Can Mindfulness Mitigate The Energy-Depleting Process and Increase Job Resources To Prevent Burnout? A Study On The Mindfulness Trait in The School Context
Can Mindfulness Mitigate The Energy-Depleting Process and Increase Job Resources To Prevent Burnout? A Study On The Mindfulness Trait in The School Context
Can Mindfulness Mitigate The Energy-Depleting Process and Increase Job Resources To Prevent Burnout? A Study On The Mindfulness Trait in The School Context
* sara.viotti@unito.it
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
Abstract
a1111111111
a1111111111
Background
Past studies in the teaching context provided evidence of the role of mindfulness-based
intervention in improving occupational wellbeing. This study aims to increase the extant
OPEN ACCESS
knowledge by testing the mechanism that links teachers’ mindfulness at work to occupa-
tional wellbeing. Rooted in the job demand–resource model, the mindfulness trait is concep-
Citation: Guidetti G, Viotti S, Badagliacca R,
Colombo L, Converso D (2019) Can mindfulness tualized as a personal resource that has the ability to impact and interact with job demands
mitigate the energy-depleting process and increase and resources, specifically workload stress appraisal and perceived meaningfulness of
job resources to prevent burnout? A study on the work, in affecting teachers’ burnout.
mindfulness trait in the school context. PLoS ONE
14(4): e0214935. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0214935 Methods
Editor: Sergio Garbarino, University o f Genoa, A sample of primary, middle, and secondary school teachers (N = 605) completed a ques-
ITALY tionnaire that aimed to assess teachers’ mindfulness trait and the measures of the quality of
Received: October 22, 2018 occupational life in the school context. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to
Accepted: March 24, 2019
test the model fit indices; further analyses were performed to test the hypotheses about
mediation and moderation effects.
Published: April 4, 2019
Introduction
Mindfulness at work
The concept of mindfulness underlines the ability to pay attention to both internal and exter-
nal stimuli in the present moment and observe them without judgmental attitudes or cognitive
distortions derived from heuristics [1]. It has been well defined its role in promoting wellbeing
in both clinical and non-clinical samples, especially involving studies on the effectiveness of
mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs, e.g., mindfulness-based stress reduction) [2] [3].
Some of the studies in the field of occupational health psychology began to evaluate mind-
fulness as a trait, called workplace mindfulness [4], which is a stable or a dispositional personal
characteristic. Different from other psychological resources, such as self-efficacy, locus of con-
trol, or self-esteem, which have been the subjects of a wide research stream (e.g., [5]), the role
of mindfulness as a psychological resource that is able to sustain occupational health has not
been well examined to date. Recently, increased amount of studies has emphasized the impor-
tance of examining the mechanism linking mindfulness to wellbeing outcomes. For example,
research has provided evidence that when a job task requires emotional regulation abilities,
being mindful decreases the tendency to adopt surface acting strategies [6]. Other studies have
indicated that the mindfulness trait at work is linked to work engagement via accrued personal
resources (i.e., positive job-related affect) [7], and authentic functioning [8] which is an open
and non-defensive way of interacting with oneself and others. Samios [9] reports that in a sam-
ple of mental health workers, mindfulness exerted an influence on depression alleviation, job
satisfaction, and positive affect through the role of compassion satisfaction, which is the plea-
sure derived from taking care of patients.
All these results could be explained by the mechanism of reperceiving [10], that is, the abil-
ity to decouple the self from the event, favoring a positive reappraisal of potentially threatening
stimuli derived from the external environment or from internal experiences. These studies
have also proven mindfulness as a resource that helps people stay in touch with their true
selves, needs, and values, which coincides with self-determination [11]. Based on the self-
determination theory [11], Schultz et al. [12] showed that the mindfulness trait buffers the
impact of an unsupportive work environment on the frustration from unfulfilled basic psycho-
logical needs.
Within the teaching profession the interest in the role of mindfulness has generated a large
number of training-based experiences aimed to reduce stress and burnout, as well as its physi-
ological, psychological, and organizational costs [13] [14] [15] [16]. In a recent systematic
review of MBIs’ effects on stress, emotion regulation, and self-efficacy [17], its most significant
finding relates MBIs to a decrease in perceived stress and an improvement in teachers’ mind-
fulness. Nevertheless, these studies do not provide clear evidence of the mechanism through
which the benefits of participating in MBIs have an impact on reducing distress, such as
burnout.
