1Running Head: The EQUANIMITY SCALE (EQUA-S)
2
3
4
5
6 Reliability and Validity of an Equanimity Questionnaire:
7 The Two-Factor Equanimity Scale (EQUA-S)
8
9
10 11 Juneau, Catherine1, Pellerin, Nicolas2, Trives, Elliott3, Ricard, Matthieu4, Shankland Rebecca5, Dambrun, 12 Michael 1 13 14 15 16 1 Université Clermont Auvergne, LAPSCO, CNRS UMR 6024, Clermont-Ferrand, France 17 2 Université Toulouse 2 Jean Jaurès, CLLE-LTC, CNRS UMR 5263, Toulouse, France 18 3 Université Sophia Antipolis, LAPCOS, Nice, France. 19 4 Mind and Life Institute / Shechen Monastery, Kathmandu, Nepal 20 5 University Grenoble Alpes, LIP/PC2S, F-38000, Grenoble, France
21
22
23
24
25Correspondence may be addressed to: Catherine Juneau and Michael Dambrun, Université Clermont
26Auvergne (UCA), LAPSCO CNRS, 34 avenue Carnot, 63037 France. Email: [email protected]
27and [email protected] 28Abstract
29Background: Many studies have revealed the positive impact of mindfulness training on mental health
30and proposed equanimity as a general outcome in contemplative research. Despite recent interest,
31relatively few studies have examined equanimity empirically and measurement instruments are still
32lacking. The main goal of this study was to develop an Equanimity Scale (the EQUA-S) in a Western
33population with or without meditation experience, based on equanimity definitions and to investigate its
34relationships with relevant psychological constructs and health outcomes.
35Method: Adults from the general population (N = 265; 175 women and 89 men; Mage = 34.81) completed
36various measures: the EQUA-S, mindfulness, hyper-sensitivity, avoidance and fusion, impulsivity,
37personality, alexithymia, sensitivity to punishment and reward and frequency of problematics addictive
38behaviors. The dimensionality of the EQUA-S was examined using Factor Analyses. The convergent
39validity of this new scale was investigated using Pearson correlations.
40Results: Results of a factor analysis revealed two equanimity dimensions: an even-minded state of mind
41(E-MSM) component and a hedonic independence (HI) dimension. While the E-MSM was positively
42related to emotional stability, adaptive emotional regulation and several mindfulness-related abilities, HI
43was found to correlate negatively with addictive issues.
44Conclusion: The relationships with personality constructs and possible related cognitive processes will be
45discussed.
46
47Keywords
48Equanimity; mindfulness; emotional regulation; EQUA-S; hedonic independence; even-minded state of
49mind
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
12 2 57Background
58Mindfulness has been defined as a non-judgmental and non-reactive attention to the present moment. The
59practice of mindfulness based meditation has a robust effect on a variety of psychological outcomes, such
60as changes in emotionality, relationship issues, attention and health (1). Several psychological and
61neurological mechanisms underlying these effects have been identified (2). According to the Buddhist
62view, mindfulness meditation is a way to achieve an attentional, emotional, and cognitive balance of the
63mind (3), which can be termed equanimity. Many authors have suggested using equanimity as a general
64outcome in contemplative research (4,5).
65 In Buddhist texts, equanimity (upekkha in Pali) is defined differently depending on the context; as
66a feeling, as a quality or as a durable attitude. Indeed, according to the Theravada tradition of equanimity
67from the Abhidhamma Sangaha (6), the feeling of equanimity is a way to experience an object in a neutral
68way, the quality of equanimity is to have a balanced and impartial reaction to things (tatramajjhattatā)
69and, finally, the attitude of equanimity is one of the Four Immeasurables and is thus part of a complete
70and durable state of equanimity. The second of these, the quality of equanimity, is the definition used by
71Desbordes et al.(4) , among other authors, and is the one we will also focus on in this article. Indeed,
72equanimity as a quality can be developed by means of mindfulness-based meditation and has recently
73been theoretically introduced into Western psychology as a beneficial effect of this practice (6) that is
74based on the Buddhist conceptualization (7) .
75 Equanimity has been studied and described by Buddhists because developing this quality towards
76objects, thoughts, feelings and living beings is thought to lead to a decrease of suffering (duhkha in Pali)
77and an increase of happiness (sukha in Pali). In this context, suffering refers not only to physical pain or
78sadness but also to a more all-encompassing sense of continuing dissatisfaction. These dissatisfactions are
79caused by a self-centered perspective, in which feelings and thoughts repeatedly and automatically arise
80and are vividly perceived and interpreted as “real” and as part of a stable conception of self (7). However,
81mindfulness exercises allow practitioners to focus their attention on each of the sensations that make up
82this stream (i.e., mental proliferation or rumination) and perceive them for what they are in the present
83moment; as mental events rather than as a fixed reality (8). With practice, the conception of the self will
84change, the flow of these mental events will become less automatic, and habitual reactions will appear
85less frequently. Thus, happiness, in the Buddhist conception, which involves a “mental balance and
33 4 86insight into the nature of reality”(3, p.60), can arise when one is free from these frustrations. Craving, for
87example, is one of the principal causes of frustration in Buddhist theories and is based on similar
88constructs to those involved in the definition provided by Western psychology. However, while the
89Buddhist conception of craving includes all afflictive attachments (e.g., striving to achieve a promotion,
90struggling to stop thinking about someone; (9), Western psychology defines craving more specifically as
91an intense desire directed toward objects or situations, resulting in addictive behaviors (10). Various
92studies have indeed consistently shown a decrease in addictive craving after mindfulness meditation (e.g.,
9311). Thus, we expected positive effects on addictive behaviors after mindfulness practices to arise from
94the development of the quality of equanimity. In the current psychology literature, we found two common
95approaches to equanimity developed, respectively, by Desbordes et al. (2015) and Hadash et al. (2016)
96(4,5).
