People engage in various activities to improve their well-being. One person may go for a morning run, another may prefer to spend their afternoons baking. Others may instead choose to meditate. Meditation refers to a wide range of training techniques intended to change conscious states, such as observing the breath, and being mindful of passing thoughts (Matko et al., 2021). These practices stem from a variety of religious and spiritual traditions (e.g., Kabat-Zinn, 2011; Komjathy, 2020; Shear, 2006), and are becoming increasingly popular in Western secular society (Van Dam et al., 2018). Based on growing evidence for their positive role in the reduction of stress and promotion of well-being (Galante et al., 2023), meditation practices have been adopted by both clinicians and individuals seeking a personal practice (Cramer et al., 2016; Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Nevertheless, meditators still account for a minority of the general population, with only around 15–20% of people in the US and Australia reporting having meditated in the past 12 months (Clarke et al., 2018; Davies et al., 2024; Steel et al., 2018). This raises the question: What kinds of people are more likely to have ever tried meditation?
To date, research examining predictors of meditation practice has primarily focussed on demographic characteristics. This research broadly suggests that Westerners who engage in meditation are likely to be aged 40–64, female, more educated, or experiencing a chronic health condition (Clarke et al., 2018; Cramer et al., 2016; Olano et al., 2015; Steel et al., 2018). Other studies have focussed on psychological factors predicting meditation practice, such as expectancies of meditation practice, suggesting that more positive attitudes and fewer perceived barriers to practice predict engagement in, and adherence to meditation (e.g., Burke et al., 2017; Cramer et al., 2016; Lam et al., 2022). This is not surprising, given that such positive expectancies predict participation in other well-being activities such as exercise (Chevance et al., 2019; Thomas et al., 2019) and yoga (Cagas et al., 2020). Indeed, these findings are also broadly in line with the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which posits that an individual’s behaviour can be predicted by their intentions to engage in that behaviour (Ajzen, 1985). Overall, this emerging literature suggests that a person’s demographic characteristics and their expectancies surrounding meditation may predict whether they choose to meditate.
Personality may be another important predictor of someone’s choice to meditate. Evidence has accumulated for the idea that individuals seek out situations and activities that are congruent with their personality, a phenomenon known as situation selection (Furr & Funder, 2018; Ickes et al., 1997). For example, conscientiousness predicts engagement in healthy behaviours such as exercise and avoidance of unhealthy behaviours such as smoking (Bogg & Roberts, 2004). Conversely, extraversion, predicts more frequent engagement in social activities (Argyle & Lu, 1990; Lucas et al., 2008). These situation selection effects may help to explain why personality traits predict important life outcomes such as achievement, well-being, and life expectancy (Anglim et al., 2020; Friedman et al., 2010; Matz & Harari, 2021; Roberts et al., 2007). For instance, the association conscientiousness has with health promoting behaviours may explain its associations with longevity (e.g., Bogg & Roberts, 2004; Takahashi et al., 2013), whereas the sociability of extraverts may explain their generally higher levels of wellbeing (e.g., Harris et al., 2017; Smillie et al., 2015). Similarly, it seems likely that an individual’s personality may predict the likelihood that they would seek out meditation, and that any personality predictors of one’s propensity to meditate could have important implications for one’s life outcomes. Given evidence linking meditation to improved well-being and mental health (Galante et al., 2023) personality predictors of meditation could help explain some of the variance that personality shares with these positive life outcomes (Anglim et al., 2020; Kotov et al., 2010).
The possibility that certain kinds of individuals are more likely to try meditation might also have important implications for both practice and research in the field. Firstly, such knowledge could assist in the development of personalised meditation-based interventions, and tailoring recommendations for meditation programs to certain people. For example, meditation apps could use personalised recommendations for techniques and programs based on the user’s personality (e.g., see Artega et al., 2012 for implementation into a health promotion app). Facilitators of meditation programs could also benefit from knowing which broad kinds of people are more likely to try meditation in order to tailor their teaching to different groups of people, and knowing who is more likely to experience barriers towards meditation could assist in helping their students overcome these barriers.
Additionally, if certain personality traits predict self-selection into meditation research, this may influence the representativeness and generalisability of such studies. This is an important concern for research into the benefits of meditation given that those drawn to meditation may differ from the broader population (Steel et al., 2018). It is presently unclear as to what factors may predispose someone to start (and potentially continue) meditation; such factors may serve as potential confounds in studies examining potential benefits or effects of meditation, or seeking to observe differences between regular meditators and the general population (Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015).
In other fields, research has found that demographic variables such as gender identity (e.g., Demir et al., 2017), education, and income (e.g., Martinson et al., 2010), may predict selection into research studies. In contrast, selection effects of personality have received far less attention, with the exception of Pieters et al. (1992) and Witt et al. (2011), who both found that extraversion, thrill-seeking, and (lower) impulsivity predicted greater participation in research studies. Another notable example is Carnahan and McFarland (2007), who explored selection effects in the classic “Stanford Prison Experiment” (Haney et al., 1973). They compared personality profiles of participants who were recruited using the study’s original advertisement materials, which described the study as concerning "prison life", to those who were recruited with a modified advert omitting any mention of "prison life". They found significant differences between the two groups on various antisocial personality traits, suggesting that participant self-selection may plausibly have influenced the antisocial behaviour reported in the original study. Of course, the Stanford Prison Experiment has been widely discredited (Le Texier, 2019), and its findings may warrant scepticism, rather than explanation. Nevertheless, research focused on meditation might systematically attract participants with particular personality profiles. This would constrain the generalisability of findings from such studies, and potentially limit the success of interventions based on their findings.
Despite compelling reasons to investigate personality predictors of meditation, there has been little research on the topic to date. Some studies have examined adjacent topics, such as personality links to positive expectancies of meditation. For instance, Kim et al. (2022) found that conscientiousness was associated with more positive attitudes towards mindfulness practice. Meanwhile, initial research into the development of Determinants of Meditation Practice Inventory—a measure of perceived barriers to meditation practice—found that neuroticism was associated with higher scores on the scale (Williams et al., 2011). Subsequently, Hunt et al. (2020) reported that curiosity—a facet of openness—was associated with lower perceived barriers towards meditation practice. Unfortunately, neither study measured other personality traits. Conversely, one study assessing all of the Big Five traits found that neuroticism (alongside prior meditation practice) predicted barriers to meditation practice (Whitford & Warren, 2019). However, the small sample size for this study (n = 93) limits the confidence we can have in its findings. As noted earlier, positive expectancies of meditation practice may predict engagement in meditation. Given these links between personality and expectancies towards meditation, it is plausible that personality traits may also predict actual engagement in meditation.
The dearth of research in this area makes it difficult to confidently predict which personality traits might be associated with any of the above behaviours and cognitions surrounding meditation. The Big Five framework has been widely used to study personality predictors of behaviour, including engagement in wellbeing-promoting activities (Kuper et al., 2023) and within the context of situation selection (e.g., Roberts et al., 2007). Given its utility as an organising framework of personality, as well as the availability of well-validated measures (John et al., 2008), this framework can provide a useful starting point when considering what personality traits predict meditation. One Big Five trait that seems particularly likely to influence engagement with meditation practice is openness, which describes the tendency to be creative, curious, open-minded and unconventional (DeYoung et al., 2012). Given evidence that open people are more likely to try out various new activities (e.g., Schwaba et al., 2018), we might also expect them to be more likely to try out meditation. Indeed, openness was found to predict increased use of alternative therapies, including meditation (Thomson et al., 2014), as well as the use of meditation techniques post intervention (Barkan et al., 2016). In addition, openness has close conceptual links with trait mindfulness, as both traits are thought to capture the tendency to be attentive, open-minded, and curious about one’s experience (Giluk, 2009; Hanley & Garland, 2017). Whilst this link does not indicate that openness will necessarily predict actual meditation practice, it is possible that meditation is an activity to which open people are dispositionally suited, particularly for meditation techniques that promote state mindfulness. Indeed, some research has found that openness moderates the effect of mindfulness meditation interventions (Krick & Felfe, 2020), though this finding is yet to be replicated consistently (Matko et al., 2022).
