Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 78–83

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Relating mindfulness and self-control to harm to the self and to others

Cleoputri Yusainy a,⇑, Claire Lawrence b
a
Psychology Programme, Faculty of Social and Political Science, University of Brawijaya, Malang, Indonesia
b
Personality, Social Psychology, and Health (PSPH) Group, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Aggression to others and harm to the self (self-harm) have both been associated with similar possible
Received 26 September 2013 antecedents; however, literatures on aggression and self-harm are commonly separated. This web-based
Received in revised form 31 January 2014 study (N = 241) aimed to explore the dynamics of self-reported mindfulness and self-control towards
Accepted 8 February 2014
aggression and self-harm. As predicted, those who were more mindful and more self-controlled reported
Available online 13 March 2014
being less aggressive and self-harmless typically. Bootstrap analyses suggested that self-control mediated
the link between mindfulness and general trait aggression, physical aggression, anger, hostility, and
Keywords:
self-harm, but not verbal aggression. With the inclusion of self-control, the direct effect of mindfulness
Mindfulness
Self-control
on trait aggression, anger, and hostility, but not on physical aggression and self-harm, remained signifi-
Aggression cant. Self-control, therefore, may be a pertinent individual difference on the link between mindfulness
Self-harm and behaviours that are physically harmful to the self and to others.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction about a provocation increases the likelihood of displaced

aggression (Bushman, 2002). By contrast, mindfulness may
A previous review (Hillbrand, 2001) has pointed out that decrease both over-engagement (i.e., rumination) and avoidance
although aggression and self-harm often coexist, the risk assess- of experiences, by bringing attention back to the ‘‘here-and-now’’
ment of these behaviours are typically separated. It could be ar- with a nonjudgemental attitude (Hayes & Feldman, 2004).
gued that those who self-harmed are less likely to harm others, The current literature has increasingly documented the applica-
as some research suggest that self-harm is psychological distress, tion of mindfulness as an intervention technique for aggressive
particularly anger, directed inwards (Hill & Dallos, 2012). Repeti- behaviours (Singh et al., 2012) and repeated episodes of self-harm
tion of self-harm is also related to intropunitive but not to extrapu- (Williams, Dugan, Crane, & Fennell, 2006). Nevertheless, mindful-
nitive hostility (Brittlebank et al., 1990). Even so, the presence of ness has also been conceptualised as a natural predisposition to
similar possible mechanisms for harm to the self and to others, pay attention to and be aware of on-going events in daily life
such as lower levels of serotonin (Barbui, Esposito, & Cipriani, (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Mindfully keeping attention on experiences,
2009) and cerebrospinal fluid monoamine metabolite (Placidi with minimal effort to act on them, should lead to a situation of
et al., 2001), would mean that aggressive individuals may, in fact, exposure and, in turn, extinction (Baer, 2003). Thus, although all
also lack inhibition to harm themselves. individuals may encounter situations that potentially could trigger
As proposed by Selby, Anestis, and Joiner (2008), when dealing aggressive and self-harmful behaviours, those who are mindful
with intense negative emotions, individuals may ruminate on may experience the resulting habitually associated responses to a
these emotions, or use thought suppression as an attempt to stop reduced extent. As shown elsewhere, trait mindfulness is associ-
rumination. Because both strategies may paradoxically increase ated with lower levels of self-reported aggressiveness (e.g.,
the intensity and frequency of negative emotions, some individuals Borders, Earleywine, & Jajodia, 2010; Brown & Ryan, 2003). The
might then engage in a dysregulated behaviour to distract mechanisms of mindfulness towards aggression and self-harm,
themselves. Indeed, emotional relief has been reported as the most however, are yet unclear.
common reason for self-harm in studies using self-report method- Borders et al. (2010) found that while rumination may be a cru-
ologies (Brown, Comtois, & Linehan, 2002). Similarly, ruminating cial mechanism between self-reported mindfulness and verbal
aggression, anger, hostility, other mechanisms could come into
play for reductions of physical aggression. This highlighted the
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +62 81333128950.
importance of testing not only general trait aggression but also
E-mail address: cleo.yusainy@ub.ac.id (C. Yusainy).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.015
0191-8869/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Yusainy, C. Lawrence / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 78–83 79