97 Equanimity can first be defined as a calm and stable attitude, free of tortuous emotional reactions.
98This definition echoes the approach adopted by Desbordes et al. (2015). These authors defined
99equanimity as “an even-minded mental state or dispositional tendency toward all experiences or objects,
100regardless of their affective valence (pleasant, unpleasant or neutral) or source” (p. 6). Other authors (12)
101have used Buddhaghosa's (1991) (13) definition of equanimity, which refers to “a balance of arousal
102without hyperexcitability or fatigue” (p. 2). According to this definition, equanimity involves less
103emotional interference (14), greater emotional stability (15), more inner peace (16), and reduced general
104stress (17). When adopted in stressful situations, equanimity would make it possible to remain calm in a
105state in which both decisions and behaviors are weakly contaminated by stress and arousal.
106 Equanimity can also be considered in terms of a motivational approach (5) These authors used
107Olendzki's (2006) definition of equanimity: “an intentional stance to neither hold on to pleasant
108experience nor push away unpleasant experience” (Hadash et al., 2016, p. 3). They proposed the
109Decoupling Model of Equanimity, which conceptually defines equanimity as the decoupling of desire
110(i.e., wanting or not wanting) from the hedonic tone of experience. Similarly, Vago and David (2012) (12)
111described equanimity as “impartiality without bias or discrimination arising from a sense of detachment
112from the attraction or aversion to ongoing experience” (p. 2). Mindfulness has been found to decouple the
113relation between initial automatic approach/avoidance craving reactions and hedonic tone (e.g., alcohol;
54 6 11419), which could be explained, according to this definition of equanimity, by the fact that the
115approach/avoidance reaction decreases (20).
116 As suggested above, equanimity and mindfulness appear to be positively and significantly related
117to each other. According to Desbordes et al. (2015), equanimity implies non-judgment, non-reactivity and
118less automatic behavior in general. This in turn implies the more specific hypothesis about the
119relationships between equanimity and the subcomponents of mindfulness developed by Baer et al. (21);
120i.e., positive correlations with the nonreacting, nonjudging and acting with awareness subscales of the
121Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire; FFMQ).
122The few existing equanimity scales are based on definitions of equanimity that share some similarities but
123also some differences. The first one, the Self-Other Four Immeasurables (SOFI; 22) are intended to
124capture participants' score for each of the Four Immeasurables (i.e., love-kindness, compassion, joy and
125equanimity). For the equanimity subscale, participants have to rate if they thoughts, felt or acted
126according to the word "accept" and its close enemies (i.e. indifference and apathetic). This scale appears
127to be more effective in measuring the other three Immeasurables (i.e. love-kindness, compassion and joy)
128than in measuring equanimity and places greater emphasis on the distinction between positive and
129negative qualities related to oneself and others (see 22). Second, Hadash and colleagues (5) suggested
130using two existing scales (i.e., anxiety sensitivity and cognitive reactivity to sadness) to assess reactivity
131in equanimity and adding acceptance scales for a complete equanimity assessment. This proposal
132measures equanimity toward an unpleasant hedonic tone as explained in the authors' discussion. Thus, it
133will be necessary to create a scale that also considers the responsiveness to pleasant hedonic tones. Third,
134the Holistic Well Being Scale (23) aims to measure affliction and equanimity in a eudemonic view of
135well-being. It considers spiritual care and vitality and has only been tried and validated for the Chinese
136population. Considering slight differences in definitions of equanimity and cultural perspectives, only the
137non-attachment questions seems to be in line with our equanimity approach. Finally, the Spanish subscale
138of Ecuanimidad (24), which consists of 6 items (e.g., translation in English “I feel that I am a calm
139person, even in moments of stress and tension”, “Stress situations emotionally disturb me” etc.), is based
140on the definition of Desbordes et al (4). We therefore add these six elements to our even-minded state of
141mind subscale. Considering the existing work on equanimity, our scale aims to measure equanimity as a
142quality of response to external stimuli (valued in the Western population), with participants without
143meditation experience. We choose to focus on equanimity (a) as the quality of being emotionally calm
75 8 144and balanced, regardless of pleasant or unpleasant emotions and (b) equanimity in emotional and
145motivational reactions towards pleasant stimuli. Many researchers have also focused on the emotional
146regulatory effect of mindfulness practice (25). Psychological traits linked to emotional difficulties such as
147neuroticism and alexithymia are less pronounced among people with high mindfulness scores (Baer,
148Smith, & Allen, 2004 ; Siegling & Petrides, 2014). Thus, equanimity - as a more balanced emotional
149reaction toward stimuli - would be negatively related to emotional negativity. Moreover, a high degree of
150fusion with one’s emotional state prevents flexibility and detachment with regard to such stimuli (28),
151both of which are prerequisites for equanimity. Detachment from one’s emotional state would also reduce
152the frequency of impulse reactions, thus corresponding to the hedonic independence component of
153equanimity.