Another trait that seems a likely candidate for predicting meditation practice is curiosity– a narrower facet of openness capturing one’s tendency to seek and explore information (Ryakhovskaya et al., 2022; Silvia & Christensen, 2020). Recent psychometric research has consistently found curiosity to emerge as a distinct lower-order facet of the broader openness domain (e.g., Christensen et al., 2019; Woo et al., 2014). Given its relevance to exploration, curiosity may drive any relation between openness and engagement in novel experiences, such as trying out meditation. Like openness, curiosity also has some conceptual overlap with mindfulness (Tan et al., 2021). Specifically, curiosity about one’s experience is often presented as something one should strive to cultivate during mindfulness meditation (Kabat-Zinn, 2003), and a curiosity factor is often identified within trait mindfulness questionnaires (e.g., Toronto Mindfulness Scale; Davis et al., 2009). Curiosity has also been found to moderate the effect of mindfulness meditation (Ivtzan et al., 2011). This indirect evidence broadly suggests that curiosity may be congruent with meditation. Additionally, Hunt et al. (2020) found that participants higher on curiosity rated meditation as being of a greater potential benefit, and perceived fewer barriers to practice. To our knowledge, no other studies have examined curiosity in relation to meditation practice or any associated variables.
Beyond openness and curiosity, theory and research may link other personality traits with meditation practice and associated variables. As mentioned earlier, conscientiousness and (lower) neuroticism have been previously associated with expectancies of meditation practice (e.g., Kim et al., 2022; Williams et al., 2011). However, findings from studies examining associations of these traits with actual practice have been inconsistent. For example, van den Hurk et al. (2011) found that meditation practice was positively associated with openness and extraversion, and negatively associated with neuroticism and conscientiousness. Additionally, Barrett et al. (2019) found that participants higher on openness and lower in neuroticism were more likely to adhere to an exercise and mindfulness meditation practice intervention. Conversely, Canby et al. (2021) found that conscientiousness, alongside openness, predicted adherence to a meditation intervention (see also Barkan et al., 2016 and Forbes et al., 2018 for similar results). Meanwhile, Bailey et al. (2019) found a significant association between agreeableness and amount of meditation practiced during an intervention, whereas associations between meditation practice and other personality traits were not significant. It is worth noting that while these studies have all utilised mindfulness meditation, they examined somewhat different programs, which could have resulted in discrepancies between findings.
To summarise the gap in the literature: Scant research has examined which personality traits might predispose individuals to seek out and engage in meditation, which is important to investigate given that personality predicts life outcomes related to well-being—exactly the outcomes that may be boosted through activities such as meditation. Accordingly, our primary aim in this research was to fill this gap in the literature by examining which personality traits are associated with having tried meditation. There has also been minimal research examining links between personality traits and expectancies surrounding meditation practice—in particular, perceived benefits of and barriers to meditation practice that can facilitate, or discourage someone’s choice to meditate. Thus, a second aim of this study was to build upon this prior work and extend it by examining how both personality traits and expectancies surrounding meditation are linked with prior meditation experience. Given that both openness and curiosity could plausibly be associated with meditation practice, as well as positive expectancies towards meditation, we expected that these traits would also predict other behavioural consequences relating to an interest in meditation. To provide a behavioural indicator of interest in meditation, we also explored whether personality traits predict willingness to pay a cost for information about meditation and related topics. Given that curiosity describes the tendency to seek information in general, we expected this trait to be the most predictive of seeking information about meditation. Finally, we also examined whether personality traits predict self-selection into research described as having a focus on meditation—a potential implication of links between personality and interest in meditation—by comparing personality profiles of participants recruited using advertising materials that mention meditation to those recruited using advertising materials that do not. For example, if more open and curious people are particularly likely to seek out meditation, they might also be more likely to participate in studies relating to meditation, introducing selection effects that could constrain the generalisability of meditation studies.
Study 1
Based on the arguments presented earlier, we pre-registered the following hypotheses for Study 1:
(1)
Participants higher on openness will be more likely to report: (H1a) past experience with meditation practice, (H1b) more positive attitudes toward meditation practice, and (H1c) less perceived barriers to meditation practice.
(2)
Participants higher on curiosity will be more likely to report: (H2a) past experience with meditation practice, (H2b) more positive attitudes toward meditation practice, and (H2c) less perceived barriers to meditation practice.
(3)
Participants higher on curiosity will be more willing to incur a cost to receive information about (H3a) meditation and (H3b) well-being promoting activities.
(4)
Participants who self-select into our study when advertised using words relating to "meditation" will have (H4a) significantly higher scores on openness and (H4b) significantly higher scores on curiosity, compared to those who self-select into the study advertised without using words relating to "meditation".
The pre-registration can be accessed here: (https://osf.io/y32tk). Although our pre-registered hypotheses focus only on openness and curiosity, we also explored associations involving the other Big Five traits. In doing so, we may help clarify prior research implicating traits such as neuroticism and conscientiousness in the variables under investigation, and inform our predictions for Study 2.
Method
Participants and Procedure
We sought a final sample of at least 350 participants after exclusions (see below), with at least 175 participants in each group. This target sample size satisfies requirements for a range of analyses, should facilitate stable estimates of correlations (Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013), and provides adequate power to detect medium effect sizes (i.e., r = 0.20; Gignac & Szodorai, 2016). Of 400 Prolific users who signed up to take part, 377 were retained for the final sample, and were aged between 18 – 77 (M = 38.24; SD = 12.94; 144 Male, 227 Female, 4 Non-binary, 2 undisclosed).
The twenty-three participant exclusions were based on a series of data quality checks drawn partly from Wood et al. (2017). Specifically, six participants were excluded for “straight-lining” (i.e., providing identical responses to items); three participants were excluded for failing a robot attention check; three participants were excluded on the basis of implausibly fast responses (i.e., < 1 s per item, averaged across five blocks of 20 Big Five Aspect Scale items); two participants were excluded for disclosing that their data was of low quality, as assessed via a seven item self-reported data quality scale (e.g., “I answered items on this survey without reading them”); and one participant was excluded for not answering roughly half of the survey. In addition, eight participants were excluded for demonstrating no lay knowledge of meditation. Of these, one was excluded for selecting at least six or more foil answers out of a total of 10, spread across three questions concerning types of meditation techniques and apps participants may have heard about. The remaining seven were excluded for providing highly inaccurate answers, or no answer at all, when asked to explain what meditation is (open-ended text box response).
Participants selected into the study after viewing the study advertisement on the Prolific platform. We used two versions of the study advertisement: Version A described the study as having a focus on meditation and included a small paragraph describing this focus on meditation, whereas Version B omitted this wording (Supplement A). These advertisements allowed us to investigate selection effects according to a similar procedure implemented by Carnahan and McFarland (2007), although their manipulation was more subtle (i.e., their advertisements differed by a single phrase). Whereas 186 participants (M = 39.77 years, SD = 13.63; 66% female) completed the survey after being recruited using Advertisement A, 189 participants (M = 36.74 years; SD = 12.07; 55% female) completed the survey after being recruited using Advertisement B. Apart from the differing study advertisements, all other study aspects were identical for the two groups, and therefore the combined sample was used for all analyses except those focused on selection effects. After agreeing to proceed with the study, all participants were directed to a Qualtrics survey comprising of questionnaires (described below). Participants were paid £7.5 per hr, with an additional £0.25 bonus for passing a simple attention check, which asked participants to select “no” to a question asking if they were a robot.