Because mindfulness concerns the ability to maintain awareness and attention at the pres-
ent moment, with non-judgmental attitudes toward oneself and others, it is important to ana-
lyze the degree to which teachers are able to adapt these psychological functions to their daily
work in the school context. As explained by Frank, Jennings, and Greenberg [18], these abili-
ties are self-regulated behaviors that allow teachers to be more aware of the ongoing occur-
rences in the whole classroom, paying close attention to students’ needs and behaviors without
being distracted by other work-related problems or acting using dysfunctional cognitive habits
in front of stressful situations.
Rooted in the Job Demand–Resource model (JD-R) [19] [20], this study has the aim to
enhance the extant knowledge about the role of mindfulness as a personal resource at work, to
which scarce attention has been paid. Specifically regarding the teaching profession, which is
widely considered a stressful occupation [21] [22], it is important to analyze how the mindful-
ness trait at work could impact one of the most relevant stress-related phenomena, that is,
burnout, “a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job”
([23], p. 397). The two core dimensions of burnout are (1) emotional exhaustion, which refers
to feelings of being overextended and depleted of one’s emotional and physical resources, and
(2) cynicism (or depersonalization), which pertains to negative, callous, or excessively
detached responses to various aspects of the job [23] [24]. Results of the present study thus
may provide information about more targeted MBIs for teachers, indicating how mindfulness
could prevent the onset of burnout.
as too demanding or threatening, thus exceeding one’s resources to deal with it. As shown in
the study of Gomes et al. [37], the negative cognitive appraisal of demanding work characteris-
tics or threat perception performs a central role in the onset of subsequent negative outcomes
for teachers, thus mediating the relation between workload and burnout. The differentiation
between sources of stress, such as workload, and people’s cognitive appraisal of them, is a key
to the study on mindfulness. As stated earlier, mindfulness involves a greater capacity to reper-
ceive external and internal stimuli, focusing on the present moment instead of activating mal-
adaptive cognitive schemas. In this way, Weinstein, Brown, and Ryan [39] showed that
dispositional mindfulness alters the stress process, lessening negative appraisals of stress and
in turn favoring more adaptive cognitive strategies.
Although the cited literature indicates how mindfulness could alter the negative appraisal
of stress, no studies to date have explored this relationship, considering the role of mindfulness
as a psychological resource in the JD–R model [19]. For example, few studies showed how
mindfulness enhances one’s ability to deal with job demands [40] [4], but they consider neither
the impact of mindfulness on the negative appraisal of stress-inducing job demands nor the
relationship with job resources.
In addition to altering the negative appraisal of stress, as previously stated, mindfulness
develops a person’s capacity to be more self-determined, focused on the current work tasks,
and to act in accordance with one’s true self and values [8] [9] [12]. One of the job resources
that could be closely linked to the expression of a person’s own values and self-determined
behaviors at work is the perception about one’s meaning of work. The meaning of work has
been defined as an individual’s subjective sense of one’s work situation, expressed through
job-related activities that are congruent with one’s personal values [41] [42]. Regarding the
teaching profession, perceived meaningfulness of work represents an important source of
intrinsic reward [43], where teaching constitutes a way of expressing oneself as a human being
by working with and influencing students [44]. Previous studies have analyzed antecedents
[45] and outcomes of meaningfulness of work [46] [47] [48] as a fundamental job resource.
However, to date, no studies have examined the role of personal resources, such as mindful-
ness, in relation to meaningful work, and there are scarce findings about this resource for the
teaching profession.
Finally, none of the previous studies used context-specific mindfulness measures. This tenet
is of further importance, as the JD–R model [20] implies that job and personal resources
should be typical of the specific occupation.
Given the above literature review, it is argued here that mindfulness plays a central role in
affecting, on one hand, the workload stress appraisal that constitutes the energy-depleting pro-
cess leading to burnout, and on the other hand, in fostering meaningfulness of work of teach-
ers, as it favors a better alignment with self-determined behaviors and the focus on the core
characteristics of the teaching process, thus preventing from the onset of burnout.
The following hypotheses are formulated (Fig 1) regarding indirect path linking mindful-
ness to burnout:
HP1. Workload stress appraisal mediates the relationship between mindfulness and both
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization; that is mindfulness exerts its negative effect on
burnout, lessening the negative appraisal of stress.