its specific components. Borders et al. suggested that the effect that each other. Those who consented were then presented with a ser-
mindfulness has on behavioural aggression may be mediated ies of questionnaires, and an option to enter an email address to
through relaxation, emotion regulation, better cognitive function- win a £25 prize draw incentivising the study. To examine whether
ing and flexibility, and decrease impulsivity. Some of these participants provided more than one set of data, they were also
suggested mechanisms appear to be related to the capacity of the asked to enter some ‘‘security details’’ (e.g., the last letter of most
self to control itself by altering its dominant response tendencies favourite colour). Finally, an electronic debriefing about the study
(Tangney, Baumeister, & Boone, 2004). Self-control was explicitly hypotheses and useful points of contact was presented.
mentioned (but not tested) by Heppner et al. (2008) as a potential
mediator between mindfulness and aggression. In self-harm
2.2. Materials
studies, self-controlled emotion regulation is typically measured
separately from mindfulness (e.g., Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Slee,
2.2.1. Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS: Brown & Ryan,
Spinhoven, Garnefski, & Arensman, 2008). It is a key aim of the cur-
2003)
rent study, therefore, to examine the dynamics of self-reported
The MAAS consists of 15 items assessing the absence of a single
mindfulness, self-control, aggression, and self-harm.
factor encompassing attention to and awareness of the present real-
The link between self-control and aggression per se has been
ity in daily life (e.g., ‘‘I find myself preoccupied with the future or the
well documented (see Moffitt et al., 2011), and self-reported
past’’) on a 6-point Likert-scale (1 = almost always and 6 = almost
measures of mindfulness and self-control are strongly related with
never). Higher MAAS scores were related to less reactivity during
each other (Bowlin & Baer, 2012; Brown & Ryan, 2003). As the
emotional threat as indicated by bilateral amygdale response and
influential theory of feedback loops (Carver & Scheier, 1982)
prefrontal cortical activation (Creswell, Way, Eisenberger, &
implies, self-control demands a continuous monitoring of one’s
Lieberman, 2007). Evidence for the predicted validity of the MAAS
current states against some desirable goals or standards. Since this
has been reported in a number of studies (Sauer et al., 2013). Internal
process is not affectively neutral, individuals who mindfully mon-
reliability in the current sample was good (a = .88).
itor their emotions may be better attuned to when self-control
is required before impulsive reactions occur (Brown, Ryan, &
Creswell, 2007; Teper, Segal, & Inzlicht, 2013). It is recently shown 2.2.2. Brief Self-Control Scale (Brief SCS: Tangney et al., 2004)
that in experienced mindfulness meditators, emotional acceptance The brief version of the SCS covered the same range of content
and brain-based performance monitoring are related to greater with the full 36-item version (i.e., control over thoughts, emotional
self-control (Teper & Inzlicht, 2013). Arguably, mindfulness may control, impulse control, performance regulation, and habit break-
also decrease aggression and self-harm through successful self- ing). Participants responded to 13 statements reflecting how they
controlled efforts to refrain from acting on impulses to harm the typically are (e.g., ‘‘People can count on me to keep on schedule’’)
self and others. on a 5-point Likert-scale (1 = not at all and 5 = very much). Com-
Accordingly, the current study examines three hypotheses. pared to other widely used self-reported measures of self-control,
First, self-reported mindfulness and self-control will be positively the SCS showed stronger relationships to overall behaviour (De
correlated to each other, negatively associated with aggression Ridder, Lensvelt-Mulders, Finkenauer, Stok, & Baumeister, 2012).
and self-harm. Second, individual differences in aggression will Internal reliability in the current sample was good (a = .82).
be positively associated with self-harm. Third, self-control will
mediate any relationships between mindfulness and aggression
2.2.3. Aggression Questionnaire (AQ: Buss & Perry, 1992)
and self-harm. If mindfulness and self-control could predict
The AQ is one of the most broadly used self-reported measures
individuals’ tendency to harm themselves in the same way as they
of aggression. It consists of four subscales, i.e., physical aggression (9
predicts harm to others, then the risk factors of aggression that
items, e.g., ‘‘If somebody hits me, I hit back’’), verbal aggression (5
potentially curable through mindfulness may also include
items, e.g., ‘‘I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them’’),
self-harm and poor behavioural self-control (e.g., impulsivity), in
anger (7 items, e.g., ‘‘When frustrated, I let my irritation show’’),
addition to problems of anger. We focus on self-harm in the
and hostility (8 items, e.g., ‘‘I am sometimes eaten up with jeal-
absence of suicidal intent as suicide attempts are frequently
ousy’’), along with a composite of the 29-score of trait aggression.
intended to decrease the burden for others (Brown et al., 2002).
Participants indicated how accurately each item described the way
in which they act when they feel angry or aggressive on a 5-point
Likert-scale (1 = very inaccurate and 5 = accurate). Good internal
2. Methods
reliability was shown in the current sample (a = .90, .84, .74, .78,
.80 for total score, physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger,
2.1. Participants and procedures
and hostility, respectively).
The study was approved by the School of Psychology University
of Nottingham Ethics Committee. In order to provide a broader 2.2.4. Deliberate Self-Harm Inventory (DSHI: Gratz, 2001)
range of data, we targeted adult participants with no exclusion cri- Participants indicated ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ to a list of 17 items (e.g.,
teria. An internet survey link of the study was advertised in leaflets ‘‘Have you ever intentionally (i.e., on purpose), cut your wrist,
on campus and on the social networking site (Facebook) of the arms, or other area(s) of your body? (without intending to kill
authors’ colleagues from non-student groups. Of 309 participants yourself?’’), and rated the number of times they have administered
who agreed to participate, 25 subjects did not fill out any items each act. Responses to item number 17 (i.e., ‘‘Have you ever inten-
and 43 did not continue to the last survey. After the removal of tionally done anything else to hurt yourself that was not asked
these 68 subjects, final sample consisted of 241 subjects (152 about in this questionnaire? If yes, what did you do to hurt your-
females, 4 did not report sex). Ages ranged from 18 to 41 self?’’) would be included only if they were consistent with Gratz’s
(M = 23.87, SD = 5.93). (2001) definition of deliberate self-harm. As a final score, a dichot-
All measures were completed online. Interested participants omous self-harm variable was derived by assigning a score of ‘‘1’’
were told that the survey was not concerned with their actual lev- to participants who provided the rating of ‘‘five times or more’’
els of mindfulness, self-control, aggression, and self-harm—but on any items, and a score of ‘‘0’’ to the rest of the participants
with how these behaviours and propensities were associated with (Gratz & Chapman, 2007).
80 C. Yusainy, C. Lawrence / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 78–83

