using the following items. For Observe, Items 20 and 31 were chosen; for Describe, Items 2 and 37; for Nonjudge, Items 14 and 30; for Nonreact, Items 29 and 33; for Act with awareness, Items 13 and 38. For the group mindfulness level variable, all 10 items from the TMS questionnaire were taken. For the post-meditation questionnaire, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.30 (Item 33 of Nonreact, FFMQ, the only item below 0.60) to 0.92 (Item 1 of Present focused attention and Item 9 of experiential, nonjudgmental processing, both subscales of TMS). The teamwork questionnaire aimed to measure the state of readiness for teamwork (IRI, BFI, YAICQ, BIP). For Perspective taking, Items 3 and 25 were chosen; for Openness, Item 5; for Extraversion, Items 11 and 16; for Emotional support, Item 32; for Self-disclosure, Item 28; for Conflict management, Item 30; for Asserting displeasure, Item 38; for Team orientation, Items 48 and 75; and for Assertiveness, Item 131. For the teamwork questionnaire, Cronbach’s alphas ranged from 0.32 (Item 3 of Perspective taking, IRI, the only item below 0.50) to 0.72 (Item 38 of Asserting Displeasure, YAICQ).
The standardized questionnaires and their selected items for the ESM phase derive from a screening of trait measures, taking into account both higher Cronbach’s alpha values and the contextualization of the items themselves (Hofmann et al., 2012). Furthermore, the questions for the ESM questionnaires were modified from trait measure to state measure (Friese & Hofmann, 2016); for example, “At this moment, I find it hard to see things from another team member’s viewpoint” originally was “I find it hard to see things from another team member’s viewpoint.” For the complete versions of both ESM questionnaires, please refer to the supplementary materials (Online Resource 2).
Data Analyses
All analyses were performed using R-4.3.3. The first experimental question (Hypotheses a and b) requiresd the application of multilevel models. ESM designs have the unique characteristic of presenting nested data, meaning that the contextualization (when, where, who) of the data is as important as the data itself. Multilevel models overcome this limitation by using the hierarchical information of the data during the analyses (González-Romá & Hernández, 2017; Hair Jr. & Fávero, 2019). In our case, Group 2 consisted of six teams (Level-2 variable) working separately, each composed of three to five individuals (Level-1 variable). This structuring assumed variance across the groups, attributing to them unique characteristics due to their composition and dynamic.
Starting with a descriptive analyses of means and standard deviations of each construct, it was then performed tests of normality (Shapiro Test) and homoscedasticity (Levene's Test), and finally, the test of multicollinearity. Outliers were tested using z-scores (threshold 2.5) and retested for normality and homoscedasticity. For inferential analyses, in the case of hypothesis a, a double relationship was analyzed (Fig. 2): (A) the Level-1 relationship between the level of individual mindfulness and teamwork competence, and (B) the Level-2 relationship between the level of group mindfulness level and teamwork competence (cross-level interaction). For Hypothesis b, it was only analyzed (A) the Level-1 relationship between contemplative practice and both teamwork competence and individual mindfulness level/group mindfulness level. A post hoc analyses with Tukey HSD was then performed to investigate comparisons between contemplative practices. Adjustments for multiple comparisons with the FDR method (False Discovery Rate, Pastore et al., 2005) were made, with 18 comparisons for hypothesis a and FDR with 33 comparisons for Hypothesis b.
Fig. 2
Contextualized model of Hypotheses a and b. It depicts the structure of the Multilevel Modeling used in the inferential analyses. At the individual level, the influence (A) of individual mindfulness levels on teamwork competencies was tested directly. At the team level, the cross-level influence (B) of group mindfulness levels on teamwork competencies was analyzed. The cross-level interaction between group mindfulness levels and the individual-level predictor of individual mindfulness levels on teamwork was not examined
×
The process for the second experimental question started from the normality test of each construct (Shapiro Test and visually with histograms), continued with the homoscedasticity test (Levene’s Test), with the detection of outliers using z-scores, and finished with the multicollinearity test. The inferential analyses was conducted via a two-way repeated measures ANOVA (3 × 2) for each of the 23 constructs. Follow-up analyses with Tukey HSD were conducted. Constructs that did not follow a normal distribution were analyzed with the Wilcoxon test (within-group comparisons) and with the Kruskal–Wallis test (between-group comparisons). Adjustments for multiple comparisons with the FDR method were subsequently made with nine comparisons (our analyses concentrates on the comparisons that emerge between groups, across sessions, and in the group × session interaction).
Results
State Measures
A total of 372 responses were obtained, corresponding to 64.58% of the total. At the individual level, the results indicate M = 15.5; SD = 6.12 responses out of a total of 24. All the descriptive analyses can be found in the supplementary material (Online Resource 3).