154 The main aim of the present study was to develop and validate a self-report scale of equanimity.
155We thus hypothesize the existence of two factors (i.e., even-minded state of mind and hedonic
156independence components), which will be related to distinct psychological constructs. This study also
157aims to investigate possible relationships between equanimity and mental health (4). By reducing craving
158and increasing emotional regulation, equanimity, as a state of hedonic independence, can be a valuable
159mechanism for approaching addictive behaviors. We predicted that hedonic independence, which is
160closely related to a decrease in the approach reaction to pleasant experiences and an avoidance reaction to
161unpleasant ones, would be negatively and significantly related to addictive behaviors. Finally, Desbordes
162et al. (2015) have suggested that equanimity as an even-minded state would be associated with positive
163coping strategies (e.g., positive refocusing; see (29) Jermann, Van der Linden, d’Acremont, & Zermatten,
1642006). We hypothesized that equanimity as an even-minded state would be positively and significantly
165related to optimal emotional functioning and efficient coping strategies (i.e., positive correlations with
166acceptance, positive refocusing, positive reappraisal, putting into perspective and negative correlations
167with rumination, catastrophizing and blaming others).
168Method
169Participants
170 We recruited 265 adults in France (175 women and 89 men), with ages ranging from 18 to 73
171years (M = 34.81, SD = 15.17). Using GPower (version 3.0.10), we estimated the required sample size for
172sufficient correlations power (90%). On the basis of the correlation between the FFMQ and neuroticism
96 10 173reported by Siegling and Petrides (30) (2014; i.e. r = .47), the minimum required sample size was 30. The
174participants were recruited by 150 students from the University Clermont Auvergne. The students were
175asked to leave the questionnaire and consent form for 24 hours in the participants' homes so that the
176participants could complete them alone undisturbed. To prevent too long questionnaires, we decided to
177split participants in two samples. Both samples answered the equanimity scale, the FFMQ and
178demographic questions but only sample A have to answer psychological constructs questionnaire while
179sample B had questions about addictive behaviors. (see Table 1 for the description of each sample).
180Table 1. Sample Characteristics
Sample Characteristics A B N 134 131 Age range (years) 18-73 18-70 Age mean (years) 35.1 34.5 Female (%) 60.4 72.3 Religious adherence (%) 45.6 45.5 Meditation practice (%) 17.9 10.8 181
182Scale Development
183 Based on the literature review, 42 candidate items were created to correspond to existing
184definitions. Some were inspired by the scale proposed by the “Ecuanimidad” subscale (24). Three judges
185who were familiar with the concept of equanimity firstly individually evaluated all these items before
186discussed their choices together for finally considered 25 of them to be sufficiently relevant. Of the 25
187items, 12 were designed to assess the approach to equanimity proposed by Desbordes et al. (2015), which
188we labeled “even-minded state of mind”. The remaining 13 items were inspired by the conceptualization
189of equanimity developed by Hadash et al. (2016), which we termed “hedonic independence”. The
190participants had to answer using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never or very rarely to 5 = very often or
191always).
192Measures
193 Several constructs were measured in order to ensure the convergent validity of the equanimity
194scale (see Table 2). We used the available French version for each scale. We assessed mindfulness
195(FFMQ; 31), hyper-sensitivity (HSC; 32), avoidance and fusion of internal events (AFS; 28),
196impulsivity ; BIS-10; 33), personality (BFI; 34), alexithymia (TAS-20; 35) and sensitivity to punishment
197and reward (SPSRQ; 36). Finally, we measured the relationships between equanimity and various health
198outcomes by means of three scales: (1) the frequency of behaviors based on a list of 16 potential addictive
117 12 199or problematic behaviors (e.g., video games, tobacco, etc.); (2) the frequency of eating addictions (AIEQ;
20037) and, (3) emotional regulation strategies (CERQ ; 29) and the suppression subscale of the ERQ (38).
201Results
202Exploratory Factor Analysis and Item Selection
203 Using SPSS Statistic 24, the factor analysis with oblimin rotation of the 12 items selected to assess
204the even-minded state revealed a two-factor solution. The Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy (KMO)
205was .84. Based on the eigenvalue and the screen plot, a one-factor model appeared to provide the best fit
206for the data (EV = 4.28 for the first factor and 1.42 for the second). We ran another analysis by forcing a
207one factor extraction. Three items failed to load sufficiently on the first factor (i.e., factor loading less
208than .50). A second analysis was computed with the remaining nine items. This analysis revealed a first
209factor solution with one item loading less than .50. Once this item had been withdrawn, a final analysis
210revealed a clear one-factor solution of eight items with a Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy of .85. All
211the items loaded appropriately on the single factor (factor loadings ranged from .55 to .72, see Table 3).
212 The 13 items selected to assess hedonic independence were entered in a factor analysis with
213oblimin rotation. The KMO was .77, with an eigenvalue at 3.6 for the first factor and 1.3 for the second.
214Based on the eigenvalue and the screen plot, a one-factor model appeared to provide the best fit for the
215data. Six items failed to load sufficiently on this factor (i.e., factor loading less than .50). A second
216analysis was computed with the remaining seven items and revealed a clear one-factor solution, with all
217the items loading appropriately on a single factor (factor loading ranged from .54 to .71, see Table 3) and
218a Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy of .80.