2.3. Plan of analyses Our first hypothesis was that mindfulness and self-control
would be positively correlated to each other, negatively associated
The proposed mediation of self-control on the link between with aggression and self-harm. As predicted, a positive correlation
mindfulness and aggression/self-harm was tested with a bootstrap was found between mindfulness and self-control, and both scales
method (Hayes, 2012). Separate multiple regression analyses were were negatively correlated to total aggression and all aggression
conducted for the total aggression score, aggression subscales, and subscales (Table 1 below diagonal). Findings shown in Table 2 pro-
self-harm scale (see Fig. 1). Compared to four-step causal approach vide a further support for Hypothesis 1 in suggesting that self-
(Baron & Kenny, 1986) or Sobel test, bootstrapping is superior in harmers (n = 49 out of 241 participants) scored lower than non
terms of power and Type I error rates (see Shrout & Bolger, self-harmers in both mindfulness and self-control.
2002). As a bootstrap sampling distribution of ab is estimated Hypothesis 2 was partially supported in that those who self-
empirically, no assumptions are made about normality (Preacher harmed also reported higher levels of total aggression, physical
& Hayes, 2008). To bootstrap an indirect effect, the available sam- aggression, and anger. No significant differences were found be-
ple size n is re-sampled with replacement intensively for a total of tween self-harmers and non-harmers in verbal aggression or hos-
k times to estimate the a (the effect of mindfulness on self-control) tility (see again Table 2).
and b (the effect of self-control on the aggression/self-harm when Hypotheses 3 (that self-control would mediate any relation-
controlling for the effect of mindfulness) as usual. These estimates ships between mindfulness and aggression and self-harm) was
of a and b are used to calculate ab⁄ (the indirect effect in a single analysed for aggression and self-harm variables separately. The
resample), and the distribution of the k values of ab⁄ provides a first mediation analysis revealed that mindfulness predicted self-
nonparametric approximation of the sampling distribution of ab. control (B = .40, SE = .04, p < .001), while total aggression was pre-
The mean of the k estimates of ab⁄ represents the indirect effect, dicted by mindfulness (B = .30, SE = .05, p < .001) and self-control
and a significant mediation of self-control on the mindfulness (B = .24, SE = .07, p < .001). As expected, self-control mediated the
and aggression/self-harm link could be suggested if the bias-cor- relationship between mindfulness and total aggression (B = .09,
rected confidence intervals of ab does not include zero. Information SE = .03, 95% CI [.15, .04]). The direct effect of mindfulness on
on whether the c0 (the direct effect of mindfulness on aggression/ total aggression was still highly significant (B = .21, SE = .06,
self-harm) would still be significant after the inclusion of self- p < .001) when accounting for self-control. The mediation of self-
control could also be obtained. It should be noted, however, that control was consistent when participant’s age was included as
non-experimental data can only suggest that a proposed mediation covariate, and age had no effect on total aggression (p = .21).
pattern is plausible (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). To scrutinise the proposed mediational model, the analysis was
repeated for each aggression subscales (Table 3). Self-control con-
tinued to mediate the link between mindfulness and physical
3. Results
aggression, anger, and hostility, but not verbal aggression. With
the inclusion of self-control, the direct effect of mindfulness on
Unless specified, all analyses were performed using 5000 boot-
physical aggression was no longer significant (B dropped from
strap resamples (N = 241) with 95% bias-corrected confidence
.22 to .12). Mindfulness still significantly predicted anger and
intervals. Preliminary analyses showed that although participant’s
hostility. The mediation pattern was consistent when age and sex
age was not correlated to any aggression measures, it was posi-
were included as covariates. Additionally, males scored higher in
tively associated with mindfulness (p < .001, CI = .06 to .33) and
physical aggression (B = .49, SE = .009, p < .001), while younger
self-control (p < .001, CI = .11 to .39), and negatively associated
participants scored higher in anger (B = .02, SE = .008, p < .05).
with self-harm status (p < .001, CI = 1.21 to 4.06; M self-harm-
A similar analysis for the dichotomous self-harm measure
ers = 21.76, SD = 4.00 vs. M non self-harmers = 24.42, SD = 6.23).
showed that self-harm was predicted by mindfulness (B = .47,
Age was controlled in subsequent mediation analyses. As in the
SE = .21, p < .05) and self-control (B = .74, SE = .31, p < .01).
developmental study of the AQ, sex differences occurred in physi-
Self-control mediated the relationship between mindfulness and
cal aggression (p < .001, CI = .22 to .67; M males = 2.61, SD = .62 vs.
self-harm (B = .30, SE = .13, 95% CI [.57, .05]), and the model
M females = 2.47, SD = .67), followed by verbal aggression (p < .05,
explained between 4.40% (Cox & Snell R2) and 6.96% (Nagelkerke
CI = .02 to .48; M males = 3.03, SD = .87 vs. M females = 2.78,
R2) of the variance in self-harm status. When accounting for self-
SD = .80). Sex was also controlled for these two subscales.
control, the direct effect of mindfulness was no longer significant
(B = .20, SE = .24, p = .42). The mediation pattern was consistent
when age was included as covariate, and older participants
reported less self-harming behaviours (B = .08, SE = .04, p < .05).
Overall, the mediation analyses revealed that Hypothesis 3 was
largely supported in that self-control mediated the relationship be-
tween mindfulness and trait aggression, physical aggression, anger,
hostility, and self-harm. No mediational model could be proposed
for verbal aggression. After accounting for the potential influence
of self-control, the direct effect of mindfulness on total aggression,
anger, and hostility remained significant, but not on physical
aggression and self-harm.

4. Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the

Fig. 1. Simple mediation model. The causal effect of X on Y (c) is apportioned dynamics of self-reported mindfulness and self-control towards
through its indirect effect on Y through M (ab) and its direct effect on Y (c0 ).
X = predictor (mindfulness), Y = outcome (aggression variables or self-harm),
aggression and self-harm. A positive association was found
M = proposed mediator (self-control). a, b, c, c’ = unstandardised regression between mindfulness and self-control, and both variables were
coefficient. related to lower propensities to aggress and self-harmed. Bootstrap
 C. Yusainy, C. Lawrence / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 78–83 81

Table 1
Zero order correlations and psychometric properties of measures.

Measures Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
MAAS (1) 1.00
SCS (2) [.39, .61]*** 1.00
Total AQ (3) [.48, .23]*** [.45, .24]*** 1.00
AQ Physical (4) [.35, .05]** [.35, .12]*** [.73, .83]*** 1.00
AQ Verbal (5) [.26, .01]* [.27, .02]* [.70, .81]*** [.34, .54]*** 1.00
AQ Anger (6) [.44, .21]*** [.39, .16]*** [.79, .87]*** [.46, .66]*** [.42, .61]*** 1.00
AQ Hostility (7) [.55, .37]** [.53, .33]*** [.72, .82]** [.33, .56]*** [.33, .53]*** [.45, .65]*** 1.00
M (SD) 3.84 (.78) 3.02 (.62) 2.53 (.65) 2.20 (.85) 2.88 (.83) 2.46 (.80) 2.60 (.84)

Note: MAAS = Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; SCS = Self-Control Scale; AQ = Aggression Questionnaire.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

Table 2
Differences in measures as a function of self-harm status.

Measures Self-harmers M (SD) Non self-harmers M (SD) Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI

MAAS 3.62 (.89) 3.91 (.73) [.01, .56*]
SCS 2.77 (.54) 3.09 (.62) [.14, .50***]
Total AQ 2.76 (.67) 2.46 (.64) [.51, .10**]
AQ Physical 2.58 (.95) 2.09 (.80) [.79, .20**]
AQ Verbal 3.05 (.78) 2.83 (.84) [.47, .03]
AQ Anger 2.70 (.84) 2.38 (.78) [.58, .05*]
AQ Hostility 2.72 (.93) 2.55 (.80) [.46, .11]

Note: MAAS = Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; SCS = Self-Control Scale; AQ = Aggression Questionnaire.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

analyses supported the mediating role of self-control on the asso- verbally lower outwardly directed aggression (Tangney et al.,
ciation between mindfulness and aggression and self-harm. These 2004). The detrimental effect of experimentally lowering self-con-
findings suggest that people who are naturally predisposed to trol ability on verbal aggression also occurred when participants
monitor the ‘‘in-the-moment’’ experience could be less harmful had been insulted (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot,
towards themselves and others due partly to their high capacity 2007). Thus, a stronger association between self-control and verbal
in self-control. aggression may plausibly be obtained following aggression-pro-
Examination on the four aggression subscales revealed that the voking events. Behavioural verbal aggression tasks (e.g., essay
pattern of mediation was consistent with self-control mediating feedback) could help clarify this issue.
the link between mindfulness and physical aggression, anger, and The differences between self-harmers and non-harmers were
hostility, but not verbal aggression. It could be that verbal aggres- also lacking in verbal aggression, and in hostility, although self-
sion is more related to other mechanisms, such as rumination harmers were higher in trait aggression, physical aggression, and
(Borders et al., 2010). Possibly because verbal aggression may be anger. The lack of correlation between self-harm and verbal
considered as mild acts of aggression than physical aggression, aggression could have simply mirrored the conceptualisation of
refraining from these acts might not particularly tap self-control. self-harm that involves behaviours that are physically but not
Even so, in the development sample it was shown that once verbally harmful to the self. On the other hand, as Buss and Perry
angered, self-controlled individuals reported both physically and (1992) noted, a cognitive residual of hostility may be caused by

Table 3
Mediation models with bootstrap method, using mindfulness as predictor, self-control as mediator, aggression subscales as outcomes.

Model tested AQ Physical AQ Verbal AQ Anger AQ Hostility

B SE B SE B SE B SE
MAAS to AQ .22*** .07 .14* .07 .34*** .06 .51*** .06
MAAS to SCS .40*** .04 .40*** .04 .40*** .04 .40*** .04
SCS to AQ .26** .10 .15 .10 .20* .09 .36*** .09
MAAS to AQ, via SCS .12 .08 .08 .08 .26*** .07 .36*** .07
Indirect path .10 a .04 .05 .06 .08 a .04 .14 a .03
Bias-corrected bootstrap 95% CI [.18, .03] [.15, .03] [.16, .01] [.22, .09]

Note: B = unstandardised regression coefficient; SE = standard error.