HP2. Teachers’ perceived meaningfulness of work mediates the relationship between mind-
fulness and both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization; that is, mindfulness exerts its
negative effect on burnout, fostering the perception about meaningful work.
Moreover, given the double role played by personal resources within the JD-R model [19]
[20], it is analyzed the buffer effect of mindfulness on both workload stress appraisal and
meaningfulness of work:
HP3. Mindfulness moderates the effects of the negative appraisal of the workload on both
emotional exhaustion and depersonalization; as mindfulness increases, the positive relation-
ship between workload stress appraisal and burnout decreases, or stop being significant.
HP4. Mindfulness moderates the effects of perceived meaningfulness of work on both emo-
tional exhaustion and depersonalization. Specifically as the lack of job resources could increase
levels of burnout, personal resources can compensate them. Integrating COR theory assump-
tion [28] [29] within the JD-R model [19] [20], it could be hypothesized that the more mindful
people experience, lesser are the levels of burnout when meaningfulness of work is low, com-
pared to those with high levels of meaningfulness of work.
Research objectives, schedule and content of the questionnaire were approved by the Prin-
cipals and teachers’ representative of the sixteen educational institutes involved in the research
project: 66 Martiri (Turin), A. Frank (Turin), Regio Parco (Turin), L. Da Vinci, (Turin), Salve-
mini (Turin), Cherasco, (Cuneo), Diano D’Alba (Cuneo), Quartiere Moretta (Cuneo), Som-
mariva (Cuneo), Bodoni (Turin), Curie-Levi (Turin), Curie-Vittorini (Turin), A. Einstein
(Turin), S. Grandis (Cuneo), Govone (Cuneo), Licei Giolitti-Gandino (Cuneo).
The participants volunteered for the research without receiving any reward, signed the
informed consent forms, and agreed to anonymously complete the questionnaire. The
research conforms to the Declaration of Helsinki of 1995 (as revised in Edinburgh 2000), and
all ethical guidelines were followed, as required for conducting human research, including
adherence to the legal requirements of the country under study. An additional ethical approval
was not required since no treatment was involved, including medical, invasive diagnostics, or
procedures causing psychological or social discomfort for the participants.
At their own convenience, the teachers returned the completed questionnaires in sealed
boxes. Overall, the response rate was 49.75% (985 of the 1,980 questionnaires were returned).
The majority of the participants were women (792, 80.4%). The sample had a mean (M) age of
45.7 years (standard deviation [SD] = 9.67; minimum = 23, maximum = 65). Based on the
grade level, the sample consisted of 407 (41,3%) primary, 199 (20.2%) middle, and 379 (38.5%)
secondary school teachers.
Measures
Teachers’ mindfulness at work was measured using the intrapersonal mindfulness dimension of
the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale [18]. Consisting of nine items on a five-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 = totally false to 5 = totally true, it aimed to measure teachers’ non-judgmental
and non-reactive abilities during their daily teaching activities that could help them mindfully
observe their emotional reactivity and ability to pay attention at the present moment (e.g.,
“When I am in the classroom, I have difficulty in staying focused on what is currently happen-
ing.”). The scale had satisfactory reliability (α = 0.84). The index was calculated after reversing
all the item scores, and the M and the SD of the whole sample were 39.65 and 4.25, respectively.
The teachers’ workload appraisal was measured using three items of an adaptation [49] of
the Teacher Stress Inventory proposed by Klassen [50]. The items were presented with the
prompt question: “How stressful are these aspects of your work for you as a teacher?” (e.g.,
“having extra duties/responsibilities,” “having a large class size,” “being responsible for stu-
dents’ achievement”). The responses were given on a nine-point Likert scale ranging from
1 = not stressful at all to 9 = completely stressful. The scale had satisfactory reliability (α =
0.71). The M and the SD of the whole sample were 16.82 and 5.58, respectively.
Perceived meaningfulness of work was measured using three items of the Copenhagen Psy-
chosocial Questionnaire (COPSOQ) [51] (e.g., “As a teacher, I think that my work is meaning-
ful.”). The responses were given on a four-point scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to
4 = totally agree. The M and the SD were 10.95 and 1.41, respectively. The scale had good reli-
ability (α = 0.84).