219
220Table 2. List of scales and subscales from samples A and B Scale Subscale Cronbach Mean (S.D)
Sample A
EQUA-S Even-minded state of mind .85 3.10 (.81)
Hedonic Independence .75 3.87 (.63) Extraversion (E) .82 3.15 (.84) Agreeableness (A) .72 3.90 (.57) BFI Concientiousness (C) .78 3.59 (.72) Neuroticism (N) .84 3.00 (.93) Openness (O) .73 3.53 (.63) HSC .70 5.01 (.82) Observing .80 3.26 (.81)
138 14 Describing .89 3.11 (.90) FFMQ Nonreacting .77 3.00 (.72) Acting with awareness .86 3.35 (.81) Nonjudging .84 3.17 (.83) TAS .74 51.46 (11.90) Self-blame .77 2.49 (.89) Acceptance .66 3.46 (.90) Rumination .71 2.99 (.91) CERQ and ERQ Positive refocusing .83 2.93 (1.04) Positive reappraisal .79 3.63 (.94) Refocus on planning .78 3.53 (.89) Putting into perspective .78 3.70 (.95) Catastrophizing .76 2.03 (.96) Blaming others .77 1.95 (.77) Suppression .82 2.68 (.85) AFS .82 2.30 (.50) SPSRQ Punishment .88 2.10 (.58) Reward .83 2.16 (.60) BIS-10 Motor .76 20.64 (5.35) Cognitive .37 25.23 (3.92) Non planning .52 25.44 (4.48)
Sample B
EQUA-S Even-minded state of mind .73 2.85 (.67) Hedonic Independence .73 3.88 (.62) HSC .67 5.13 (.73) FFMQ Observing .76 3.15 (.78) Describing .77 2.99 (.68) Nonreacting .63 2.66 (.56) Acting with awareness .86 3.33 (.79) Nonjudging .86 3.01 (.85) AIEQ .90 Frequency of N.A 50.38 (8.25) addictive behaviours 221
222Table 3. Factor loadings, means, SDs and item-total correlations for the 14-item EQUA-S Items F1 F2 F3 M SD IT Even-minded state of mind (E-MSM) 1. Whatever happens I remain serene .7 2.9 1.08 0.17 Quoi qu’il arrive, je reste serein 2 0 2. I am not easily disturbed by something unexpected .5 2.8 1.13 0.22 Je ne suis pas facilement perturbé par un imprévu 5 8 3. I can’t hardly tolerate uncomfortable emotions -.5 .42 3.1 1.11 0.34 J’ai du mal à tolérer les émotions inconfortables 6 1 4. I can easily get carried away by an annoyance -.6 3.1 1.2 0.39 Je peux facilement me laisser emporter par une 6 7 contrariété 5. I feel that I am a calm person, even in moments of .7 .35 2.9 1.25 0.12 stress and tension 2 9 Je ressens que je suis une personne calme, même dans
159 16 des moments de stress et tension 6. Stress situations emotionally disturb me -.6 .37 .34 3.3 1.18 0.36 Les situations de stress me perturbent 5 5 émotionnellement. 7. It’s hard for me to be serene during the difficult -.6 3.2 1.12 0.37 moments of everyday life 6 0 Il est difficile pour moi d'être serein(e) pendant les moments difficiles de la vie quotidienne. 8. I feel that the problems in my life are temporary and .5 3.7 1.03 0.21 that they have solutions 9 8 Je ressens que les problèmes dans ma vie sont temporaires et qu’il existe des solutions. Full sub-scale 3.1 1.30 8 Hedonic Independence (HI) 1. When I look forward to doing something pleasant, I .7 3.8 .85 .56 can only think about it 1 4 Lorsque j’anticipe de faire quelque chose de plaisant, je ne pense qu’à ça. 2. When I anticipate a situation or something that I like, .6 3.8 .88 .51 I get very excited 6 8 Lorsque j’anticipe quelque chose ou une situation que j’aime, je suis très excité(e). 3. When I desire an object, I feel a strong attraction to .6 3.3 1.16 .45 get it quickly Lorsque je suis attiré par un objet qui me 0 5 fait envie, je ressens une forte attraction pour l’obtenir rapidement 4. I am very excited when I am given something .5 -.52 3.9 .90 .37 pleasant (like a good surprise or a gift) or when 4 4 something pleasant happens to me. Je suis très excité(e) lorsqu’il m’arrive ou que l’on me donne quelque chose de plaisant (comme une bonne surprise ou un cadeau) 5. I often wish to prolong the moments when I feel a .6 4.3 .86 .47 strong pleasure 0 2 Je souhaite souvent prolonger les moments où je ressens un fort plaisir 6. I can’t stop doing something I like .5 .35 3.9 .92 .44 J’ai du mal à m’arrêter lorsque je fais quelque chose 5 7 que j’aime Full sub-scale 3.5 1.00 9 223 224
225Are Even-Minded State of Mind and Hedonic Independence Distinct Constructs?
226 To answer this question, we performed a new factor analysis using all the items from the two
227scales. Kaiser’s measure of sampling adequacy was .80. Based on the eigenvalues and an examination of
228the screen plot, this analysis revealed two factors, with the first factor accounting for 26.2 % of the
229explained variance and comprising all the items that assess Even-Minded State of Mind. The second
230factor accounted for 17.5 % of explained variance and comprised items that assess Hedonic
231Independence. Consequently, even-minded state of mind and hedonic independence are two distinct
1710 18 232constructs. Although the two scales correlated significantly (r = .174, p < .005), the size of the correlation
233was small (d = .35).