MAAS = Mindful Attention Awareness Scale; SCS = Self-Control Scale; AQ = Aggression Questionnaire.
a
Zero is not included in the 95% confidence interval, indicating that the indirect path is significantly different from zero.
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.
82 C. Yusainy, C. Lawrence / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 78–83

dissipation of anger over time. Although speculative, the expres- Borders, A., Earleywine, M., & Jajodia, A. (2010). Could mindfulness decrease anger,
hostility, and aggression by decreasing rumination? Aggressive Behavior, 36(1),
sion of anger into self-harmful behaviours might have limited the
28–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20327.
accumulation of hostile thoughts towards others. Bowlin, S. L., & Baer, R. A. (2012). Relationships between mindfulness, self-control,
With the inclusion of self-control, the direct effect of mindful- and psychological functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3),
ness on trait aggression, anger, and hostility, but not on physical 411–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.050.
Brittlebank, A. D., Cole, A., Hassanyeh, F., Kenny, M., Simpson, D., & Scott, J. (1990).
aggression and self-harm, remained significant. Thus, self-control Hostility, hopelessness and deliberate self-harm: A prospective follow-up
appears to be a salient variable through which mindfulness may study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 81(3), 280–283. http://dx.doi.org/
predict physical aggression and self-harm. Perhaps due to their 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1990.tb06497.x.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and
physical nature, these behaviours can be seen overtly as threating its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
one’s desirable goals or standards. The remaining significant asso- 84(4), 822–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822.
ciation between mindfulness and the covert components of aggres- Brown, K. W., Ryan, R. M., & Creswell, J. D. (2007). Mindfulness: Theoretical
foundations and evidence for its salutary effects. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4),
sion (i.e., anger and hostility) in particular should be explored 211–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10478400701598298.
through other conceivable mechanisms such as the mindfulness Brown, M. Z., Comtois, K. A., & Linehan, M. M. (2002). Reasons for suicide attempts
acceptance of internal experiences, nonattachment, and insight and nonsuicidal self-injury in women with borderline personality disorder.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(1), 198–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
into psychological states (Bowlin & Baer, 2012; Brown et al., 0021-843X.111.1.198.
2007; Hayes & Feldman, 2004). Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis,
Our results must be interpreted cautiously due to some limita- rumination, distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 724–731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
tions. Crucially, while the study hypotheses were derived from the
0146167202289002.
proposal that self-control is more likely to be acquired from the Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality
ability to be mindful (Baer, 2003; Brown et al., 2007), correlational and Social Psychology, 63(3), 452–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
data cannot completely rule out the opposite mechanism (see 3514.63.3.452.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework
Masicampo & Baumeister, 2007). Fully experimental studies of for personality-social, clinical and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin,
causal process are of particularly important. Second, because the 92(1), 111–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111.
study advertising materials already contained an internet link of Creswell, J. D., Way, B. M., Eisenberger, N. I., & Lieberman, M. D. (2007). Neural
correlates of dispositional mindfulness during affect labeling. Psychosomatic
the survey, information on what percentage of people responded Medicine, 69(6), 560–565. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0b013e3180f6171f.
to our request based on method of recruitment (i.e., from Facebook De Ridder, D. T., Lensvelt-Mulders, G., Finkenauer, C., Stok, F. M., & Baumeister, R. F.
vs. from a university) could not be obtained. We did, however, per- (2012). A meta-analysis of how trait self-control relates to a wide range of
behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(1), 76–99. http://
form covariate analyses to control for the influence of demograph- dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868311418749.
ics on the measures. Third, for comparability with previous DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence
findings in the literature of mindfulness and aggression (e.g., restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its depletion on aggression. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 43(1), 62–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