Main Effects of the Levels of Individual and Group Mindfulness on Teamwork Competencies
To test hypothesis a, main effects of individual mindfulness level and group mindfulness level on each teamwork competence, the scheme of multilevel models was followed (González-Romá & Hernández, 2017). Model 0 served as the baseline model, including only random intercepts to estimate the variance attributable to group differences without any predictors. Model 1 incorporated individual-level predictors to evaluate their effects on teamwork competencies. Model 2a added both individual-level and group-level predictors, allowing for the examination of cross-level interactions and their impact on teamwork competencies. Finally, Model 3 introduced interactions between individual-level and group-level predictors, providing insights into how these combined effects influence teamwork competencies. The comparison between Model 1 and Model 0 did not show significance in any teamwork competence and this is explained by the calculation of the ICC (intraclass correlation coefficient): the value of all constructs was less than 0.001 (all the ICC and R2 values can be found in Table 2). Model 2a was necessary to find the values of the effects of individual mindfulness level on teamwork competence (Table 3). Although initially three constructs showed a significant effect (Self-disclosure and Emotional support) and a trend (Conflict management), after correction with FDR, only a trend remained: Self-disclosure (p < 0.10).
Table 2
ICC and R2 values from the MLM in the two state measures analyses
Variables
Main Effects of the Levels of Individual and Group Mindfulness on Teamwork Competencies
Main Effects of each Contemplative Practice on the Levels of Individual and Group Mindfulness and Teamwork Competencies
ICC Value (Model 1)
R2 value (Model 2)
R2 value (Model 3)
ICC Value (Model 1)
R2 value (Model 2)
Individual mindfulness level
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.06
0.08
Group mindfulness level
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.17
0.25
Perspective taking
< 0.001
0.01
0.05
< 0.001
0.01
Openness
< 0.001
0.01
0.03
< 0.001
0.05
Extraversion
< 0.001
0.01
0.04
< 0.001
0.06
Self-disclosure
< 0.001
0.06
0.06
< 0.001
0.00
Emotional support
< 0.001
0.04
0.07
< 0.001
0.03
Conflict management
< 0.001
0.02
0.06
< 0.001
0.00
Asserting displeasure
< 0.001
0.01
0.04
< 0.001
0.05
Team orientation
< 0.001
0.00
0.00
< 0.001
0.00
Assertiveness
< 0.001
0.01
0.02
< 0.001
0.03
N/A not analyzed
Table 3
Main effects of individual and group mindfulness on TCs
Teamwork dimension
Individual Mindfulness Level
Group Mindfulness Level
Value
t (df)
p (corrected)
Cohen’s d
CI (95%, low–high)
Value
t (df)
p (corrected)
Cohen’s d
CI (95%, low–high)
Perspective taking
0.20
1.27 (115)
0.204
NC
(− 0.06–0.30)
− 0.27
− 0.93 (114)
0.670
NC
(− 0.27–0.09)
Openness
0.27
1.24 (115)
0.217
NC
(− 0.06–0.29)
0.67
1.65 (114)
0.100
NC
(− 0.03–0.33)
Extraversion
0.24
1.28 (115)
0.200
NC
(− 0.06–0.30)
0.71
2.01 (114)
0.046* (0.207)
0.18
(0.00–0.37)
Self − disclosure
0.52
2.79 (115)
0.006** (0.108)
0.25
(0.07–0.44)
0.37
1.07 (114)
0.258
NC
(− 0.08–0.28)
Emotional support
0.43
2.41 (115)
0.017* (0.153)
0.22
(0.03–0.40)
0.38
1.15 (114)
0.251
NC
(− 0.07–0.29)
Conflict management
0.32
2.41 (115)
0.093a (0.300)
0.22
(0.03–0.40)
− 0.77
− 2.18 (114)
0.031* (0.186)
0.20
(0.01–0.38)
Asserting displeasure
0.22
1.21 (115)
0.228
NC
(− 0.07–0.29)
0.35
1.01 (114)
0.313
NC
(− 0.09–0.27)
Team orientation
0.16
0.89 (115)
0.372
NC
(− 0.10–0.26)
0.01
0.05 (114)
0.958
NC
(− 0.18–0.19)
Assertiveness
0.22
1.06 (115)
0.289
NC
(− 0.08–0.28)
0.49
1.26 (114)
0.209
NC
(− 0.06–0.30)
Only p-corrected values corresponding to significant p-values are reported
NC not calculated
*p-value < 0.05
**p-value < 0.01 ; "." p-value < 0.10
The R2 value for individual mindfulness level varies from 0.007 (Team orientation) to 0.06 (Self-disclosure), indicating that individual mindfulness level can explain between 0.70% and 6.20% of the total variance. The R2 value represents the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that is explained by the predictors in the model. It provides an indication of how well the model accounts for the variability in the data. Higher R2 values suggest that the predictors have a stronger explanatory power, while lower values indicate that a larger portion of the variability remains unexplained by the model. Finally, in Model 3, two teamwork competencies showed a significant effect (Extraversion and Conflict management), but following correction, all p-values became greater than 0.05. The R2 values indicate that group mindfulness level is able to explain between 0.70% (Team orientation) and 7.70% (Emotional support) of the total variance. Some teamwork competencies (Perspective taking and Conflict management) are negatively predicted by group mindfulness level, while all teamwork competencies are positively predicted by individual mindfulness level (see Discussion).