Burnout was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory education survey [52] [53]
with eight items about emotional exhaustion (e.g., “I feel emotionally drained from my
work.”) (M = 14.80, SD = 10.02, α = 0.88) and four items about depersonalization (e.g., “I hap-
pen to treat students as impersonal objects.”) (M = 1.94, SD = 3.20, α = 0.68). The responses
were given on a seven-point Likert scale (from 0 = never to 6 = every day).
All the scales, except for emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, were adapted to Ital-
ian using back translation [54].
Results
Descriptive analyses and measurement model
Table 1 reports the correlations among the study variables. The teachers’ mindfulness trait cor-
related with all the other variables in the expected direction.
Table 2 presents the fit indices of the CFA. The hypothesized measurement model, consist-
ing of five correlated latent factors, was the only model showing a good fit. The AIC and the
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t001
Table 2. Goodness-of-fit indexes—confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of the constructs considered in the study.
χ2(df) χ2/df CFI TLI SMRM RMSEA AIC
BIC
M1 (5 constructs loaded on 1 factor) 3899.92 12.03 .52 .48 .11 .10 (CI .103- 71289.144
(324) .109) 71684.705
M2 (4 constructs loaded on 1 factor vs trait mindfulness 2446.802 7.57 .72 .69 .10 .08 (CI .079- 69496.099
(323) .069) 69896.543
M3 (Work meaning, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization loading on 1 factor, vs trait 2163.337 6.73 .75 .73 .08 .07 (CI .07 - 69553.999
mindfulness and workload stress appraisal) (321) .08) 69553.999
M4 (Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization loaded on 1 factor vs trait mindfulness, 1271.756 3.99 .87 .86 .06 .05 (CI .052 - 68037.311
workload stress appraisal and work meaning) (318) .059) 68462.173
M5 (Five factor model) 934.201 2.97 .91 .90 .04 .04 (CI .042 - 67622.008
(314) .048) 68066.403
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t002
BIC confirmed that this five-factor model fit the data significantly better than the alternative
models that included one to four factors.
Table 3. Simple mediation results of workload stress appraisal between mindfulness and emotional exhaustion.
Predictor Model 1 Model 2
Workload stress appraisal Emotional exhaustion B(SE)
Control variables B (SE) p B (SE) p
Age .05 (.02) .00
Gender -.78 (.58) .18
Grade level: primary school -.16 (.49) .73
Grade level: middle school -1.52 (.60) .01
Indipendent variable
Trait mindfulness -.21(.05) .00 -.77 (.08) .00
path a path c
-.62 (.08) .00
path c1
Workload stress appraisal .69 (.06) .00
path b
R2 = .29
Bootstrap indirect effect on Emotional exhaustion (through workload stress appraisal) B LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Trait mindfulness -.15 -.24 -.06
path (axb)
Notes: path a = effect of trait mindfulness on teachers’ workload stress appraisal. b = effect of teachers’ workload stress appraisal on emotional exhaustion. c = total effect
of trait mindfulness on emotional exhaustion. c1 = direct effect of trait mindfulness on emotional exhaustion. Indirect effect (axb) of trait mindfulness on emotional
exhaustion, through workload stress appraisal.
Abbreviations: LL, lower level; UL, upper level.
N. of cases of the model after listwise deletion: 606
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t003
Table 4. Simple mediation results of workload stress apprasial between mindfulness and depersonalization.
Predictor Model 1 Model 2
Workload stress appraisal Depersonalization
Control variables B (SE) p B (SE) p
Age .05 (.02) .01 .00 (.01) .94
Gender -.64 (.57) .26 1.10 (.26) .00
Grade level: primary school -.10 (.48) .82 -.66 (.22) .00
Grade level: middle school -1.75 (.58) .00 -.71 (.27) .00
Indipendent variable
Trait mindfulness -.21 (.05) .00 -.25 (.02) .00
path a path c
-.24 (.02) .00
path c1
Workload stress appraisal .06 (.01) .00
path b
R2 = .23
Bootstrap indirect effect on Depersonalization (through workload stress appraisal) B LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Trait mindfulness .01 -.02 -.00
path axb
Notes: path a = effect of trait mindfulness on teachers’ workload stress appraisal. b = effect of teachers’ workload stress appraisal on depersonalization. c = total effect of
trait mindfulness on depersonalization. c1 = direct effect of trait mindfulness on depersonalization. Indirect effect (axb) of trait mindfulness on depersonalization,
through workload stress appraisal.
Abbreviations: LL, lower level; UL, upper level.