Borders et al., 2010; Heppner et al., 2008), a strict Bonferroni- j.jesp.2005.12.005.
corrected a on the aggression subscales was not employed. At this Gratz, K. L. (2001). Measurement of deliberate self-harm: Preliminary data on the
threshold, the mediation of self-control on the mindfulness and deliberate self-harm inventory. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral
Assessment, 23(4), 253–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012779403943.
anger link, and the differences between self-harmers and non self-
Gratz, K. L., & Chapman, A. L. (2007). The role of emotional responding and
harmers in anger did not reach significance. Fourth, information childhood maltreatment in the development and maintenance of deliberate
on participants’ self-harm was limited to the direct destruction of self-harm among male undergraduates. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 8(1),
body tissue in the absence of suicidal intent. For practical purposes, 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.8.1.1.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion
the distinction between suicidal and nonsuicidal self-harm may regulation and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial
not be necessary because the presence/absence of suicidal intent validation of the difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of
could be unclear even to the individuals who harm themselves Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41–54. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94.
(National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, 2012). Hayes, A. F. (2012). Process for SPSS and SAS [Macro]. Retrieved from <http://
Despite the limitations, this is the first study to show that self- www.afhayes.com/introduction-to-mediation-moderation-and-conditional-
reported mindfulness and self-control may predict individuals’ process-analysis.html>.
Hayes, A. M., & Feldman, G. (2004). Clarifying the construct of mindfulness in the
tendency to harm themselves in the same way as they may predict context of emotion regulation and the process of change in therapy. Clinical
harm to others. Therapeutic tools focusing on the mechanism for Psychology: Science and Practice, 11(3), 255–262.
controlling the expression of aggression could benefit from an Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Lakey, C. E., Campbell, W. K., Goldman, B. M., Davis, P.
J., et al. (2008). Mindfulness as a means of reducing aggressive behavior:
inclusion of mindfulness-based strategies and an early identifica- Dispositional and situational evidence. Aggressive behavior, 34(5), 486–496.
tion of individual’s risks for self-harm. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20258.
Hill, K., & Dallos, R. (2012). Young people’s stories of self-harm: A narrative study.
Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(3), 459–475. http://dx.doi.org/
Conflicts of interest
10.1177/1359104511423364.
Hillbrand, M. (2001). Homicide-suicide and other forms of co-occurring aggression
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. against self and against others. Professional psychology: Research and practice,
32(6), 626–635. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.6.626.
Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2007). Relating mindfulness and self-
References regulatory processes. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 255–258. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/10478400701598363.
Baer, R. A. (2003). Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and Moffitt, T., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R., Harrington, H. L., et al.
empirical review. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10(2), 125–143. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpg015. safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693–2698.
Barbui, C., Esposito, E., & Cipriani, A. (2009). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108.
and risk of suicide: A systematic review of observational studies. Canadian National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. (2012). Self-harm: Longer-term
Medical Association Journal, 180(3), 291–297. http://dx.doi.org/10.1503/ management (Clinical Guideline 133). Retrieved from <http://www.nice.org.uk/
cmaj.081514. nicemedia/live/13619/57205/57205.pdf>.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in Placidi, G. P., Oquendo, M. A., Malone, K. M., Huang, Y. Y., Ellis, S. P., & Mann, J. J.
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical (2001). Aggressivity, suicide attempts, and depression: Relationship to
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. cerebrospinal fluid monoamine metabolite levels. Biological Psychiatry, 50(10),
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173. 783–791. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(01)01170-2.
 C. Yusainy, C. Lawrence / Personality and Individual Differences 64 (2014) 78–83 83