Materials
Openness
Was measured using the Openness/Intellect scale from Big Five Aspects Scale (BFAS; DeYoung et al., 2007). This comprised 20 items assessing the Intellect (10 items; e.g., “Am quick to understand things”) and Openness (10 items; e.g., “Love to reflect on things”) aspects of the broader openness domain. Unless we explicitly refer to the Openness subscale of the BFAS, throughout the manuscript we use the word ‘openness’ to refer to the broader Big Five domain. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Other measures of openness included in this study (but primarily for a separate research project) were the Open-Mindedness scale from the Big Five Inventory 2 Short Form (BFI-2-SF; Soto & John, 2017), all six facet scales from the Openness to Experience Inventory (OEI; Woo et al., 2014), the Intellect scale of the Big Five Markers (Goldberg, 1992), and the Intellect scale of Fleeson (2001)'s adjective based measure of the Big Five. Further details, and results based on these measures, are reported in supplementary materials.
Curiosity
Was measured using Interest subscale of the I/D Epistemic Curiosity Scales (e.g., “Enjoy exploring new ideas”; Litman, 2008), and the analogous Joyous Exploration subscale from the Five-Dimensional Curiosity Scale (e.g., “I view challenging situations as an opportunity to grow and learn”; Kashdan et al., 2018). Because 2 items from the former scale were included on the latter scale, we did not administer these overlapping items twice. This yielded 8 items that we combined into a single measure (as per Ryakhovskaya et al., 2022). Participants responded to each item using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree).
Meditation Experience
Was measured using a single question, “Have you meditated before?”, with binary (yes/no) response options. This dichotomous item format has been previously used in studies looking at predictors of alternative medicine use (Steel et al., 2018; Thomson et al., 2014). If answering yes, participants were then prompted to describe what they did during their practice, allowing us to check their understanding of what meditation entails. Two participants had their response recoded to no, because of vague or incoherent answers to this question. Other questions probing meditation practice, meditation history and meditation app use were used for exploratory purposes (see Supplement B for full details of these items).
Positive Attitudes to Meditation
A measure devised by Hunt et al. (2020) was used to assess attitudes towards meditation practice (e.g., “To what extent do you think meditating would help you?”). The 5 items were responded to using a 7-point Likert response scale (e.g., 1 = Not at all, 7 = a great deal). A composite score was calculated using a mean of the items. High scores indicate a positive attitude towards meditation (last item reversed scored). As per Hunt et al. (2020), analyses were also conducted using the five individual items as well and are reported in supplementary materials.
Meditation-Related Barriers
Were measured using the Determinants of Meditation Practice Inventory Revised (DMPI; Hunt et al., 2020). This questionnaire uses 12 items assess different perceived barriers to meditation to which participants respond using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree). High scores indicate higher perceived barriers to practicing meditation, with each of the following subscales of the measure representing different types of barriers (Perceived Pragmatic Barriers, “There is no quiet place where I can meditate.”; Perceived Inadequate Knowledge, “I don’t know much about meditation.”; Low Perceived Benefit, “It is a waste of time to sit and do nothing.”; and Perceived Sociocultural Conflict, “I’m concerned meditation will conflict with my religion.”).
Information Seeking
Was measured using 2 items asking whether the participant was interested in receiving information packs about meditation (i.e., meditation related information seeking), and well-being activities (i.e., well-being activities information seeking). Participants answered using binary (yes/no) responses options for each item and were informed that selecting yes would deduct 10p from their incentive, though money was not actually deducted. Participants were also invited to provide their Prolific email address (with an assurance of confidentiality) to make the possibility of a financial cost more believable.
Other variables included for exploratory purposes comprised: trait Mindfulness (as measured by the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire—Short Form; Bohlmeijer et al., 2011), engagement in well-being promoting leisure activities (i.e., "well-being activities", measured by a single item asking participants to rate how often they engaged in different activities with the goal of improving their mood and/or well-being in the past month), and the remaining Big Five traits (measured using the BFAS; DeYoung et al., 2007, and the BFI-2-SF; Soto & John, 2017).
Data Analyses
Main analyses (i.e., correlations, logistic and linear regressions) were conducted in R version 4.3.0 using the psych package (Revelle, 2019), and in JASP version 0.14.1. BFAS and curiosity items were factor analysed separately using the minimum residual method to derive factor scores. Analyses using mean-level scores are reported in the supplementary materials for comparison. Positive Attitudes to Meditation items were also averaged to obtain a mean-level score because the small number of items precluded a factor analysis. Occasional missing data was excluded listwise in each analysis.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for each of the continuous key variables are presented in Table 1 for the entire sample. It is worth noting the relatively poor reliability coefficients for the Perceived Sociocultural Conflict subscale of the DMPI. Other descriptive statistics concerning meditation practice history of those who tried some form of meditation (including regularity, lifetime length of practice, app use and use of meditation techniques) are reported in Supplement C.
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations and Reliability Coefficients for Personality Traits, Positive Attitudes to Meditation, and Meditation-related Barriers
Variable | All | ωt | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SD | ||
Openness | 364 | 3.72 | 0.56 | 0.90 |
Conscientiousness | 372 | 3.42 | 0.57 | 0.89 |
Neuroticism | 370 | 2.96 | 0.84 | 0.95 |
Agreeableness | 367 | 4.01 | 0.53 | 0.90 |
Extraversion | 367 | 3.18 | 0.69 | 0.93 |
Curiosity | 373 | 3.83 | 0.69 | 0.91 |
Positive Attitudes | 374 | 4.38 | 1.57 | 0.77 |
Meditation-related Barriers | 373 | 2.37 | 0.63 | 0.87 |
Perceived Pragmatic Barriers | 374 | 2.31 | 1.13 | 0.87 |
Perceived Inadequate Knowledge | 377 | 3.19 | 1.14 | 0.77 |
Low Perceived Benefit | 376 | 2.71 | 1.01 | 0.83 |
Perceived Sociocultural Conflict | 377 | 1.41 | 0.61 | 0.67 |
Main Analyses
Which Personality Traits Predict Having Ever Meditated?
Logistic regression models were constructed to examine whether having ever meditated was predicted by openness (H1a) or curiosity (H2a). Supporting the first hypothesis, openness was found to be a significant predictor of being in the ever-meditated group, χ2(343) = 10.11, p = 0.001. For each one-unit increase in openness, the odds of having tried meditation increased by 1.44, 95% CI [1.15, 1.81]. Conversely, curiosity was not found to be a significant predictor of having tried meditation, χ2(370) = 1.10, p = 0.295. In an exploratory analysis, a multiple logistic regression model was constructed regressing the meditation experience variable onto all of the Big Five traits (Table 2). Providing support for the robustness of openness as a unique predictor, openness, agreeableness and neuroticism were all significant predictors of being in the ever-meditated group. The OR for all three predictors was around 1.5, which is equivalent to a Pearson’s correlation of r ~ 0.10, indicating a small effect. A supplementary analysis with meditation experience recoded as an ordinal variable yielded the same pattern of results (Supplement D).
Table 2
Multiple Logistic Regression Model Predicting Having Tried Meditation from the Big Five Personality Traits
Meditation Experience ~ Personality | df | χ2 | p | OR | 95% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Openness | 343 | 10.11 | 0.001 | 1.37 | 1.08, 1.75 |
Conscientiousness | 342 | 0.33 | 0.560 | 0.97 | 0.77, 1.24 |
Neuroticism | 341 | 5.49 | 0.019 | 1.36 | 1.07, 1.76 |
Agreeableness | 340 | 12.08 | 0.001 | 1.51 | 1.20, 1.92 |
Extraversion | 339 | 0.24 | 0.623 | 0.94 | 0.75, 1.19 |
Which Personality Traits Predict Positive Attitudes Towards Meditation Practice?
