The Five Facets of Mindfulness | Study Summary, Baer 2006

Kayron Chip

Avid Mindfulness Researcher

Is mindfulness simply paying attention to the present moment, or is there more to it?

Why does mindfulness help some people with stress but not with clarity or vice versa?

A study in Assessment, titled “Using Self-Report Assessment Methods to Explore Facets of Mindfulness”, examined whether mindfulness is actually made up of multiple distinct skills. They also investigated how these skills relate to psychological well-being.

The researchers combined five widely used mindfulness questionnaires and analyzed data from over 600 students to identify the underlying structure of mindfulness. They posed two questions:

What are the core facets of mindfulness?
How do these skills relate to each other and to mental health measures?

The Study

They enrolled 613 undergraduate students (average age 20.5) who had little to no prior meditation experience. Participants completed a set of mindfulness questionnaires such as MAAS, KIMS, and CAMS. These measured various traits like present-moment awareness, emotional acceptance, and self-judgment. The researchers also collected data on each participant’s emotional intelligence, stress, personality, and other psychological traits.

Next, they applied factor analysis — a statistical method for spotting patterns — to see whether common themes (“facets”) emerged across all questionnaire items.

What They Found

Mindfulness isn’t one thing—it’s five.

The study revealed five distinct but interrelated facets of mindfulness. They are:

Observing – Noticing internal sensations, emotions, and thoughts. This facet was strongly linked to greater openness to experience and emotional intelligence, especially in individuals with some meditation experience.
Describing – Labeling experiences with words. Higher scores were associated with better emotional clarity and lower levels of alexithymia (difficulty identifying and describing emotions).
Acting with Awareness – Paying attention instead of running on autopilot. This was one of the strongest predictors of lower absent-mindedness, dissociation, and cognitive failures. It was also associated with fewer psychological symptoms overall.
Nonjudging of Inner Experience – Avoiding self-criticism or labeling feelings as good or bad. This facet correlated with lower anxiety and fewer suppressed thoughts. It was also associated with better emotion regulation and higher self-compassion.
Nonreactivity to Inner Experience – Allowing thoughts and feelings to come and go without being swept away. Think of ‘Nonreactivity’ as your mind’s shock-absorber for emotional potholes. It was linked to less avoidance of difficult feelings, lower anxiety, and greater mental flexibility.

Why This Matters

This study shows that mindfulness isn’t a single dial you turn up. It’s more like a mixing board with five sliders.

Depending on which facet you strengthen, you may boost focus, emotional resilience, self-compassion, or clarity of thought. Each of these traits has direct implications for your performance, decision-making, and interpersonal effectiveness at work.

It also matters for how we train mindfulness. Knowing which facet to target could lead to more tailored practice. For example, building “Acting with Awareness” in someone prone to distraction, or “Nonjudging” in someone struggling with anxiety.

If you’re tracking mindfulness to reduce stress or improve focus, be mindful of which facet you’re measuring. “Act with awareness” and “Nonjudging” map to everyday performance (less autopilot, less self-criticism).

A total score can blur these differences—facet scores show which skill to train.

Why This Happens

The authors suggest that mindfulness includes both attention (what we notice) and attitude (how we relate to what we notice).

Some facets like “Observing” emphasize the attention side, tuning in to sensations or thoughts. Others, like “Nonjudging,” emphasize the attitude side, meeting those sensations with kindness instead of criticism.

These skills don’t always develop together, which explains why different people—and practices—show different benefits.

The study didn’t include brain scans. Yet the idea still holds: training these facets over time might rewire how the brain processes experience. That’s neuroplasticity—our brain’s ability to adapt. Practicing nonjudgmental attention could boost emotional control and quiet mental chatter.