Main Effects of each Contemplative Practice on the Levels of Individual and Group Mindfulness and Teamwork Competencies
Hypothesis b was then tested. The comparison between Model 1 and Model 0 was highly significant in group mindfulness level (p < 0.001) and significant in Openness, Extraversion, and Asserting displeasure (p < 0.05). ICC values were less than 0.001 in all teamwork competencies, indicating that the total variance of teamwork competence as contemplative practice varies is explained by individual differences and not group differences, while the variance between groups of individual mindfulness level is explained by 6.40% by the different contemplative practices and that of group mindfulness level between groups by 17.90%. Moreover, R2 values show that the variance of contemplative practice is explained by individual mindfulness level and teamwork competence with a range from 0% (Conflict management) to 8.25% (individual mindfulness level), with 25.10% for group mindfulness level. ICC and R2 values lower than 0.5 are considered poor (Hamilton et al., 2015; Koo & Li, 2016).
Table 4 shows the values of individual and group mindfulness levels and teamwork competence in comparisons between the three contemplative practices conducted with Tukey HSD. A significant comparison indicates that one practice might influence the values of individual mindfulness level, group mindfulness level, and teamwork competence more than the other two. OMM showed the lowest values in all dimensions analyzed, except in Team Orientation (higher than LKM and lower than self-LKM). LKM shows three significantly higher dimensions (group mindfulness level, Extraversion, Openness) and a trend (Asserting displeasure) compared to OMM. Self-LKM shows two significantly higher dimensions (group mindfulness level, Extraversion) and two trends (Asserting displeasure, Assertiveness) compared to OMM. Furthermore, self-LKM has eight dimensions with the highest scores of the three practices, LKM three dimensions, and OMM none. However, following correction with FDR, the only significance that survives is in the positive comparison between LKM and OMM in group mindfulness level.
Table 4
Main effects of contemplative practices on individual and group mindfulness and teamwork competencies
Variables
LKM-OMM
Self-LKM-OMM
Self-LKM-LKM
Individual mindfulness level
Estimate
0.13
0.20
0.06
z-value (df)
1.11 (2)
1.79 (2)
0.57 (2)
p (corrected)
0.507
0.171
0.832
Group mindfulness level
Estimate
0.21
0.15
− 0.05
z-value (df)
3.68 (2)
2.87 (2)
− 1.05 (2)
p (corrected)
< 0.001*** (0.022*)
0.011* (0.181)
0.541
Perspective taking
Estimate
0.15
0.22
0.07
z-value (df)
0.68 (2)
1.07 (2)
0.33 (2)
p (corrected)
0.770
0.527
0.942
Openness
Estimate
0.74
0.46
− 0.28
z-value (df)
2.54 (2)
1.69 (2)
− 0.99 (2)
p (corrected)
0.029* (0.260)
0.207
0.577
Extraversion
Estimate
0.59
0.60
0.01
z-value (df)
2.30 (2)
2.51 (2)
0.04 (2)
p (corrected)
0.054a (0.335)
0.031* (0.260)
0.998
Self-disclosure
Estimate
0.07
0.25
0.17
z-value (df)
0.29 (2)
1.03 (2)
0.68 (2)
p (corrected)
0.952
0.557
0.771
Emotional support
Estimate
0.35
0.46
0.11
z-value (df)
1.42 (2)
2.00 (2)
0.46 (2)
p (corrected)
0.328
0.111
0.890
Conflict management
Estimate
0.025
0.007609
− 0.017391
z-value (df)
0.09 (2)
0.03 (2)
− 0.06 (2)
p (corrected)
0.995
0.999
0.997
Asserting displeasure
Estimate
0.55
0.52
− 0.02
z-value (df)
2.20 (2)
2.23 (2)
− 0.11 (2)
p (corrected)
0.071a (0.335)
0.065a (0.335)
0.992
Team orientation
Estimate
− 0.04
0.05
0.09
z-value (df)
− 0.18 (2)
0.23 (2)
0.41 (2)
p (corrected)
0.981
0.971
0.908
Assertiveness
Estimate
0.22
0.54
0.31
z-value (df)
0.81 (2)
2.07 (2)
1.15 (2)
p (corrected)
0.693
0.094a (0.391)
0.477
Sample size (n) is 121 for all variables. Only p-corrected values corresponding to significant p-values are reported
***p-value < 0,001
*p-value < 0,05
ap-value < 0,1
Trait Measures
Finally, testing hypothesis c, all the descriptive analyses can be found in the supplementary material (Online Resource 3). With a numerical sample of 57 participants, ANOVA tests are robust enough to overcome a value that deviates slightly from normality (Stevens, 2013). For this reason, the Wilcoxon test was used for the following non-parametric variables: Perspective Taking, Fantasy, Observe, Assertiveness, Self-Disclosure, Emotional Support (range W = 0.94–0.97, range p < 0.01–0.001). Among the mindfulness variables, only Observe showed significant differences both within groups (Group 2 increased) and between groups (in the “pre” session, Group 2 has significantly lower levels compared to both Group 1 and Group 3). Below is a description of significant results in the teamwork competencies.
For the IRI variables, both Perspective Taking and Fantasy showed a significant increase in Group 1, which also displayed significantly lower levels in the “pre” session compared to the other two groups. Fantasy also exhibits significant differences in the “post” session between Group 1 and both Group 2 and Group 3. Empathic Concern showed a significant increase in Group 2 and significant differences between both groups: F (2,40) = 65.68, p < 0.001; and sessions: F (1, 40) = 11.67, p < 0.01; while Personal Discomfort only displayed significant differences between groups: F (2, 40) = 17.47, p < 0.001.