Pearson’s product-moment correlations were calculated to examine attitudes toward meditation practice in relation to openness (H1b) and curiosity (H2b). As shown in Table 3, curiosity and openness were associated with more positive attitudes towards meditation, supporting hypotheses 1b and 2b. These associations held for individual attitude items as well, with positive associations between curiosity, openness, and the first four positive attitude items (see Supplement E). In addition, agreeableness also shared a positive association with positive attitudes to meditation practice. Next, a multiple linear regression model was constructed to examine which personality traits were associated with positive attitudes towards meditation practice when controlling for having meditation experience (Table 4). This revealed having meditation experience as the strongest predictor (β = 0.44, p < 0.001), whereas agreeableness and openness were comparatively weaker predictors (β = 0.16, p < 0.001 and β = 0.14, p = 0.004, respectively); all other predictors were non-significant. As a robustness check, we repeated the linear regression model with meditation experience recoded as an ordinal variable. We found similar results with the exception of openness, which was a non-significant predictor in this model (Supplement F).
Table 3
Pearson Product-moment Correlations Between Personality Traits and Expectancies of Meditation Practice
Positive Attitudes | Meditation-related Barriers | Perceived Pragmatic Barriers | Perceived Inadequate Knowledge | Low Perceived Benefit | Perceived Sociocultural Conflict | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Curiosity | 0.28*** | −0.24*** | −0.08 | −0.26*** | −0.20*** | −0.01 | |
Openness | 0.26*** | −0.36*** | −0.11* | −0.32*** | −0.33*** | −0.09 | |
Neuroticism | 0.01 | 0.13* | 0.18*** | 0.12* | 0.07 | 0.01 | |
Agreeableness | 0.29*** | −0.31*** | −0.03 | −0.14** | −0.36*** | 0.03 | |
Extraversion | 0.09 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.21*** | 0.05 | 0.17** | |
Conscientiousness | 0.06 | −0.05 | −0.03 | −0.06 | −0.03 | 0.00 | |
Table 4
Multiple Linear Regression Models Predicting Positive Attitudes and Barriers to Meditation Practice with the Big Five Personality Traits and Meditation Experience
Model | df | β | t | p | F | R2adj |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes ~ Personality | 336 | 28.88 | < 0.001 | 25.04 | 0.30 | |
Mediation Experience | 0.44 | 9.27 | < 0.001 | |||
Openness | 0.14 | 2.88 | 0.004 | |||
Conscientiousness | 0.04 | 0.92 | 0.357 | |||
Neuroticism | 0.01 | 0.16 | 0.875 | |||
Agreeableness | 0.16 | 3.27 | < 0.001 | |||
Extraversion | 0.06 | 1.28 | 0.203 | |||
Barriers ~ Personality | 335 | 7.66 | < 0.001 | 30.57 | 0.34 | |
Meditation Experience | −0.42 | −9.05 | < 0.001 | |||
Openness | −0.24 | −5.21 | < 0.001 | |||
Conscientiousness | −0.02 | −0.37 | 0.710 | |||
Neuroticism | 0.16 | 3.37 | < 0.001 | |||
Agreeableness | −0.16 | −3.38 | < 0.001 | |||
Extraversion | 0.04 | 0.94 | 0.349 |
Which Personality Traits Predict Perceived Barriers to Meditation Practice?
Pearson’s product-moment correlations were calculated to test hypotheses regarding perceived barriers to meditation practice in relation to openness (H1c), and curiosity (H2c). As shown in Table 4, openness and curiosity were negatively associated with meditation-related barriers, supporting both hypotheses. However, these correlations were not consistent across different types of barriers: Curiosity was not significantly associated with Perceived Pragmatic Barriers and Perceived Sociocultural Conflict, whereas openness was not significantly associated with Perceived Sociocultural Conflict. Regarding exploratory associations between different perceived barriers and the other Big Five traits, only agreeableness and neuroticism had significant correlations with the composite barriers score. Looking at subscale-level associations, the strongest correlations were between agreeableness and Low Perceived Benefit and openness and Low Perceived Benefit and Perceived Inadequate Knowledge. Extraversion had a significant positive correlation with Perceived Sociocultural Conflict, as well as a significant negative correlation with Perceived Inadequate Knowledge, which could have contributed to it not being a significant predictor in the regression model predicting overall barriers. Next, multiple linear regression was used to explore which personality traits are associated with perceived barriers when controlling for having tried meditation (Table 4). Prior meditation experience, openness, and agreeableness all significantly predicted lower perceived barriers to meditation, whereas neuroticism significantly predicted higher perceived barriers to meditation. Notably, openness and prior meditation experience had the strongest associations, predicting fewer perceived barriers to meditation (β = −0.22, p < 0.001 and β = −0.40, p < 0.001, respectively), whereas agreeableness had a much weaker association (β = −0.11, p = 0.019). Finally, we repeated this analysis using meditation experience as an ordinal covariate in predicting meditation-related barriers and found similar results (Supplement F).
Which Personality Traits Predict an Interest in Meditation?
Only 50 respondents (13.3% of the sample) selected “yes” to receiving information about meditation, and 55 respondents (14.6% of the sample) selected “yes” to receiving information about well-being activities. To examine whether curiosity predicted seeking information about these activities (H3a, H3b), two logistic regression models were constructed. Contrary to our hypothesis, the model predicting meditation related information seeking was not significant, χ2(370) = 1.32, p = 0.250. Similarly, the model predicting well-being activities related information seeking was not significant, χ2(370) = 2.37, p = 0.123. We thus explored whether any other personality traits predicted willingness to seek information about meditation and well-being activities (Table 5). No significant predictors emerged for meditation-related information, and agreeableness was the sole significant (albeit fairly weak) predictor of seeking information about well-being activities.
Table 5
Logistic Regression Models Predicting Information Seeking Using the Big Five Traits
Model | df | χ2 | p | OR | 95% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Meditation Related Information Seeking ~ Personality | 344 | < 0.001 | 0.14 | 0.10, 0.19 | |
Openness | 343 | 0.05 | 0.816 | 0.97 | 0.70, 1.36 |
Neuroticism | 342 | 0.70 | 0.402 | 0.87 | 0.62, 1.21 |
Agreeableness | 341 | 2.70 | 0.100 | 1.33 | 0.95, 1.92 |
Extraversion | 340 | 0.00 | 0.951 | 1.01 | 0.72, 1.41 |
Conscientiousness | 339 | 1.47 | 0.226 | 0.82 | 0.60, 1.13 |
Well-being Activities Related Information Seeking ~ Personality | 344 | < 0.001 | 0.15 | 0.11, 0.21 | |
Openness | 343 | 0.56 | 0.456 | 1.04 | 0.75, 1.44 |
Neuroticism | 332 | 0.08 | 0.780 | 1.09 | 0.79, 1.50 |
Agreeableness | 341 | 4.43 | 0.035 | 1.44 | 1.03, 2.07 |
Extraversion | 340 | 0.24 | 0.625 | 1.09 | 0.79, 1.51 |
Conscientiousness | 339 | 0.21 | 0.644 | 0.93 | 0.69, 1.27 |
Does Personality Predict Selection into a Study Focused on Meditation?