234 The internal consistency of the two subscales was examined using Cronbach's alpha. For the even-
235minded state of mind, Cronbach's alpha was equal to 0.81. With regard to hedonic independence, it was
2360.74. Thus, the two subscales of the EQUA-S had a satisfactory internal consistency (see Table 2).
237Convergent validity with relevant psychological constructs
238 In order to assess convergent validity while controlling for each subscale of equanimity (e.g.,
239even-minded state while controlling for hedonic independence and vice versa), we calculated the partial
240correlation between the two subscales of equanimity and relevant psychological constructs (see Table 4).
241In the case of the FFMQ, the even-minded state was related to nonreacting, to nonjudging and to acting
242with awareness. We also found partial negative correlations between the even-minded state of mind and
243the hyper-sensitivity score, one subscale of alexithymia (i.e., identifying emotions) and the avoidance and
244fusion scale. We found a very strong negative correlation between the even-minded state of mind
245component and neuroticism (r = -.74). In order to test the robustness of the above findings, we replicated
246our analyses by controlling for neuroticism, age and sex. The correlation between the even-minded state
247of mind and nonreacting still remained significant ( = .38, p < .001) and the correlation was still
248marginally significant in the case of the avoidance and fusion questionnaire ( = -.23, p = .054). At the
249same time, the correlations between the even-minded state of mind and the other components of the
250FFMQ (i.e. nonjudging, acting with awareness), as well as the alexithymia identifying emotions subscale
251and hyper-sensitivity, failed to reach significance. Thus, our even-minded state subscale was most related
252to nonreacting.
253 When even-minded state of mind was controlled for, hedonic independence was robustly and
254positively related to the acting with awareness component of the FFMQ. Hedonic independence was also
255related significantly and negatively to hyper-sensitivity, to the avoidance and fusion scale, to motor
256impulsivity and to sensitivity to reward and punishment. In addition, hedonic independence was
257positively and significantly related to conscientiousness. When age and sex were controlled for, we found
258similar results, except in the case of the sensitivity to punishment and the conscientiousness subscale,
259which failed to reach significance. Analyses with cognitive and non-planned impulsivity were not
260interpreted due to their low internal reliability (see Table 2)
261Table 4. Correlations and partial correlations between Even-minded State of Mind, Hedonic 262Independence and various dependent variables
1911 20 Sample E-MSM HI r Partial r r Partial r - FFMQ Observing A & B .016 .035 -.103 -.108 Describing A & B .096 .104 -.035 -.053 Acting with awareness A & B .223*** .193* .210** .179** Nonjudging of inner A & B .296*** .279*** .136* .090 experience Nonreacting to inner A & B .540*** .526*** .164** .084 experience - HSC A & B -.416*** -.392*** -.23** -.180** - TAS A -.102 -.085 -.105 -.088 Identifying emotions A -.203* -.181* -.150 -.117 Describing emotions A -.028 -.038 .050 .056 Externally oriented thinking A .026 .050 -.126 -.133 - AFS A -.435*** -.405*** -.314*** -.264** - SPSRQ Sensitivity to punishment A -.405*** -.375*** -.272** -.221* Sensitivity to reward A -.013 -.076 -.438*** -.443*** - CERQ Self-blame A -.143 -.124 -.116 -.092 Acceptance A .327*** .317*** .092 .035 Rumination A -.310*** -.277** -.254** -.211* Positive refocusing A .151 .187 -.166 -.199* Positive reappraisal A .287** .313*** -.107 -.169 Refocus on planning A .276** .330*** -.222* -.288** Putting into perspective A .339*** .351*** -.034 -.104 Catastrophizing A -.365*** -.345*** -.171* -.114 Blaming others A -.136 -.122 -.095 -.072 - ERQ Suppression A .052 .065 -.064 -.075 - BFI E (Extraversion) A .016 .040 -.13 -.136 A (Agreeableness) A .127 .101 .156 .136 C (Concientiousness) A .117 .079 .225** .208* N (Neuroticism) A -.739*** -.730*** -.181* -.070 O (Openness) A .061 .070 .044 -.056 - AIEQ B -.118 -.072 -.304*** -.299** - Frequency of addictive B -.125 -.087 -.251** -.243** behaviors - BIS-10 Motor A -.109 -.051 -.339*** -.327*** Attentional A -.185* -.142 -.279** -.254** Non-planning A .267** .260** .066 .018 263 264Note: *** p < .001, ** p < .01; * p < .05. Partial r provides correlations, with the other factor of 265equanimity controlled for (i.e., E-MSM controlling for hedonic independence and HI controlling for E- 266MSM). 267
268
269Relationships with health outcomes
270 Partial correlations (see Table 4) show that among the emotional regulation strategies assessed by
271the CERQ and the ERQ, even-minded state of mind was positively and significantly correlated with
272adaptive regulation strategies (i.e., positive reappraisal, refocus on planning, putting into perspective, and
2112 22 273acceptance), and negatively related to inadequate strategies (i.e., rumination, catastrophizing). When we
274controlled for age, sex and neuroticism, the same results were found, except in the case of refocus on
275planning and rumination.
276 Hedonic independence was significantly correlated with positive refocusing, refocus on planning,
277and rumination. When age and sex were controlled for, similar results were found, except in the case of
278rumination.