Likewise, all the BFI variables revealed significant differences: Extraversion between sessions: F (1, 40) = 24.27, p < 0.001; and the interaction group × session: F (2, 40) = 8.93, p < 0.001. Agreeableness and Conscientiousness showed the same significant results, without surviving the Tukey HSD correction. Neuroticism only displayed a significance between sessions, F (1, 40) = 12.47, p < 0.01, without surviving the post hoc correction and Openness exhibits a significant increase within group 2 and a significant difference in the “pre” session between Group 1 and Group 2.
Among the YAICQ variables, Initiating Relationship showed significant decreases within Group 2 and Group 3; Self-disclosure showed significant differences between groups both in the “pre” and in the “post” sessions; Asserting Displeasure exhibits significant differences between sessions, F (1, 40) = 6.58, p < 0.05, without surviving the post hoc correction; Emotional Support displayed trends of significance between groups. Finally, Assertiveness (BIP) showed trends of increase within Group 1 and trends of differences between groups in the “pre” session, although these results do not survive the post hoc correction.
Table 5 represents the values obtained through Tukey HSD for the normal variables that showed significance or trend in the ANOVA test, and the results of the Wilcoxon and Kruskal–Wallis tests for non-normal variables.
Table 5
Trait measures analyses
Variable
Within groups
Between groups, session 1
Between groups, session 2
Group
Value (df)
p (corrected)
Effect size
Comparison
Value (df)
p (corrected)
Effect size
Comparison
Value (df)
p (corrected)
Effect size
Perspective taking
Group 1
22.00 (16)
< 0.001*** (0.004**)
− 0.62
Group 1–Group 2
− 3.94 (16)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.24
Group 1–group 2
1.26 (16)
0.335
NC
Group 2
66.50 (17)
0.65
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 4.35 (17)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.25
Group 1–group 3
1.48 (17)
0.063a (0.125)
0.08
Group 3
66.50 (7)
0.033* (0.079a)
− 0.86
Group 2–Group 3
− 0.89 (7)
0.197
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.45 (7)
0.133
NC
Fantasy
Group 1
39.00 (16)
< 0.01** (0.016*)
− 0.43
Group 1–Group 2
− 5.11 (16)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.31
Group 1–group 2
− 4.45 (16)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.27
Group 2
85.00 (17)
0.391
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 4.63 (17)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.27
Group 1–group 3
− 3.58 (17)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.21
Group 3
56.50 (7)
0.460
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 0.13 (7)
0.418
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.01 (7)
0.392
NC
Empathic concern
Group 1
− 1.76 (40)
0.392
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 8.30 (40)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.63
Group 1–group 2
− 10.03 (40)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.71
Group 2
− 3.50 (40)
0.003** (0.005**)
0.23
Group 1–Group 3
− 10.60 (40)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.73
Group 1–group 3
− 9.89 (40)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.24
Group 3
− 1.00 (40
0.973
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 2.30 (40)
0.402
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.13 (40)
1.000
NC
Personal
Group 1
1.17 (40)
0.689
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 4.10 (40)
0.009** (0.035*)
0.29
Group 1–group 2
− 5.22 (40)
< 0.001*** (0.001**)
0.40
discomfort
Group 2
0.05 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 5.06 (40)
0.011* (0.0267*)
0.39
Group 1–group 3
− 7.36 (40)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.18
Group 3
− 1.13 (40)
0.928
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 0.95 (40)
0.983
NC
Group 2–group 3
− 2.13 (40)
0.645
NC
Extraversion
Group 1
− 0.41 (40)
0.998
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 5.01 (40)
0.074a (0.201)
0.14
Group 1–group 2
− 0.71 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 2
3.88 (40)
0.002** (0.009**)
0.27
Group 1–Group 3
− 6.16 (40)
0.089a (0.201)
0.48
Group 1–group 3
0.36 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 3
6.13 (40)
0.001** (0.009**)
0.48
Group 2–Group 3
− 1.15 (40)
0.995
NC
Group 2–group 3
1.08 (40)
0.997
NC
Agreeableness
Group 1
− 0.23 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 1–roup 2
0.92 (40)
0.992
NC
Group 1–group 2
2.94 (40)
0.543
NC
Group 2
1.77 (40)
0.160
NC
Group 1–group 3
0.45 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 1–group 3
3.19 (40)
0.697
NC
Group 3
2.50 (40)
0.215
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 0.47 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.25 (40)
1.000
NC
Conscientiousness
Group 1
1.52 (40)
0.331
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 4.32 (40)
0.094a (0.423)
0.12
Group 1–group 2
− 4.57 (40)
0.056a (0.423)
0.12
Group 2
1.27 (40)
0.498
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 1.94 (40)
0.926
NC
Group 1–group 3
− 2.35 (40)
0.837
NC
Group 3
1.12 (40)
0.902
NC
Group 2–Group 3
2.37 (40)
0.840
NC
Group 2–group 3
2.22 (40)
0.862
NC
Neuroticism
Group 1
1.47 (40)
0.677
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 1.30 (40)
0.943
NC
Group 1–group 2
− 0.55 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 2
2.22 (40)
0.216
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 2.09 (40)