Finally, logistic regression models were used to examine whether participants who selected into the study advertised using Advertisement A (i.e., Group A; with wording relating to meditation) were higher in openness (H4a) and curiosity (H4b), compared to participants who selected into the study advertised using Advertisement B (i.e., Group B; with no wording relating to meditation). Contrary to our hypotheses, neither openness, χ2(342) = 0.03, p = 0.862, nor curiosity, χ2(370) = 0.04, p = 0.837, were significant predictors of selecting into study after viewing Advertisement A compared to Advertisement B. Logistic regression models exploring whether group membership was predicted by other variables such as meditation expectancies and demographics are reported in Supplement G. Finally, additional analyses were run to test the robustness of the results for all hypotheses using the additional measures of openness and curiosity (i.e., OEI, BFI-2-SF, Goldberg’s (1992) and Fleeson’s (2001) Adjective Markers), as well as mean-scored variables. The results were consistent with the main results in terms of effects, despite some differences in significance levels (see Supplements H and I).
Summary
Study 1 found that openness, but not curiosity, predicted having any meditation experience, supporting hypothesis H1a but not H2b. Additionally, both openness and curiosity predicted positive attitudes, supporting hypotheses H1b and H2b, and less perceived barriers to meditation practice, supporting hypotheses H1c and H2c. Hypotheses regarding meditation-related information seeking (H3a & H3b), and participant self-selection effects (H4a & H4b) were not supported. We further found that agreeableness predicted having tried meditation, alongside positive attitudes toward meditation and lower perceived barriers to meditation practice. Interestingly, neuroticism predicted having prior meditation experience, yet also higher perceived barriers to meditation practice.
Study 2
Study 2 was a direct replication of Study 1, seeking to confirm findings in a demographically different sample (university undergraduates). We pre-registered the same hypotheses as Study 1 (Hypotheses 1–4, stated above), plus three additional hypotheses informed by findings emerging from Study 1, which are as follows:
(5)
Participants higher on neuroticism will be more likely to report: (H5a) experience with meditation, and (H5b) more perceived barriers to meditation practice.
(6)
Participants higher on agreeableness will be more likely to report: (H6a) experience with meditation, (H6b) more positive attitudes toward meditation practice, and (H6c) less perceived barriers to meditation practice.
(7)
Participants who had ever meditated will be more likely to report (H7a) more positive attitudes toward meditation practice, and (H7b) less perceived barriers to meditation practice.
The pre-registration for Study 2 can be accessed here: https://osf.io/2qk64.
Method
Participants and Procedure
Participants were 845 undergraduate psychology students from an Australian University who completed the study in exchange for course credit. We aimed for a similar minimum sample size for reasons described in Study 1 but nevertheless recruited as many participants as possible during the 2023 academic year. After exclusions the final sample comprised 667 participants aged 17–60 (M = 19.98; SD = 3.55; 144 Male, 514 Female, 7 Non-binary, 2 undisclosed).
In all, 178 participants were excluded based on the data quality check protocol used in Study 1. Specifically, 23 participants were excluded for “straight-lining”; 14 participants were excluded for failing a robot attention check; 47 participants were excluded for implausibly fast responses; 30 participants were excluded for disclosing that their data was of low quality; and 16 participants were excluded for not answering roughly half of the survey. Additionally, 48 participants were excluded for demonstrating no lay knowledge of meditation. Of these, one was excluded for selecting at least six or more foil answers out of a total of 10, whereas 47 were excluded for not answering or providing highly inaccurate answers, when asked to explain what meditation is. A further 26 participants had their response recoded to no for the Meditation Practice item because of overly vague (e.g., one word response), incomprehensible, or irrelevant (e.g., stating an opinion) answers to this question.
We used the same two versions of the study advertisement as in Study 1, which were displayed to participants online via a research participation website. 326 participants (M = 20.04 years, SD = 3.75; 78% female) completed the survey after being recruited using Advertisement A, and 341 participants (M = 19.93 years; SD = 3.35; 76% female) completed the survey after being recruited using Advertisement B.
Materials
After agreeing to proceed with the study, all participants were directed to a Qualtrics survey comprising questionnaires that were identical to those described in Study 1, apart from the following:
Information Seeking
Was measured using 2 items asking whether the participant would like to receive information packs about meditation, and well-being activities. Participants answered using binary (yes/no) responses options for each item. Unlike Study 1, which informed participants that selecting yes would result in a small monetary cost, Study 2 participants were asked to wait five seconds if they selected yes to receiving information. This change was necessary because Study 2 participants were reimbursed using course credit rather than monetary payment.
Data Analyses
All analyses were conducted in R version 4.3.0 using the psych package (Revelle, 2019), and in JASP version 0.14.1. In line with Study 1, BFAS and curiosity items were analysed separately using the minimum residual factor analysis method to derive factor scores. A mean-level score of the Positive Attitudes to Meditation items was again computed, given that a factor analysis was not possible. Occasional missing data was excluded listwise in each analysis.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Descriptive statistics and reliability estimates for key variables are presented in Table 6. As in Study 1, differences between the ever meditated and never meditated groups did not appear substantial. Additionally, Study 2 participants appear broadly similar to Study 1 participants in terms of personality traits and expectancies of meditation practice. Additional descriptive statistics pertaining to the meditation practice history of those who tried meditation are reported in Supplement J. Overall, a much larger portion of participants compared to Study 1 had tried meditation (i.e., 25.7% of the sample in Study 1 had tried meditation a couple of times; compared to 42.7% in Study 2). On the other hand, meditation experience and practice regularity in this sample appear to be slightly lower compared to Study 1.
Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations and Reliability Coefficients for Personality Traits, Positive Attitudes to Meditation, and Meditation-related Barriers
Variable | All | ωt | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
n | Mean | SD | ||
Openness | 655 | 3.64 | 0.48 | 0.85 |
Conscientiousness | 649 | 3.26 | 0.55 | 0.88 |
Neuroticism | 656 | 3.09 | 0.65 | 0.92 |
Agreeableness | 651 | 3.94 | 0.48 | 0.88 |
Extraversion | 636 | 3.34 | 0.57 | 0.90 |
Curiosity | 662 | 3.87 | 0.63 | 0.88 |
Positive Attitudes | 651 | 4.43 | 1.37 | 0.90 |
Meditation-related Barriers | 662 | 2.45 | 0.60 | 0.77 |
Perceived Pragmatic Barriers | 667 | 2.37 | 0.95 | 0.76 |
Perceived Inadequate Knowledge | 667 | 3.19 | 1.07 | 0.74 |
Low Perceived Benefit | 662 | 2.85 | 0.91 | 0.78 |
Perceived Sociocultural Conflict | 667 | 1.50 | 0.67 | 0.69 |
Main Analyses
Which Personality Traits Predict Having Ever Meditated?
A series of logistic regression models were used to test the predictions that participants higher on openness (H1a), curiosity (H2a), neuroticism (H5a), and agreeableness (H6a) will be more likely to have any meditation experience (Table 7). Supporting hypotheses H1a, H2a and H6a, and confirming results from Study 1, openness, curiosity, and agreeableness significantly predicted having ever meditated. Unlike Study 1, neuroticism was not significant in its prediction of having tried meditation, so hypothesis H5a was not supported. Additionally, extraversion significantly predicted having tried meditation. A supplementary analysis with meditation experience recoded as an ordinal variable yielded the same pattern of results (see Supplement K).