N. of cases after listwise deletion: 627
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t004
Table 5. Simple mediation results of work meaning between mindfulness and emotional exhaustion.
Predictor Model 1 Model 2
Work meaning Emotional exhaustion
Control variables B (SE) p B (SE) p
Age -.015 (.005) .00 .17(.03) .00
Gender -.02 (.14) .88 -1.53(.97) .11
Grade level: primary school .43 (.11) .00 -.68(.82) .40
Grade level: middle school .12 (.14) .37 -2.13(1.01) .03
Indipendent variable
Trait mindfulness .05 (.01) .00 -.79 (.08) .00
path a path c
-.76 (.08) .00
path c1
Work meaning -.61 (.27) .02
path b
R2 = .16
Bootstrap indirect effect on Emotional exhaustion (through work meaning) B LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Trait mindfulness -.03 -.08 -.00
path (axb)
Notes: path a = effect of trait mindfulness on teachers’ work meaning. b = effect of teachers’ work meaning on emotional exhaustion. c = total effect of trait mindfulness
on emotional exhaustion. c1 = direct effect of trait mindfulness on emotional exhaustion. Indirect effect (axb) of trait mindfulness on emotional exhaustion, through
work meaning.
Abbreviations: LL, lower level; UL, upper level.
N. of cases after listwise deletion: 612
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t005
Table 6. Simple mediation results of work meaning between mindfulness and depersonalization.
Predictor Model 1 Model 2
Work meaning Depersonalization
Control variables B (SE) p B (SE) p
Age -.01 (.00) .00 .00 (.01) .87
Gender -.03 (.14) .82 1.16 (.27) .00
Grade level: primary school .49 (.11) .00 -.69 (.22) .00
Grade level: middle school .19 (.14) .17 -.74 (.27) .00
Indipendent variable
Trait mindfulness .05(.01) .00 -.27 (.02) .00
path a path c
-.25 (.02) .00
path c1
Work meaning -.23 (.02) .00
path b
R2 = .23
Bootstrap indirect effect on Depersonalization (through work meaning) B LL 95% CI UL 95% CI
Trait mindfulness -.005 -.03 -.00
path (axb)
Notes: path a = effect of trait mindfulness on teachers’ work meaning. b = effect of teachers’ work meaning on depersonalization. c = total effect of trait mindfulness on
depersonalization. c1 = direct effect of trait mindfulness on depersonalization. Indirect effect (axb) of trait mindfulness on depersonalization, through work meaning.
Abbreviations: LL, lower level; UL, upper level.
N. of cases after listwise deletion: 636
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t006
First of all, trait mindfulness is significantly and negatively associated to both emotional
exhaustion and depersonalization. Tables 3 and 4 show how the mindfulness trait is negatively
and significantly related to workload stress appraisal (Path a, Tables 3 and 4), which in turn is
positively related to both emotional exhaustion (Path b, Table 3) and depersonalization (Path
b, Table 4). Additionally, a significant indirect effect emerges, confirming HP1; path c1 (Tables
3 and 4) is significant, highlighting a partial mediation effect, as the effect of mindfulness on
the outcome variables is still significant even in the presence of the mediation variable [60].
The analysis show that the results are consistent with the HP 2, as mindfulness significantly
and positively relates to perceived meaningfulness of work (Path a, Tables 5 and 6), which in
turn negatively relates to both emotional exhaustion (Path b, Table 5) and depersonalization
(Path b, Table 6). Furthermore, significant indirect effects emerge, confirming HP2;
Table 7. Simple moderation between mindfulness and workload stress appraisal on emotional exhaustion.
Predictors B (SE) p
Age .13 (.03) .00
Gender -.96 (.91) .28
Grade level: primay school -.34 (.77) .65
Grade level: middle school -.96 (.84) .25
Trait mindfulness -.62 (.09) .00
Workload stress appraisal .70 (.05) .00
Mindfulness x Workload stress appraisal -.02 (.01) .01
2
R = .29
N. of cases after listwise deletion: 607
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t007
Table 8. Simple moderation between mindfulness and workload stress appraisal on depersonalization.
