Skip to content

Mindfulness and Metacognitive Monitoring Accuracy in Young Meditation Practitioners Compared to Non-Practitioners

Regula Neuenschwander, Donna Bryce, Janina Eberhart

Mindfulness July 13, 2026 DOI: 10.1007/s12671-026-02938-z (opens in new tab)

Study at a glance

AI-extracted from the abstract
Characteristics Cross-sectional Preregistered Peer reviewed
Sample size 124
Population Young mindfulness meditation practitioners with at least 3 years of practice and non-practitioners
Topics Meditation
Keywords Metacognition Mindfulness meditation Psychotherapist Clinical psychology Applied psychology
Key findings No significant differences in metacognitive monitoring accuracy were found between mindfulness meditation practitioners and non-practitioners, despite practitioners reporting higher trait mindfulness.

Abstract

Abstract Objectives Theoretical models propose metacognition to be one of the underlying cognitive mechanisms of mindfulness. However, only few studies have examined metacognition objectively with laboratory tasks in relation to mindfulness. Here, we investigated whether the metacognitive process of monitoring and its accuracy are associated with mindfulness-based meditation practice.

Method: In total, n = 124 participants (including n = 61 young mindfulness meditation practitioners with at least 3 years of meditation practice engaging in ≥ 3 sessions per week, and n = 63 non-practitioners) completed an adapted metacognitive visuo-spatial working memory task and provided monitoring judgments after each trial (confidence judgments [CJ] regarding their recall performance). Monitoring accuracy was operationalized as the relationship between CJ and objective performance. All participants completed the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and practitioners the Meditation Depth Questionnaire (MEDEQ) as well as open questions regarding their meditation practice.

Results: Overall monitoring accuracy was significant ( $$\overline{\gamma }$$ γ ¯ = 0.52, p < 0.001), indicating that participants were sensitive to variations in their memory performance. However, no group differences between practitioners and non-practitioners were found, except for the MAAS ( t = − 3.14, p = 0.002), reflecting that practitioners reported higher levels of mindfulness. Within the group of practitioners, no features of meditation practice, nor MEDEQ or MAAS scores were significantly correlated with monitoring accuracy.

Conclusions: We discuss the object of monitoring, and the level of consciousness assessed in the present metacognition task as possible reasons for null findings as well as various conceptualizations of meta-awareness within contemplative traditions and its overlap with different facets of metacognition as avenues for future research. Preregistration The study was preregistered and the preregistration can be accessed at https://osf.io/k8hcv/ . Regula Neuenschwander and Donna Bryce share first authorship.

Comparable studies

Other cross-sectional and survey studies on meditation, most cited first.

Study Year Design Participants
Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples Experienced meditators and nonmeditating comparison groups 2008 Cross-sectional study
Neural Correlates of Dispositional Mindfulness During Affect Labeling Adult participants 2007 Observational cross-sectional n = 27
Assessing mindfulness in children and adolescents: Development and validation of the Child and Adolescent Mindfulness Measure (CAMM). School-aged children and adolescents 2011 Cross-sectional validation study n = 1,413
Mindfulness and self-compassion as predictors of psychological wellbeing in long-term meditators and matched nonmeditators Experienced meditators and demographically matched nonmeditators 2012 Cross-sectional study n = 152
Mechanisms of Action in the Inverse Relationship Between Mindfulness and Psychological Distress Undergraduates 2008 Cross-sectional, correlational

Citations in the library

Explore topics