Table 7
Multiple Logistic Regression Models Predicting Having Meditation Experience from Personality Traits
Model | df | χ2 | p | OR | 95% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Meditation Experience ~ Curiosity | 659 | 13.92 | < 0.001 | 1.44 | 1.19, 1.74 |
Meditation Experience ~ The Big Five | |||||
Openness | 595 | 5.62 | 0.018 | 1.24 | 1.00, 1.55 |
Conscientiousness | 594 | 0.62 | 0.432 | 0.97 | 0.76, 1.22 |
Extraversion | 593 | 8.25 | 0.004 | 1.35 | 1.08, 1.70 |
Agreeableness | 592 | 39.88 | < 0.001 | 2.01 | 1.61, 2.53 |
Neuroticism | 591 | 0.03 | 0.860 | 1.02 | 0.81, 1.29 |
Which Personality Traits Predict Positive Attitudes Towards Meditation Practice?
A multiple linear regression model (Table 8), predicting positive attitudes towards meditation with the Big Five and prior meditation experience was constructed to test the hypotheses that participants higher on openness (H1b) and agreeableness (H6b), and those who have meditated before (H7a) will be more likely to report more positive attitudes towards meditation. Supporting all of these hypotheses, prior meditation experience, openness and agreeableness were significant, positive predictors of positive attitudes towards meditation—thereby confirming results from Study 1. Additionally, extraversion predicted more positive attitudes towards meditation, contrary to the non-significant association in Study 1. Next, Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used to test the hypothesis that curiosity was associated with more positive attitudes towards meditation (H2b). As shown in Table 12, the hypothesis was supported as curiosity shared a positive association with positive attitudes towards meditation, replicating the result in Study 1. Additional correlations between each of the Big Five traits and positive attitudes are also shown below, showing a similar pattern to the linear regression model in Table 8. These associations are also consistent with correlations between traits and individual attitudes items (Supplement L). Finally, as a robustness check, a multiple linear regression model predicting positive attitudes with personality, and prior meditation experience recoded as an ordinal variable obtained the same pattern of results (see Supplement M).
Table 8
Multiple Linear Regression Model Predicting Positive Attitudes and Barriers to Meditation Practice with the Big Five Personality Traits and Meditation Experience
Model | df | β | t | p | F | R2adj |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Attitudes ~ Personality | 574 | 29.66 | < 0.001 | 18.02 | 0.15 | |
Mediation Experience | 0.19 | 4.79 | < 0.001 | |||
Openness | 0.21 | 5.48 | < 0.001 | |||
Conscientiousness | 0.01 | 0.24 | 0.974 | |||
Extraversion | 0.18 | 4.52 | < 0.001 | |||
Agreeableness | 0.10 | 2.39 | 0.017 | |||
Neuroticism | −0.00 | −0.03 | 0.974 | |||
Barriers ~ Personality | 587 | 1.79 | 0.073 | 22.58 | 0.18 | |
Mediation Experience | −0.19 | −4.88 | < 0.001 | |||
Openness | −0.18 | −4.79 | < 0.001 | |||
Conscientiousness | −0.01 | 0.19 | 0.850 | |||
Extraversion | −0.10 | −2.68 | 0.008 | |||
Agreeableness | −0.19 | −5.42 | < 0.001 | |||
Neuroticism | 0.18 | 2.60 | 0.010 |
Which Personality Traits Predict Perceived Barriers to Meditation Practice?
A multiple linear regression model (Table 8), in which perceived barriers towards meditation practice were predicted by the Big Five traits and prior meditation experience, served to test the hypotheses that participants higher on openness (H1c), and agreeableness (H6c), and those who have meditated before (H7b) will report lowered perceived barriers to meditation practice, whereas participants higher on neuroticism (H5b) will report more perceived barriers to meditation practice. Supporting hypotheses H1c, H6c and H7b, and confirming results from Study 1, openness, meditation experience and agreeableness were negative predictors of perceived barriers towards meditation practice. The hypothesis regarding neuroticism was also supported, as it positively predicted meditation-related barriers, confirming the relation found in Study 1. Additionally, extraversion was a negative predictor of perceived barriers towards meditation, contrary to the non-significant relationship observed in Study 1. Pearson’s product-moment correlation was used to test the hypothesis that curiosity was negatively associated with perceived barriers towards meditation (H2c). As shown above in Table 9, curiosity has a negative association with meditation-related barriers, supporting the hypothesis and confirming the result found in Study 1. Additional correlations between each of the Big Five traits with meditation-related barriers, as well as with different facets of the barriers measure are also shown in Table 9. The pattern of associations between each of the Big Five and meditation-related barriers were in line with the regression model. Notably, none of the personality traits, apart from agreeableness, had a significant association with Perceived Sociocultural Conflict. These associations also aligned with those found in Study 1, with some minor differences in the kinds of barriers that are associated with extraversion. Specifically, in Study 1 extraversion only shares a significant negative association with Perceived Inadequate Knowledge, and positive association with Perceived Sociocultural Conflict (r = −0.21, and r = 0.17, respectively), whereas in this sample it shares negative associations with Perceived Inadequate Knowledge and Low Perceived Benefit (r = −0.23, and r = −0.12, respectively).
Table 9
Pearson’s Product-moment Correlations Between Personality Traits and Expectancies of Meditation Practice
Positive Attitudes | Meditation-related barriers | Perceived Pragmatic Barriers | Perceived Inadequate Knowledge | Low Perceived Benefit | Perceived Sociocultural Conflict | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Curiosity | 0.27*** | -0.26** | -0.10 | -0.20*** | -0.23*** | -0.12 |
Openness | 0.24*** | -0.22*** | -0.05 | -0.18*** | -0.23*** | -0.06 |
Conscientiousness | 0.06 | -0.05 | -0.08 | -0.04 | 0.01 | -0.03 |
Extraversion | 0.22*** | -0.17*** | -0.08 | -0.23*** | -0.12** | 0.01 |
Agreeableness | 0.18*** | -0.30*** | -0.16*** | -0.06 | -0.26*** | -0.30*** |
Neuroticism | -0.04 | 0.14*** | 0.11* | 0.14** | 0.08 | 0.06 |
Finally, we ran a multiple linear regression predicting meditation-related barriers with personality traits wherein meditation experience was recoded as an ordinal variable. We obtained the same pattern of results, with the exception of extraversion which was non-significant (see Supplement M).
Which Personality Traits Predict an Interest in Meditation?
Compared to participants in Study 1, participants in Study 2 were more willing to pay a cost for information. Specifically, 207 participants (31% of the sample) opted to receive information about meditation, and 281 participants (42% of the sample) opted to receive information about well-being activities. Logistic regression models were used to examine whether curiosity predicts the willingness to incur a cost to receive information about meditation (H3a), and well-being activities (H3b). Contrary to Study 1, but in support of both hypotheses, curiosity significantly predicted meditation-related information seeking, χ2(659) = 24.17, p < 0.001. Likewise, curiosity significantly predicted well-being activities-related information seeking, χ2(650) = 17.41, p < 0.001. For each one-unit increase in curiosity, the odds of seeking meditation-related information increased by 1.55, 95% CI [1.30, 1.87], whereas the odds of seeking information about well-being activities increased by 1.40, 95% CI [1.20, 1.66]. Both ORs indicate small effect sizes. As in Study 1, we also explored whether any other personality traits predicted an interest in information about meditation and well-being activities (Table 10). Openness significantly predicted an interest in meditation-related information, whereas openness and conscientiousness significantly predicted interest in information on well-being activities. The ORs in both models suggest small effect sizes.