0.859
NC
Group 1–group 3
− 0.19 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 3
3.37 (40)
0.204
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 0.79 (40)
0.997
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.36 (40)
1.000
NC
Openness
Group 1
1.17 (40)
0.723
NC
Group 1–Group 2
4.86 (40)
0.008** (0.038*)
0.10
Group 1–group 2
− 1.75 (40)
0.915
NC
Group 2
− 5.44 (40)
< 0.001*** (< 0.001***)
0.42
Group 1–Group 3
3.77 (40)
0.240
NC
Group 1–group 3
1.34 (40)
0.990
NC
Group 3
− 1.25 (40)
0.906
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 1.09 (40)
0.985
NC
Group 2–group 3
3.09 (40)
0.722
NC
Observe
Group 1
126.0 (16)
0.899
NC
Group 1–Group 2
1.77 (16)
0.038* (0.169)
0.11
Group 1–group 2
− 1.36 (16)
0.086a (0.193)
0.08
Group 2
30.00 (17)
0.003** (0.033*)
− 0.85
Group 1–Group 3
− 0.03 (17)
0.488
NC
Group 1–group 3
0.14 (17)
0.444
NC
Group 3
63.00 (7)
0.203
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 1.59 (7)
0.056a (0.169)
0.22
Group 2–group 3
1.22 (7)
0.110
NC
Describe
Group 1
1.35 (40)
0.833
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 2.01 (40)
0.905
NC
Group 1–group 2
− 3.31 (40)
0.412
NC
Group 2
0.06 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 0.99 (40)
0.998
NC
Group 1–group 3
− 1.96 (40)
0.946
NC
Group 3
0.38 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 2–Group 3
1.03 (40)
0.998
NC
Group 2–group 3
1.35 (40)
0.989
NC
Acting with awareness
Group 1
− 1.94 (40)
0.542
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 2.94 (40)
0.422
NC
Group 1–group 2
− 0.95 (40)
0.996
NC
Group 2
0.06 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 2.75 (40)
0.731
NC
Group 1–group 3
− 0.18 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 3
0.63 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 2–Group 3
0.19 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.76 (40)
0.999
NC
Non judge
Group 1
0.35 (40)
0.999
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 0.89 (40)
0.998
NC
Group 1–group 2
0.02 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 2
1.22 (40)
0.959
NC
Group 1–Group 3
1.68 (40)
0.992
NC
Group 1–group 3
− 1.29 (40)
0.996
NC
Group 3
− 2.63 (40)
0.836
NC
Group 2–Group 3
2.57 (40)
0.951
NC
Group 2–group 3
− 1.28 (40)
0.996
NC
Non react
Group 1
− 0.82 (40)
0.912
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 0.16 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–group 2
0.22 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 2
− 0.44 (40)
0.993
NC
Group 1–Group 3
1.93 (40)
0.764
NC
Group 1–group 3
2.13 (40)
0.799
NC
Group 3
− 0.63 (40)
0.994
NC
Group 2–Group 3
2.10 (40)
0.690
NC
Group 2–group 3
1.92 (40)
0.856
NC
Team orientation
Group 1
− 1.65 (40)
0.921
NC
Group 1–Group 2
2.94 (40)
0.947
NC
Group 1–group 2
4.36 (40)
0.720
NC
Group 2
− 0.22 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 0.18 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–group 3
5.22 (40)
0.765
NC
Group 3
3.75 (40)
0.645
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 3.11 (40)
0.974
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.86 (40)
0.999
NC
Assertiveness
Group 1
27.50 (16)
0.066a (0.166)
− 0.56
Group 1–Group 2
− 2.07 (16)
0.019* (0.147)
0.12
Group 1–group 2
− 0.85 (16)
0.196
NC
Group 2
76.50 (17)
0.678
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 1.84 (17)
0.032* (0.147)
0.10
Group 1–group 3
− 0.38 (17)
0.352
NC
Group 3
25.00 (7)
0.073a (0.166)
0.35
Group 2–Group 3
0.02 (7)
0.492
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.31 (7)
0.378
NC
Initiating relationship
Group 1
− 1.29 (40)
0.599
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 3.67 (40)
0.397
NC
Group 1–group 2
0.73 (40)
0.996
NC
Group 2
3.11 (40)
0.003** (0.018*)
0.19
Group 1–Group 3
− 4.87 (40)
0.348
NC
Group 1–group 3
1.05 (40)
0.994
NC
Group 3
4.62 (40)
0.004** (0.018*)
0.34
Group 2–Group 3
− 1.19 (40)
0.995
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.32 (40)
1.000
0.00
Self-disclosure
Group 1
74.00 (16)
0.923
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 2.53 (16)
0.005** (0.012*)
0.15
Group 1–group 2
− 3.23 (16)
< 0.001*** (0.005**)
0.20
Group 2
71.50 (17)
0.876
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 2.78 (17)
0.002** (0.010*)
0.16
Group 1–group 3
− 2.70 (17)
0.003** (0.010*)
0.15
Group 3
29.50 (7)
0.120
NC
Group 2–Group 3
− 0.56 (7)
0.289
NC
Group 2–group 3
− 0.09 (7)
0.464
NC
Asserting displeasure
Group 1
− 0.58 (40)
0.991
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 1.91 (40)
0.802
NC
Group 1–group 2
− 3.76 (40)
0.167
NC
Group 2
− 2.44 (40)
0.141
NC
Group 1–Group 3
− 1.04 (40)
0.993
NC
Group 1–group 3
− 2.58 (40)
0.772
NC
Group 3
− 2.12 (40)
0.689
NC
Group 2–Group 3
0.86 (40)
0.997
NC
Group 2–group 3
1.18 (40)
0.989
NC
Emotional support
Group 1
61.00 (16)
0.613
NC
Group 1–Group 2
1.86 (16)
0.031* (0.070a)
0.11
Group 1–group 2
2.22 (16)
0.013* (0.063a)
0.13
Group 2
59.00 (17)
0.705
NC
Group 1–Group 3
2.03 (17)
0.021* (0.063a)
0.11
Group 1–group 3
2.15 (17)
0.015* (0.063a)
0.12
Group 3
24.00 (7)
0.105
NC
Group 2–Group 3
0.39 (7)
0.349
NC
Group 2–group 3
0.35 (7)
0.363
NC
Conflict management
Group 1
− 0.12 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–Group 2
− 0.21 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–group 2
− 0.15 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 2
− 0.06 (40)
1.000
NC
Group 1–Group 3
0.86 (40)
0.994
NC
Group 1–group 3
2.10 (40)
0.812
NC
Group 3
1.13 (40)
0.949
NC
Group 2–Group 3
1.07 (40)
0.983