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing Slee, N., Spinhoven, P., Garnefski, N., & Arensman, E. (2008). Emotion regulation as
mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder mediator of treatment outcome in therapy for deliberate self-harm. Clinical
(Eds.), The sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication Psychology Psychotherapy, 15(4), 205–216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpp.577.
research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tangney, J. P., Baumeister, R. F., & Boone, A. L. (2004). High self-control predicts
Sauer, S., Walach, H., Schmidt, S., Hinterberger, T., Lynch, S., Büssing, A., et al. (2013). good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success.
Assessment of mindfulness: Review on state of the art. Mindfulness, 4(1), 3–17. Journal of Personality, 72(2), 271–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0122-5. 3506.2004.00263.x.
Selby, E. A., Anestis, M. D., & Joiner, T. E. Jr., (2008). Understanding the relationship Teper, R., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Meditation, mindfulness, and executive control: The
between emotional and behavioral dysregulation: Emotional cascades. importance of emotional acceptance and brain-based performance monitoring.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(5), 593–611. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience, 8(1), 85–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
j.brat.2008.02.002. scan/nss045.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental Teper, R., Segal, Z., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Inside the mindful mind: How mindfulness
studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), enhances emotion regulation through improvements in executive control.
422–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 449–454. http://dx.doi.org/
Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., Karazsia, B. T., Winton, A. S. W., Myers, R. E., Singh, A. N. 10.1177/0963721413495869.
A., et al. (2012). Mindfulness-based treatment of aggression in individuals with Williams, J. M., Dugan, D. S., Crane, C., & Fennell, M. J. (2006). Mindfulness-based
mild intellectual disabilities: A waiting list control study. Mindfulness, 4(2), cognitive therapy for prevention of recurrence suicidal behaviour. Journal of Clinical
158–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12671-012-0180-8. Psychology in Session, 62(2), 201–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20223.