Table 10
Logistic Regression Models Predicting Information Seeking Using the Big Five Traits
Model | df | χ2 | p | OR | 95% CI [LL, UL] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Meditation Related Information Seeking ~ Personality | |||||
Openness | 595 | 26.62 | < 0.001 | 1.61 | 1.34,1.94 |
Extraversion | 594 | 0.10 | 0.747 | 1.05 | 0.88,1.25 |
Agreeableness | 593 | 0.11 | 0.746 | 0.98 | 0.82,1.17 |
Neuroticism | 592 | 1.07 | 0.301 | 1.10 | 0.92,1.32 |
Conscientiousness | 591 | 0.00 | 0.994 | 1.00 | 0.84,1.20 |
Well-being Activities Related Information Seeking ~ Personality | |||||
Openness | 587 | 22.02 | < 0.001 | 1.50 | 1.26,1.79 |
Extraversion | 586 | 0.04 | 0.835 | 1.03 | 0.87, 1.23 |
Agreeableness | 585 | 0.09 | 0.763 | 1.00 | 0.84, 1.18 |
Neuroticism | 584 | 3.36 | 0.067 | 1.14 | 0.96, 1.36 |
Conscientiousness | 583 | 4.77 | 0.029 | 0.83 | 0.70, 0.98 |
Does Personality Predict Selection into a Study Focused on Meditation?
Lastly, logistic regression models were used to examine whether participants selecting into the study via Advertisement A (i.e., Group A; with meditation-related wording) are higher in openness (H4a), and curiosity (H4b), compared to participants who selected into the study via Advertisement B (i.e., Group B). Contrary to our predictions, but in line with findings from Study 1, neither openness, χ2(595) = 3.28, p = 0.070, nor curiosity, χ2(659) = 1.09, p = 0.296, significantly predicted selection into the study using Advertisement A compared to Advertisement B. Supporting the robustness of this null result, a Bayesian correlation analysis indicated that the data were almost 4 times (BF01 = 3.82), and 12 times (BF01 = 11.92) more likely under the null hypotheses rather than the alternative hypothesis specifying a correlation between group membership and openness and curiosity, respectively. Next, a series of logistic regression models were performed to explore any additional predictors of participant self-selection (See Supplement N).
Summary
Study 2 yielded results that were generally consistent with those of Study 1, and which confirmed almost all of our pre-registered hypotheses. We again found that openness and agreeableness predicted having meditation experience. However, unlike in Study 1, curiosity was also a significant predictor of having tried meditation, whereas neuroticism was not significant in predicting having any meditation experience. Additionally, extraversion significantly predicted meditation experience, whereas the association was non-significant in Study 1. Furthermore, hypotheses regarding curiosity, openness, agreeableness, and prior meditation experience predicting positive attitudes towards meditation practice were also supported and replicated from Study 1. Hypotheses regarding barriers to practice were also supported: whereas curiosity, openness, agreeableness, and prior meditation experience predicted lower perceived barriers towards meditation practice, neuroticism predicted increased perceived barriers. Additionally, extraversion significantly predicted positive attitudes towards meditation and lowered perceived barriers to practice. In contrast to Study 1, our hypothesis that curiosity would predict an interest in meditation-related topics were supported. Finally, matching Study 1, hypotheses regarding selection effects were not supported.
General Discussion
Meditation is growing in popularity as a well-being practice and psychological intervention, mirrored by a growth in research evaluating its claimed benefits. However, a paucity of research has examined links between personality and willingness to try meditation, which is critical for understanding what kinds of people are likely to engage in meditation practice. Across two studies, we examined associations between personality traits and people’s experience with meditation practice, along with their attitudes toward and perceived barriers to meditation. We also investigated potential behavioural consequences of these associations—willingness to seek information about meditation and well-being activities, and self-selection effects into this study. Findings across both studies are discussed in relation to our four research questions.
Partially supporting our pre-registered hypotheses, openness (H1a) but not curiosity (H2a) predicted having ever meditated in Study 1, whereas both traits predicted having meditated in Study 2. Additionally, when the Big Five domains were examined simultaneously, openness remained a significant predictor, alongside agreeableness in both studies. These results are somewhat consistent with the findings of van den Hurk et al. (2011), who also found significant associations between openness and extraversion, and experience with meditation. However, they also reported a negative association between neuroticism and experience with meditation, which did not emerge in either of our studies. The association between agreeableness and meditation is also broadly consistent with the findings of Bailey et al. (2019), though they did not find additional associations with any other traits. Furthermore, the results are also in line with Barkan et al. (2016) who found associations between Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction technique use and openness and agreeableness.
Overall, our pattern of findings is not well aligned with notions of person-activity fit. That is, the traits that predicted having tried meditation were not necessarily those that described tendencies toward analogous states, such as mindfulness. This was most obviously the case for neuroticism, which was positively, rather than negatively, associated with any meditation experience in Study 1. Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negatively valenced and volatile emotions, which are antithetical to the kind of states associated with meditation, such as tranquillity and mindfulness. Indeed, neuroticism is broadly predictive of psychopathology (Widiger & Oltmanns, 2017). Rather than meditation being congruent with higher levels of neuroticism, it seems possible that it could be compensatory, or therapeutic, for such individuals. That is, individuals high in neuroticism may seek out meditation as a strategy for regulating negative emotions and improving mental health. Indeed, improving mental health has been found to be the most common motives for commencing meditation (Bowles et al., 2022), and this motive appears to be especially applicable to meditators who are higher in neuroticism (and also lower in conscientiousness; Sedlmeier & Theumer, 2020). A similar case can be made for extraversion, which also predicted meditation experience but only in Study 2. Specifically, extraversion describes tendencies for sociability and high energy, which may make it difficult for someone to sit down and practice meditation—a predominantly solo activity. Extraverts may hence seek out meditation as a way to practice the ability to sit still with oneself. Of course, our result for extraversion was not predicted, and only observed in one of our two studies, so it may have been spurious.
Finally, the notion of person-activity fit seems a more plausible account for our observed relation between openness and having meditation experience, but it is not the only plausible account. For instance, open people might seek out meditation for the same reasons they seek out other new experiences (i.e., exploration, novelty seeking), as opposed to engaging in meditation as it is a “good fit” for their personality. Indeed, this is the explanation offered by previous research for the association between openness and use of alternative therapies (Barkan et al., 2016; Thomson et al., 2014). As a caveat to these interpretations, interpreting what it means for a trait to be a “good fit” for a particular activity may be ambiguous. For instance, one might consider meditation practice to be congruent with neuroticism precisely because it is conducive to regulating emotions and improving well-being. Indeed, within the person-organisation fit literature, fit has been described as either “supplementary”, where the situation or activity is similar to someone’s characteristics, or “complementary”, where either the characteristics of the person “adds” something to the situation, or the situation benefits the person in some way (Muchinsky & Monahan, 1987; see also Rauthmann, 2013). One caveat we should note when interpreting correlations between personality and meditation concerns how one’s experience of meditation may change over time. Pertinently, Sedlmeier and Theumer (2020) found that reasons for meditation change over the course of practice, and that conscientiousness and neuroticism are predictive of these changes, especially for beginner meditators. It is also important to consider the impact that meditation may have on changes in personality over time, given past research has reported personality change effects specifically as a result of meditation practice (e.g., Fabbro et al., 2020; Hanley et al., 2019). Thus, given the design of our study, it is unclear whether trait predictors of having tried meditation simply reflect changes that have come about as a result of meditation practice.