What It Means for You

Here are some concrete takeaways:

Struggling with distraction? Focus on building “Acting with Awareness” through single-tasking and noticing automatic behaviors.
Harsh self-critic? Try practices that nurture “Nonjudging,” like compassionate journaling or loving-kindness meditation.
Emotionally reactive? Strengthening “Nonreactivity” might help you pause before reacting.
Feel disconnected from your body or feelings? The “Observing” facet may help you reconnect with your internal state.
Want to communicate better? Cultivating the “Describing” facet can improve how you articulate thoughts and emotions.

Over time, many report becoming less reactive, more present, and kinder to themselves—because they trained the right facet.

Practitioner Tip: How Can You Try This?

Assess facets using the FFMQ (39 items; 5-point scale) to get five scores you can act on.
Pick one facet to train for 2–4 weeks:
- Act with awareness: single-tasking blocks; mindful cue before meetings.
- Nonjudging: brief “label without evaluating” notes during stress spikes.
- Nonreactivity: “notice-and-allow” for 60–90 seconds when triggered.
Re-measure every 2–3 weeks. Expect facets to change differently—that’s the point of facet tracking.
If you’re a regular meditator, monitor “Observing” too; it integrates better with overall mindfulness in experienced practitioners.

Technical Summary

Study: Two student samples (N=613; N=268) completed five mindfulness questionnaires and criterion measures; authors derived and tested a five-facet model (FFMQ).
Finding: Five facets emerged—Observe, Describe, Act with Awareness, Nonjudge, Nonreact. In CFA, a four-facet hierarchical model (Describe, Actaware, Nonjudge, Nonreact → general mindfulness) fit best in Sample 2; Observe did not load on the general factor for novices. Fit: CFI .97, NNFI .96, RMSEA .06. Among meditators, all five facets fit hierarchically (CFI .96, NNFI .95, RMSEA .06).
Why does it matter: Measuring mindfulness by facets (not a single score) gives cleaner links to symptoms and skills, and a scale (FFMQ) you can use to track specific capacities.

Mindfulness gets measured in many ways. This paper asked: is it one thing—or a set of skills? Using five existing scales, the authors mapped the structure of mindfulness and tested how these pieces fit together.

Across five mindfulness questionnaires (MAAS, FMI, KIMS, CAMS, MQ), the authors pooled 112 items and ran an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) in Sample 1 (N=613). The scree plot supported five factors (33% variance): Observe, Describe, Act with Awareness, Nonjudge, Nonreact.

They then created the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ; 39 items) and tested models via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Sample 2 (N=268), using item parcels and ML estimation with CFI, NNFI and RMSEA as fit criteria.

Key result: a four-facet hierarchical model (Describe, Actaware, Nonjudge, Nonreact loading on a general factor) fit better than a five-facet hierarchical model for novices because Observe did not load significantly on the general factor.

Fit improved when Observe was excluded from the higher-order factor (CFI .97, NNFI .96, RMSEA .06). Among participants with meditation experience, a five-facet hierarchical model fit well (CFI .96, NNFI .95, RMSEA .06).

Facets showed modest intercorrelations (e.g., Nonjudge–Nonreact r=.34; Actaware–Nonjudge r=.34). Internal consistencies for the FFMQ facets were α=.75–.91. Existing scales were reliable (e.g., MAAS α=.86; KIMS α=.87) and intercorrelated (rs .31–.67).
Differential links by facet were observed with related constructs (e.g., absent-mindedness, experiential avoidance, self-compassion), supporting facet-level assessment; authors also examined incremental validity for predicting symptoms.

Methods Overview

Where/who: Undergraduate psychology students (Sample 1 N=613; Sample 2 N=268; mostly female and Caucasian).
What they did: Completed five mindfulness scales (MAAS, FMI, KIMS, CAMS, MQ) and subsets of criterion measures (e.g., BSI, NEO, TMMS, AAQ, DERS, CFQ).
Key steps:
1. EFA on pooled 112 items (principal axis, oblique rotation) → 5 factors.
2. Built FFMQ (39 items) from EFA markers.
3. CFA with item parcels (ML; CFI/NNFI/RMSEA).
4. Compared one-, five-, and hierarchical models, including meditator subgroup.