NC
Group 2–group 3
2.25 (40)
0.759
NC
Sub-scales in italics represent non-normal variables. Only p-corrected values corresponding to significant p-values are reported
Effect sizes were calculated using η2 for both parametric variables and non-parametric variables in between-group comparisons. For within-group non-parametric variables, effect sizes were calculated using the r metric (rank-biserial correlation)
***p-value < 0.001
**p-value < 0.01
*p-value < 0.05
ap-value < 0.10
Discussion
This study aimed to explore the efficacy of two distinct training frameworks, Core Mindfulness Training, and Empathy Expansion Training, which incorporate four contemplative practices—Focused Attention Meditation (FAM), Open Monitoring Meditation (OMM), Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM), and Self-Loving Kindness Meditation (self-LKM)—on the development of teamwork competencies in a high-level educational context. The findings highlight that both training frameworks influenced specific teamwork competencies, with Core Mindfulness Training showing a more significant impact on Perspective Taking, Fantasy, and Extraversion, while Empathy Expansion Training resulted in greater improvements in Openness, Empathic Concern, and the ability to Observe. Notably, state mindfulness appeared to contribute minimally to teamwork competencies, while trait mindfulness demonstrated a stronger association with certain traits.
This article’s analyses invite a comprehensive evaluation of the broader implications of implementing contemplative practices, particularly in organizational and educational settings. Caring-Lobel (2016) reported a significant observation regarding mindfulness meditation in the workplace, emphasizing the disconnect between its purported benefits and its actual psychological impacts. The author argues that mindfulness meditation in the workplace frequently transcends the basic calming and attention-refocusing aspects of the practice. Mindfulness discussions predominantly focus on its psychological impacts, which overshadows other potential effects. It is important to include these psychological aspects in any analyses of mindfulness meditation, but the scope of investigation should not be limited to just these elements. His commentary extends to the necessity of repoliticizing stress and recognizing that our discomfort often stems from external stimuli rather than from within ourselves. This perspective is particularly pertinent in educational contexts where the implementation of contemplative practices should be critically and actively approached by students with curiosity and openness, to foster their personal and developmental growth. There is substantial evidence supporting the role of contemplative practices in enhancing well-being and positively influencing cognitive, emotional, and relational skills. However, it is imperative that students perceive contemplative practices not merely as mandatory activities imposed upon them, but rather as opportunities for critical engagement and personal development. Furthermore, contemplative practices sessions should remain voluntary, as this could potentially lead to counterproductive outcomes contrary to the intended benefits. This approach ensures that the implementation of contemplative practices remains a facilitative tool rather than a prescriptive measure within educational settings.
To address hypothesis a, individual mindfulness levels and group mindfulness levels were related to the states of teamwork competencies. Generally, the results indicate that in a state of higher individual mindfulness, participants reported higher levels of teamwork competencies. However, following the correction with FDR, none of these values obtained significance. Interestingly, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) revealed that variations in teamwork competencies are predominantly attributable to within-group differences rather than between-group disparities. To address hypothesis b, the main effects of the categorical contemplative practice variable on the levels of individual mindfulness and group mindfulness for each teamwork competence were tested. Self-Loving Kindness Meditation consistently resulted in the highest teamwork competencies scores. Both states of individual and group mindfulness are minimal during OMM, while individual mindfulness states reach their highest scores with self-LKM and group mindfulness states during LKM (the only significant comparison that survives correction: LKM-OMM). Practicing LKM makes groups more present and less judgmental compared to OMM. It can also be deduced that both LKM practices lead to improvements in teamwork competence compared to OMM, and the difference between the two is minimal. The results from analyzing hypotheses a and b bring additional evidence to the literature, underscoring the positive influence of LKM practices on interpersonal and empathy skills (Collins-McHugh, 2016). Contrary to the findings of Chen et al. (2021), who observed significant improvements in empathy and interpersonal skills but not in mindfulness levels, this study identified significant impacts on mindfulness levels with positive, but non-significant, effects on interpersonal and empathy skills. Results relative to hypotheses a and b (state measures) are derived from comparisons between contemplative practices without incorporating a control group that did not engage in any contemplative practice.