In both studies, the same traits that predicted experience with meditation also predicted expectancies of meditation practice. Specifically, openness, and agreeableness were all predictive of positive attitudes towards meditation and fewer perceived barriers to practice. Additionally, this was also the case for curiosity and extraversion in Study 2. We also found, in both studies, that positive attitudes and fewer perceived barriers predicted prior meditation practice, which aligns with previous findings linking expectancies of meditation, to engagement in meditation practice (Burke et al., 2017; Lam et al., 2022). Again, we caution that this result could reflect changes that have come about as a result of meditation. That is, experience with meditation could also make people more aware of actual barriers to and benefits of meditation, which could have a potential impact on the way they answer items relating to expectancies. Alternatively, another possibility is that more positive expectancies of meditation lead to a greater willingness to try it out. Also of note, our findings relating to curiosity match those reported by Hunt et al. (2020), including the significant negative associations they reported between curiosity and individual barriers of perceived inadequate knowledge and low perceived benefit of meditation. Although our Study 1 results align with those reported by both Williams et al. (2011) and Whitford and Warren (2019) regarding neuroticism’s link with increased meditation-related barriers, it does not seem to support the broader idea that perceptions of more barriers to meditation are linked with reduced engagement in meditation practice (Lam et al., 2022), given that neuroticism predicted having prior meditation experience in Study 1 and was only non-significant in Study 2 (i.e., neither study yielded evidence indicating that neuroticism predicts reduced engagement in meditation). But of course, it may be the case that barriers may have more of an impact on long-term engagement in meditation practice, rather than them impacting beginner or semi-regular meditators—a possibility that future studies should test, given our two samples are largely comprised of beginner meditators (see Supplement C and J).
Regarding hypotheses H3a and H3b, we found no association between curiosity and interest in information about meditation and well-being activities in Study 1, but these hypotheses were both supported in Study 2. Additionally, we found that openness predicted interest in both types of information in an exploratory analysis in Study 2, which is not so surprising given that curiosity is a facet of openness. More surprising is the null result in Study 1, given prior evidence that curiosity is be predictive of information-seeking (Jach & Smillie, 2021; Ryakhovskaya et al., 2022). On the other hand, other studies suggest that this relation may depend on the kind of information on offer (Jach et al., 2022; Smillie et al., 2021). Thus, it seems possible that information about meditation and well-being activities was not sufficiently interesting for those high in curiosity to seek it out. Another possible explanation concerns the fact that we replaced a financial cost in Study 1 with a time cost in Study 2; Prolific participants may have been less willing to incur a financial cost for this information compared to the time cost offered to student participants. Indeed, a much lower portion of participants selected to incur a monetary cost for information, which may have attenuated any relation between information seeking and traits like curiosity. Future studies should reexamine this association and the potential impact of factors that varied between our two studies.
Finally, our hypotheses concerning possible selection effects were not supported. Specifically, there were no personality differences between participants recruited using the two different versions of the study advertisement. Interestingly, agreeableness and gender predicted selecting into the study when it was advertised as having a focus on meditation in Study 1. Although we could speculate about these effects (e.g., in relation to prior research suggesting that women are more likely to meditate; Cramer et al., 2016), both were non-significant in Study 2, and thus may be attributable to incidental sampling differences. In Study 2 we found that positive attitudes towards meditation predicted selection into the study advertised using meditation-related wording. This finding makes good conceptual sense but should be interpreted with caution given that it did not emerge in Study 1 and was not pre-registered. Overall, we can tentatively conclude that participants who select into meditation studies are broadly similar in terms of personality to those who select into other studies. Nevertheless, further research in this area is warranted, as it remains unclear whether the lack of differences between the two recruitment groups was owing to the very subtle wording differences between the two advertisements. For example, participants who seek out meditation studies could be equally drawn to studies about well-being and/or personality, which were present in both advertisements. This subtle difference in wording was intentional, in that we intended for the advertisements to differ only with respect to meditation-related wording, with all other aspects held constant. Importantly, we based our design on a study which used an even more subtle manipulation, and yet found evidence for selection effects (Carnahan & McFarland, 2007). Extensions of our work exploring other versions of study advertising, including more explicit changes, may help identify whether particular components of an advertisement produce personality selection effects.
There are some potential constraints on generality of the present findings. Firstly, we were unable to examine whether the traits associations found in our study are equally applicable to different meditation types. Whilst participants reported trying a range of meditation techniques, we did not incorporate these distinctions in our analyses as we were focused on meditation practice in general, rather than focusing on one particular technique. As there is growing research suggesting that different meditation techniques operate differently to improve well-being (e.g., Lippelt et al., 2014; Manna et al., 2010), and that effects of meditation are not experienced similarly (e.g., Matko & Sedlmeier, 2023), future research should investigate personality trait predictors of engagement in different types of meditation. Secondly, given our samples were primarily made up of participants who do not have substantive, or regular amounts of meditation experience, it is likely that the present findings are not generalisable to regular and long-term meditators. Supplementary analyses indicated that effects of some of our trait variables may vary in strength across different levels of meditation experience. Given this, future research should test the generalisability of the present findings by comparing regular meditators to those who have never meditated. A final constraint on generality concerns our use of an online sample and a convenience student sample. Though such samples are commonly used, they tend to overrepresent certain characteristics, or not be particularly representative of any one population, hence limiting the extent to which the results are generalisable (Mullinix et al., 2015). That said, the fact that our findings were mostly consistent across these fairly distinct samples offers some encouragement to the generalisability of our findings to different populations.
The strengths of the present research include two relatively large samples that were adequately powered to provide stable estimates of effects, as well as the opportunity to directly replicate the results (with pre-registration) in a demographically different sample. Meanwhile, limitations of this study include the cross-sectional design of the study, which limits some conclusions we are able to make. As discussed above, it is unclear the extent to which personality predictors of meditation were reflective of meditation-associated personality change, or whether expectancies of practice change over time as one continues their practice. Future research should aim to employ a longitudinal design, measuring participants’ personality and meditation practice over a period of time. Finally, measures of meditation experience can be improved in future research. There is currently no standardised method of measuring meditation practice and history (Thomas & Cohen, 2014). Given that meditation encompasses a diverse range of practices and techniques (Matko et al., 2021), there is some concern whether simply asking whether a person meditates is adequately capturing practices that may not be commonly considered to be meditation, such as prayer. Conversely, this kind of question may also invite some participants to overclaim and consider practices such as listening to music as meditation. We tried to circumvent this problem by asking participants to explain what they do during meditation, in addition to lay-knowledge checks about the concept. This approach was chosen to filter out any abnormal responses, whilst acknowledging that meditation may mean different things for different people. We additionally gathered data on informal meditation practices as well as meditation history, including length of sessions, regularity of practice, meditation app use and length of lifetime practice. Some of this data is reported in supplementary materials. Nonetheless, more work is needed to improve and validate measurement of meditation-relevant constructs. Other future avenues for research may include employing more intensive longitudinal designs, as well as examining whether associations found in the present study hold for different levels of meditation experience–particularly testing the generalisability of these findings in regular or long-term meditator samples, or directly testing the magnitude of personality differences between non-meditators and meditators. These designs demand an increased consideration of methods, particularly in regard to issues of attrition and recruitment difficulties of long-term meditators, whilst ensuring adequate sample sizes for making conclusions regarding individual differences.
Overall, this study has contributed to the understanding of which personality traits predict trying meditation, as well as attitudes and perceived barriers towards meditation. More specifically, we found that openness, curiosity, neuroticism, agreeableness, and extraversion predicted having ever tried meditation. Furthermore, openness, curiosity and agreeableness predicted positive attitudes and decreased perceived barriers towards meditation, whilst neuroticism predicted increased perceived barriers towards meditation. We also found that there was no relation between personality traits and participant self-selection into a study advertised as focussing on meditation. Although this should be replicated in future studies, this may suggest minimal sampling bias in research examining the effects of meditation practice. Overall, we hope that this study has provided a useful starting point for further research into personality predictors of meditation practice.
Declarations
Ethics Approval
The studies have been approved by the Human Ethics Research Committee at the University of Melbourne (2022–25733-35338–2).
Informed Consent
All participants provided informed consent prior to proceeding with the study.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Use of Artificial Intelligence
No Artificial Intelligence tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript or the studies described herein.
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.