279 Finally, hedonic independence was significantly and negatively related to addictive behaviors and
280to problematic eating behaviors (i.e., AIEQ). We found similar results when we controlled for age and
281sex.
282Correlation with socio-demographic variables
283 We combined the two samples (A and B) into a single data set in order to measure correlations
284with the demographic variables. The results of a t-test showed a significant difference between men and
285women on the even-minded state of mind. Women have a slightly lower score (M = 2.81, SD = .75) than
286men (M = 3.28, SD = .68), t (262) = -4.93, p < .001. We found no significant difference on the hedonic
287independence subscale.
288 A correlation analysis revealed a significant relation between the hedonic independence subscale
289and age (r = .29, p < .001), but no relation with age and even-minded state of mind. A t-test showed a
290significant difference, at the level of hedonic independence, between participants indicating that they had
291a religion (M = 3.98, SD = .55) and participants indicating that they did not (M = 3.82, SD = .64), t (262)
292= 2.05, p < .05. We found no correlation between profession and language with either the even-minded
293state of mind or the hedonic independence state.
294Discussion
295In this study, we aimed to validate a scale measuring equanimity in a population of non-meditators. Based
296on Buddhist and Western psychological theories, we proposed two related but distinct components of
297equanimity: (1) even-minded state of mind and (2) hedonic independence. As predicted, a two-factor
298model fitted well with the data. These two factors were positively correlated with each other but also
299shared a small amount of variance. This finding was confirmed by many distinct correlations with other
300measures as well as by a factor analysis. In addition, these two components of equanimity had adequate
301internal consistency.
2313 24 302 The first component refers to equanimity as an even-minded state of mind, which means staying
303calm and feeling less stress, irrespective of the emotional evaluation of the situation or the stimuli.
304However, we found, first, that the even-minded state of mind shared a large amount of variance with
305neuroticism, which has been described as the opposite of emotional stability (e.g., 39). However, we
306found a robust relationship between this component of equanimity and adaptive emotional regulation
307strategies. This result confirms that equanimity is a quality involved in emotional regulation. We also
308found a robust relationship with nonreacting, which is a central component of mindfulness. This facet of
309mindfulness is defined as letting thoughts and feelings pass without getting caught up in them (21).
310Equanimity – as an observation of one’s responses to emotional stimuli – will prevent useless and
311unhelpful reactions. As expected, we also found a significant relationship between the even-minded state
312of mind and the avoidance and fusion questionnaire. Indeed, a weaker fusion with one’s thoughts and
313feelings has been found to be related to both greater mindfulness (28) and greater psychological flexibility
314(40), thus suggesting that an even-minded state of mind could be a protective health factor.
315 We termed the second component “hedonic independence” because it refers to the absence of
316actions or reactions oriented by the hedonic valence of stimuli or situations. This component was also
317found to correlate significantly and negatively with the avoidance and fusion questionnaire. Thus, the
318decentering point of view seems to be strongly related to the concept of equanimity (4). The hedonic
319independence component was more significantly related to addictive measures than the even-minded state
320of mind was. Hedonic independence was also associated with a lower sensitivity to reward, which is a
321risk factor for addictions (41,42). As proposed by Buddhist theories, developing equanimity can be an
322efficient way of reducing general craving.
323Limitations and future directions
324 Some limitations should also be acknowledged. This study was conducted with a population of
325non-meditators. Thus, future research is needed to compare meditators with non-meditators in order to
326investigate the influence of meditation practice on equanimity. Moreover, the strong link between the E-
327MSM subscale and neuroticism needs further explanations. It is possible that this relationship comes from
328the dimension of emotional stability that is assessed by both the E-MSM and neuroticism. If this is the
329case, this relationship should disappear when a scale that measures more directly emotional stability is
330statistically controlled. We will explore this hypothesis in future research. We also need to develop
2514 26 331cognitive tools to assess the cognitively based processes of equanimity. Indeed, as defined in Buddhist
332theories, equanimity could moderate the cognitive evaluation of emotional stimuli by promoting a more
333neutral evaluation. It is also possible that it leads to a decoupling between the evaluation and the reaction
334to a stimulus. Nonetheless, the EQUA-S represents a useful tool for researchers who wish to study
335equanimity. We hope this new instrument will help to stimulate research in this promising area.
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
2715 28 361
362
363
364Abbreviations
365EQUA-S : Equanimity Scale
366HI : Hedonic Independence
367E-MSM : Even-minded state of mind
368FFMQ : Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire
369SOFI : the Self-Other Four Immeasurables
370HSC : Highly Sensitive Child scale
371AFS : Avoidance and Fusion Scale
372BIS-10 : Barratt Impulsivity Scale
373BFI : Big Five Inventory
374TAS-20 : 20 items Toronto Alexithymia Scale
375SPSRQ : Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire
376AIEQ : Elaboration of the Addictive Intensity Evaluation Questionnaire
377CERQ : Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
378ERQ : Emotion Regulation Questionnaire
379KMO : Kaiser measure of sampling adequacy
380EV : eigenvalue
381
382Declarations sections
383Ethical approval and consent to participate:
384Ethical approval: Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Clermont Auvergne University
385Ethical and Research Committee (ref IRB00011450-2018621) and all procedures performed were in
386accordance with the 1964 Helsinki declaration.