The sequential introduction of OMM, LKM, and self-LKM practices—progressing from novice to experienced mindfulness meditation—suggests a learning effect that may influence the observed outcomes. The third hypothesis results clarify the possible temporal effect.
To test Hypothesis c, a triple comparison involving pre- and post-meditation questionnaires among three groups (Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3), and their session interactions, was conducted. Starting with mindfulness constructs, only Observe shows a significant increase in Group 2, allowing us to conclude that Empathy Expansion Training enables a greater capacity to notice and be aware of internal and external experiences.
Moving on to teamwork competencies variables, Perspective taking and Fantasy saw substantial gains with Core Mindfulness Training; Personal discomfort shows significant differences among groups, which is not influenced by contemplative practice or the temporal factor; Empathic concern increases in all three groups, with the only significant growth in Group 2: it could therefore increase over time, but Empathy Expansion Training might have had a positive influence. In summary, the variables related to the empathic dimension (IRI questionnaire) are significantly modified by the practice of contemplative practice. Contrary to what was hypothesized, it seems that Core Mindfulness Training more significantly influences these variables compared to Empathy Expansion Training. However, significant differences among groups could lead to the conclusion that only a group with initially low levels can increase them.
The results of Extraversion suggest that Core Mindfulness Training prevents the decrease that occurred in the other two groups. The results of Openness, on the other hand, show an increase with Group 2, suggesting Empathy Expansion Training as preferred for this variable. The other three BFI variables, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism, are not influenced by contemplative practices. Winning et al. (2015) reported that a brief mindfulness induction effectively enhances cognitive empathy predominantly in individuals with lower trait Conscientiousness and Extraversion scores, with no moderating effects from Openness, Agreeableness, or Neuroticism. Future research should further investigate the complex relationships between contemplative practices and personality traits to clarify these effects.
The two BIP questionnaire variables (Team orientation and Assertiveness) show no significant changes. Finally, the interpersonal skills (YAICQ): Initiating relationship significantly decreased in Group 2 and Group 3, showing how Core Mindfulness Training might have been necessary for prevention. Self-disclosure and Emotional support varied among groups, while Asserting displeasure and Conflict management were not influenced by the contemplative practices.
In essence, Core Mindfulness Training (which was administered to Group 1) facilitates an enhancement (or prevents the decrease) in teamwork competencies compared to the other two groups in Perspective taking, Fantasy, Extraversion, and Initiating relationships. Conversely, Empathy Expansion Training (which was administered to Group 2) showed increases (or prevented the decrease) in Empathic concern, Openness, Observe. These summarized results are displayed in Fig. 3. Perspective taking, Fantasy, Empathic concern, and Observe showed increases in the post questionnaires compared to the pre questionnaires, while the decrease of Extraversion, Openness, and Initiating relationships seems to have been prevented by a contemplative practices framework.
Fig. 3
Boxplots highlighting the effects for each contemplative practices training on teamwork competencies and mindfulness levels. Group 1 (which underwent Core Mindfulness Training) showed better results in the following: Perspective taking, Fantasy, Extraversion, Initiating relationships. Group 2 (which underwent Empathy Expansion Training) showed better results in the following: Empathic concern, Openness, Observe. Perspective taking and Fantasy (for Group 1), Empathic concern, Openness and Observe (for Group 2) showed increases in the post questionnaires compared to the pre questionnaires. No significant reduction in these constructs has emerged: Extraversion and Initiating relationships (for Group 1). The same constructs showed significant decreases in the other two groups. This suggests a potential preventative effect of the intervention applied. Note: “***” = p-value < 0.001; “**” = p-value < 0.01; “*” = p-value < 0.05; “NS” = not significant
×
The two trainings, although with two contemplative practices in common (OMM and LKM) out of three, have very different effects: no variable, in fact, showed significant changes with both trainings. The control group showed the expected results: no variable increased significantly, enhancing the value of the contemplative practices trainings. Moreover, the low variance values of the state variables of the Group 2 group may be indicators of a poor influence of contemplative practices on state measurements. However, contrary to what was hypothesized a priori, the results of combined state and trait measures might lead to the conclusion that Empathy Expansion Training has little efficacy on state modifications but influences trait changes. It was expected that a low-frequency contemplative practices training (10 min once a week, compared to an MBSR course involving daily practice for 3 months) could lead to state rather than trait modifications (Ramsburg & Youmans, 2014). According to the obtained results, it seems instead that some trait teamwork competencies are significantly modified by contemplative practices. The two questions formulated a priori remain unanswered:
a)
Is it necessary to start with foundational practices like FAM to achieve meaningful improvements in teamwork competencies?
b)
Does scaling to more socially-oriented practices, such as self-LKM, offer added benefits in fostering teamwork competencies?
While Core Mindfulness Training introduces participants to foundational mindfulness practices, progressively increasing in complexity, Empathy Expansion Training escalates the challenge by incorporating an additional practice (self-LKM) that emphasizes empathy and social connection. The contrasting results observed in the pre-post analyses do not provide definitive answers to the posed questions, as each training produced distinct effects on teamwork competencies. This difference makes it challenging to draw precise conclusions about the unique contributions of each training.