Study Design Snapshot

Item	Details
Design	Psychometric study with EFA (Sample 1) and CFA (Sample 2); model comparisons including hierarchical structures.
Participants	Sample 1: N=613 undergrads; Sample 2: N=268 undergrads; Sample 2: mean age 18.9; 77% female; 90% Caucasian.
Intervention / Exposure	Self-report questionnaires; meditation experience recorded (1–5 scale).
Comparator	Competing factor models (1-factor vs 5-factor vs hierarchical).
Outcome Measures	Factor structure (loadings, fit indices), internal consistency, inter/facet correlations; links to criterion measures.
Follow-up Length	Not applicable (single session).
Statistical Analysis	EFA: principal axis, oblique rotation; CFA: ML with parcels; indices: CFI, NNFI, RMSEA; χ² comparisons; α for reliability.

Key Findings

Mindfulness is multifaceted: Five interpretable facets from EFA (33% var.).
Hierarchical structure: In novices, four facets (Describe, Actaware, Nonjudge, Nonreact) load on a general factor; Observe did not. Fit improved when Observe was excluded from the higher-order factor.
Meditation matters: In meditators (N=190), a five-facet hierarchical model fit well.
Reliability: FFMQ facets showed α=.75–.91; existing scales also reliable (e.g., MAAS α=.86).
Facet interrelations are modest: e.g., Nonjudge–Nonreact r=.34; Actaware–Nonjudge r=.34.
Existing scales converge: Inter-questionnaire rs .31–.67 (all p<.01).
Numeric highlights (CFA fits):
- One-factor model (Sample 2): CFI .43, NNFI .34, RMSEA .21 (p<.001) → poor.
- Five-factor (correlated) model: CFI .96, NNFI .95, RMSEA .06.
- Hierarchical four-facet model: CFI .97, NNFI .96, RMSEA .06; no loss vs nonhierarchical.
- Meditator sample hierarchical five-facet: CFI .96, NNFI .95, RMSEA .06.

Limitations Stated by Authors

Samples were undergraduates (mostly female, Caucasian). Generalizability is limited.
The study relies on self-report questionnaires.
Factor structure may vary by meditation experience (Observe behaves differently).
Item parceling was used in CFA; authors note when parceling is appropriate and its risks if unidimensionality isn’t met (they checked this).

My Notes

Facet alphas are strong, and adjusted R² overlap among facets was only .12–.23, implying substantial unique variance (systematic variance .56–.75 per facet).
Student samples and one-session surveys limit ecological validity.
Results emphasize structure more than outcomes; exact regression coefficients for symptom prediction were not reported in the visible sections (authors state incremental validity was examined).
Conclusive takeaway: Mindfulness is best assessed as five facets; for general (non-meditator) populations, four facets—Describe, Act with Awareness, Nonjudging, Nonreactivity—form a coherent general mindfulness factor.

Glossary

Observe: Noticing sensations, thoughts, and feelings.
Describe: Labeling internal experiences in words.
Act with Awareness (Actaware): Attending to current activity vs. autopilot.
Nonjudging: Refraining from evaluating one’s thoughts/feelings as good/bad.
Nonreactivity: Letting thoughts/feelings arise and pass without impulsive response.
EFA/CFA: Exploratory vs. confirmatory factor analyses; CFA fit judged via CFI/NNFI (> .90 good) and RMSEA (.05 close; .08 fair).

Paper Quality (🟡 Moderate)

Strong psychometric mapping in large student samples; limited by self-report and narrow demographics.

Criterion	Rating	Notes
Randomisation & blinding	⚪ Not reported	Psychometric/observational design.
Sample size & power	🟡 Moderate	N=613 (EFA) and N=268 (CFA); meditator subgroup N=190.
Attrition / adherence	⚪ Not reported	One-session surveys.
Conflicts of interest	⚪ Not reported	Not stated.

The Five Facets of Mindfulness - Insights from a Foundational Study