387Informed consent: All participants provided informed written consent to participate included in the study.
388
389Consent to publish : Not applicable
390Availability of data and materials:
2916 30 391The datasets analysed during the current study are available in the Figshare.com repository,
392https://figshare.com/s/078f77420cba3ae22701
393Competing Interest: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
394Funding : Not applicable
395Authors’ Contributions: CJ and MD: designed the study, analyzed the data, executed the study and
396wrote the paper. NP and MR: collaborated with the scale development. NP, ET, MR and RS: collaborated
397with the writing of the study and editing of the final manuscript. All authors approved the final version of
398the manuscript for submission.
399Acknowledgements : Not applicable
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
3117 32 416
417
418
419References
4201. Sedlmeier P, Eberth J, Schwarz M, Zimmermann D, Haarig F, Jaeger S, et al. The psychological 421 effects of meditation: A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2012;138(6):1139–71.
4222. Gu J, Strauss C, Bond R, Cavanagh K. How do mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and 423 mindfulness-based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and 424 meta-analysis of mediation studies. Clin Psychol Rev. 2015 Apr;37:1–12.
4253. Ekman P, Davidson RJ, Ricard M, Wallace BA. Buddhist and Psychological Perspectives on 426 Emotions and Well-Being. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(2):59–63.
4274. Desbordes G, Gard T, Hoge EA, Hölzel BK, Kerr C, Lazar SW, et al. Moving Beyond 428 Mindfulness: Defining Equanimity as an Outcome Measure in Meditation and Contemplative 429 Research. Mindfulness. 2015 Apr 1;6(2):356–72.
4305. Hadash Y, Segev N, Tanay G, Goldstein P, Bernstein A. The Decoupling Model of Equanimity: 431 Theory, Measurement, and Test in a Mindfulness Intervention. Mindfulness. 2016 Oct;7(5):1214– 432 26.
4336. Pagis M. Evoking Equanimity: Silent Interaction Rituals in Vipassana Meditation Retreats. Qual 434 Sociol. 2015 Mar 1;38(1):39–56.
4357. Dambrun M, Ricard M. Self-centeredness and selflessness: A theory of self-based psychological 436 functioning and its consequences for happiness. Rev Gen Psychol. 2011;15(2):138–57.
4378. Holzel BK, Lazar SW, Gard T, Schuman-Olivier Z, Vago DR, Ott U. How Does Mindfulness 438 Meditation Work? Proposing Mechanisms of Action From a Conceptual and Neural Perspective. 439 Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Nov 1;6(6):537–59.
4409. Groves P, Farmer R. Buddhism and Addictions. Addict Res. 1994 Jan 1;2(2):183–94.
44110. Skinner MD, Aubin H-J. Craving’s place in addiction theory: Contributions of the major models. 442 Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010 Mar 1;34(4):606–23.
44311. Lacaille J, Ly J, Zacchia N, Bourkas S, Glaser E, Knäuper B. The effects of three mindfulness 444 skills on chocolate cravings. Appetite. 2014 May;76:101–12.
44512. Vago DRPD, David SAMD. Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): a 446 framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Front Hum Neurosci 447 [Internet]. 2012 [cited 2018 Jun 6];6. Available from: 448 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296/full
44913. Ortner CNM, Kilner SJ, Zelazo PD. Mindfulness meditation and reduced emotional interference on 450 a cognitive task. Motiv Emot. 2007 Dec 1;31(4):271–83.
45114. Ortner CNM, Kilner SJ, Zelazo PD. Mindfulness meditation and reduced emotional interference on 452 a cognitive task. Motiv Emot. 2007 Dec 1;31(4):271–83.
3318 34 45315. Taylor VA, Grant J, Daneault V, Scavone G, Breton E, Roffe-Vidal S, et al. Impact of mindfulness 454 on the neural responses to emotional pictures in experienced and beginner meditators. NeuroImage. 455 2011 Aug 15;57(4):1524–33.
45616. Dambrun M, Ricard M, Després G, Drelon E, Gibelin E, Gibelin M, et al. Measuring Happiness: 457 From Fluctuating Happiness to Authentic–Durable Happiness. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2012 [cited 458 2016 Dec 3];3. Available from: 459 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00016/abstract
46017. Grossman P, Niemann L, Schmidt S, Walach H. Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health 461 benefits: A meta-analysis. J Psychosom Res. 2004 Jul;57(1):35–43.
46218. Olendzki A. THE TRANSFORMATIVE IMPACT OF NON-SELF [Internet]. Buddhist Thought 463 and Applied Psychological Research. 2006 [cited 2018 Sep 9]. Available from: 464 https://www.taylorfrancis.com/
46519. Ostafin BD, Bauer C, Myxter P. Mindfulness Decouples the Relation Between Automatic Alcohol 466 Motivation and Heavy Drinking. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2012 Sep;31(7):729–45.
46720. Papies EK, Barsalou LW, Custers R. Mindful Attention Prevents Mindless Impulses. Soc Psychol 468 Personal Sci. 2012 May 1;3(3):291–9.
46921. Baer RA, Smith GT, Lykins E, Button D, Krietemeyer J, Sauer S, et al. Construct Validity of the 470 Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples 471 , Construct Validity of the Five Facet Mindfulness 472 Questionnaire in Meditating and Nonmeditating Samples. Assessment. 2008 Sep 1;15(3):329–42.