The relationship between contemplative practices and teamwork competencies is considerably more complex than originally anticipated. Future research should explore in greater detail the distinctions between specific practices, considering the differential effects noted between trait and state measures. Additionally, an intriguing outcome from our data indicates that initiating contemplative practice training with FAM is not necessary for inducing significant changes in meditation beginners. Starting with Open Monitoring Meditation (OMM), as seen in Empathy Expansion Training, is adequate to introduce novices to contemplative practices. This study contributes new insights into the impact of contemplative practices on empathy and presents mixed results regarding interpersonal competencies. It also underscores the differences between trait and state mindfulness, providing a foundation for further research.
Limitations and Future Directions
While this research lays a solid groundwork for future investigations into the effects of contemplative practices on teamwork competencies, it is not without its limitations. Firstly, the relatively small sample size limits the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, despite all groups operating within a similar context, they represent distinct cohorts, which may introduce variability not accounted for by the study design. A replication of the ESM phase with future cohorts from the same high-level educational course context is recommended to validate and extend these findings. The study also faced a limitation related to participant attrition. Group 3 showed a higher attrition rate compared to other groups, potentially due to differences in professional experience and their lack of involvement in training interventions. High attrition rates are a common challenge in studies involving student samples, as highlighted in the literature. While attrition does not appear to have substantially influenced the results, it remains a potential limitation that future research should address.
The study design may present some ambiguities due to the ecological context and specific requests from the teachers. Nevertheless, every effort was undertaken to scientifically isolate the effects of each training intervention on individual teamwork competencies. Another limitation concerns the assessment of teamwork competencies: there is a scarcity of reliable measures, making it challenging to evaluate these competencies accurately (Lower et al., 2017). Moreover, not all standardized questionnaires used in this study are validated in Italian (Table 1). Exploring the newly validated construct of Interpersonal Mindfulness (Khoury et al., 2022) could further enrich the literature by defining its relationship with teamwork competencies and how contemplative practices might influence it. Regarding the questionnaires, certain items, especially in the IRI, such as “At this moment, I find it difficult to see things from the perspective of another team member,” may have been influenced by explicit instructions given during the contemplative practices, particularly in Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM). These instructions, focusing on others, could prime participants towards specific responses. However, several steps to mitigate this risk were taken, including the use of standardized instructions and ensuring participants were unaware of the detailed aims of the study. While such biases are difficult to completely eliminate in contemplative practices research, they represent a broader methodological challenge rather than a specific flaw of this study design (Josipovic & Baars, 2015).
The ITT approach (Tripepi et al., 2020) provided valuable insights into the overall effects of the assigned contemplative practices training. However, varying levels of engagement among participants, particularly among those less interested, might have diluted the specific effects of each training. Complementing the ITT approach with a Per Protocol (PP) analysis could benefit future studies with larger sample sizes. Such an approach would allow researchers to better isolate the specific effects of each training and contemplative practice, providing a clearer picture of their potential efficacy under optimal adherence conditions.
No a priori power analysis was conducted due to the limited sample size available, and the participants’ prior experience with contemplative practices was not investigated with contemplative practices. Furthermore, the validity and reliability of some measurements represent a limitation of this study. Small effect sizes in certain cases may reduce the practical implications of the findings, and not all questionnaires were validated in Italian, potentially introducing bias. Future research should address these limitations by employing validated tools, larger sample sizes, and complementary measures to enhance robustness. Despite these challenges, the results affirm the potential of our methodological approach in examining the impact of contemplative practices on teamwork competencies.
This study indicates that the integration of contemplative practices within educational settings can significantly enhance teamwork competencies, highlighting the differential effects of various meditation practices on a range of competencies. Future research should replicate these findings in larger cohorts and delve deeper into the mechanisms through which state mindfulness influences teamwork competencies. An expanded investigation could provide further insights into optimizing contemplative practices for educational purposes, contributing to the development of more effective team-based learning environments.
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Dott. Maurizio Soddu, who played a crucial role by facilitating the initial communication between the authors and the teachers of the school context. Dott. Stefano Mastino provided assistance during the data collection phase as well as in the descriptive data analyses. Additionally, Dott. Alessia Moser helped in the descriptive data analyses process. Finally, we wish to thank the Istituto Pavoniano Artigianelli of Trento (Italy) and the TAG Lab (Trentino Alta Formazione Grafica) for the support during all the phases of the experiment.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics Statement
All methods were approved by the University of Trento, Human Research Ethics Committee. The whole procedure was realized in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained by all participants prior to the experiment. No financial incentives were offered for participation.
Use of Artificial Intelligence Statement
No AI tools were used for the purpose of this study and paper preparation.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
share
DELEN
Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)
Optie A:
Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
Met BSL Psychologie Totaal blijf je als professional steeds op de hoogte van de nieuwste ontwikkelingen binnen jouw vak. Met het online abonnement heb je toegang tot een groot aantal boeken, protocollen, vaktijdschriften en e-learnings op het gebied van psychologie en psychiatrie. Zo kun je op je gemak en wanneer het jou het beste uitkomt verdiepen in jouw vakgebied.