47322. Kraus S, Sears S. Measuring the Immeasurables: Development and Initial Validation of the Self- 474 Other Four Immeasurables (SOFI) Scale Based on Buddhist Teachings on Loving Kindness, 475 Compassion, Joy, and Equanimity. Soc Indic Res. 2008 Aug 27;92(1):169.
47623. Chan CHY, Chan THY, Leung PPY, Brenner MJ, Wong VPY, Leung EKT, et al. Rethinking Well- 477 Being in Terms of Affliction and Equanimity: Development of a Holistic Well-Being Scale. J Ethn 478 Cult Divers Soc Work. 2014 Oct 2;23(3–4):289–308.
47924. Moscoso MS, Merino Soto C. Construcción y validez de contenido del Inventario de Mindfulness y 480 Ecuanimidad: una perspectiva iberoamericana. Mindfulness Compassion. 2017 Jan 1;2(1):9–16.
48125. Ostafin BD, Robinson MD, Meier BP. Handbook of Mindfulness and Self-Regulation. Springer; 482 2015. 299 p.
48326. Giluk TL. Mindfulness, Big Five personality, and affect: A meta-analysis. Personal Individ Differ. 484 2009 Dec 1;47(8):805–11.
48527. Baer RA, Smith GT, Allen KB. Assessment of Mindfulness by Self-Report: The Kentucky 486 Inventory of Mindfulness Skills. Assessment. 2004 Sep 1;11(3):191–206.
48728. Corman M, Dambrun M, Bay J-O, Peffault de La Tour R. Adaptation française et analyse des 488 qualités psychométriques du questionnaire d’évitement et de fusion (AFQ) dans une population 489 adulte. Ann Méd-Psychol Rev Psychiatr [Internet]. 2018 Apr 17; Available from: 490 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003448718301185
49129. Jermann F, Van der Linden M, d’Acremont M, Zermatten A. Cognitive Emotion Regulation 492 Questionnaire (CERQ). Eur J Psychol Assess. 2006 Jan 1;22(2):126–31.
49330. Siegling AB, Petrides KV. Measures of trait mindfulness: Convergent validity, shared 494 dimensionality, and linkages to the five-factor model. Front Psychol [Internet]. 2014 [cited 2018 495 Dec 17];5. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01164/full
3519 36 49631. Heeren A, Douilliez C, Peschard V, Debrauwere L, Philippot P. Cross-cultural validity of the Five 497 Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire: Adaptation and validation in a French-speaking sample. Rev 498 Eur Psychol AppliquéeEuropean Rev Appl Psychol. 2011 Jul 1;61(3):147–51.
49932. Pluess M, Assary E, Lionetti F, Lester KJ, Krapohl E, Aron EN, et al. Environmental sensitivity in 500 children: Development of the Highly Sensitive Child Scale and identification of sensitivity groups. 501 Dev Psychol. 2018;54(1):51–70.
50233. Baylé FJ, Bourdel MC, Caci H, Gorwood P, Chignon JM, Adés J, et al. [Factor analysis of french 503 translation of the Barratt impulsivity scale (BIS-10)]. Can J Psychiatry Rev Can Psychiatr. 2000 504 Mar;45(2):156–65.
50534. Plaisant O, Courtois R, Réveillère C, Mendelsohn GA, John OP. Validation par analyse factorielle 506 du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. Ann Méd- 507 Psychol Rev Psychiatr. 2010 Mar 1;168(2):97–106.
50835. Loas G, Otmani O, Verrier A, Fremaux D, Marchand MP. Factor Analysis of the French Version of 509 the 20-ltem Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20). Psychopathology. 1996;29(2):139–44.
51036. Lardi C, Billieux J, d’Acremont M, Linden MV der. A French adaptation of a short version of the 511 Sensitivity to Punishment and Sensitivity to Reward Questionnaire (SPSRQ). Personal Individ 512 Differ. 2008 Dec 1;45(8):722–5.
51337. Décamps G, Battaglia N, Idier L. Élaboration du Questionnaire de mesure de l’intensité des 514 conduites addictives (QMICA) : évaluation des addictions et co-addictions avec et sans substances. 515 Psychol Fr. 2010 Dec 1;55(4):279–94.
51638. Christophe V, Antoine P, Leroy T, Delelis G. Évaluation de deux stratégies de régulation 517 émotionnelle : la suppression expressive et la réévaluation cognitive. Rev Eur Psychol 518 AppliquéeEuropean Rev Appl Psychol. 2009 Jan 1;59(1):59–67.
51939. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J 520 Res Personal. 2003 Dec 1;37(6):504–28.
52140. Hayes SC, Luoma JB, Bond FW, Masuda A, Lillis J. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: 522 Model, processes and outcomes. Behav Res Ther. 2006 Jan 1;44(1):1–25.
52341. Dissabandara LO, Loxton NJ, Dias SR, Dodd PR, Daglish M, Stadlin A. Dependent heroin use and 524 associated risky behaviour: the role of rash impulsiveness and reward sensitivity. Addict Behav. 525 2014 Jan;39(1):71–6.
52642. Eichen DM, Chen EY, Schmitz MF, Arlt J, McCloskey MS. Addiction Vulnerability and Binge 527 Eating in Women: Exploring Reward Sensitivity, Affect Regulation, Impulsivity & Weight/Shape 528 Concerns. Personal Individ Differ. 2016 Oct;100:16–22.
529
3720 38