Predictors B (SE) p
Age -.00 (.13) .86
Gender 1.19 (.34) .00
Grade level: primay school -.59 (.21) .00
Grade level: middle school -.57 (.26) .02
Trait mindfulness -.24 (.03) .00
Workload stress appraisal .07 (.01) .00
Mindfulness x Workload stress appraisal -.01 (.00) .03
R2 = .24
N. of cases after listwise deletion: 628
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.t008
mindfulness exerts its effect on both emotional exhaustion (path axb, Table 5) and depersonal-
ization (Path axb, Table 6) through the mediation role of work meaning. Supporting the find-
ings of Baron and Kenny [60], there is a partial mediation effect of perceived meaningfulness
of work between mindfulness and both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization.
To test HP3 and HP4, a series of simple moderation analyses was performed. Tables 7 and 8
show only the results regarding the significant interaction between mindfulness and workload
stress appraisal because no significant interaction effect emerges between mindfulness and
perceived meaningfulness of work. These results confirm HP3 but not HP4.
As emerging from the moderation analyses, conditional direct effects of workload stress
appraisal on emotional exhaustion are significantly stronger at lower (-1 SD) and medium lev-
els of mindfulness (M = 0) compared with higher levels (+1 SD) (Fig 2), while the conditional
Fig 2. Emotional exhaustion at levels of trait mindfulness and workload stress appraisal. Note: WSA: Workload stress appraisal; Mind: Mindfulness.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.g002
direct effects of workload stress appraisal on depersonalization are positive and significant
only at lower (-1 SD) and medium (M = 0) levels of mindfulness, not at higher levels (+1 SD)
(Fig 3). These results are in line with HP3; as mindfulness increases, the effect of workload
stress appraisal on emotional exhaustion decreases, and it stops being significant in its rela-
tionship with depersonalization.
All the models have been controlled for potentially confounding variables, such as gender,
age, and grade level (primary, middle, and secondary school teachers). All the results remain
stable even without control variables.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to increase the extant knowledge about the role of trait mindfulness
as a psychological resource. Specifically, we focused our examination on the teaching profes-
sion, using a context-specific measure of mindfulness at work. Consistent with the JD-R
model [19] [20], and with past studies on the role of mindfulness [8] [9] [11] [39], the study
examined if trait mindfulness for teachers could impact on the perception of the workload
stress appraisal and on a specific job resource, that is perceived meaningfulness of work and, at
the same time, if mindfulness at work is a resource able to modify the impact that these job
characteristics have on burnout.
Consistent with previous findings [39], results from this study have evidenced how mind-
fulness lessens the negative stress appraisal process that leads to experience burnout symptoms.
This result widens previous studies that linked the cognitive appraisal of teacher stress to burn-
out [37], giving relevance to an underrepresented psychological resource able to lessen the
effect exerted from negative appraisal. Extant literature conducted within the occupational
Fig 3. Depersonalization at levels of trait mindfulness and workload stress appraisal. Note: WSA: Workload stress appraisal; Mind: Mindfulness.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0214935.g003
health stream, has indeed taken into account the relations that mindfulness has with job
demands, which, differently from cognitive appraisal, cannot be often directly modified by the
employees [4] [6] [37] [40]. Therefore, the results of the present study give further importance
to mindfulness as a resource able to modify the impact of negative cognitive schemas on the
onset of burnout, and how these elements could be integrated within the JD-R model.
Moreover, our hypothesis on the role of mindfulness in fostering the perception of mean-
ingful work have been confirmed. Consistent with previous studies [8] [9] [10], it is possible to
support the hypothesis that trait mindfulness at work is able to sustain more authentic and
true-selves values and behaviors. However, based on the COR theory [28] [29], the results of
the present study improved previous research outcomes: mindfulness at work can accrue not
only personal resources, but also job resources [61], such as the perception that teachers have
of their own work as full of meaning. Moreover, this is consistent with JD-R assumption [19]
[20], which states that one of the potential effects of personal resources is their impact on the
way by which people perceive their work environment.
These results all together put more insights on the mechanisms that link mindfulness, as a
stable personal resource adapted to the teaching context, to wellbeing outcomes. It could be
confirmed that the re-perceiving process [10] favored by non-judgmental attitudes on the
present-moment is able to sustain a less negative perception of potential threatening stimuli
and a more meaningful view of the teaching work. The relevance of teaching mindfully is that
it represents a fundamental resource that aids teachers to be more focused on the present
moment of teaching activities and on students’ needs, favoring a more detached view of work-
ing problems that are not directly related to teaching tasks within the classroom. In this vein,
being able to adopt a compassionate, open-hearted and affectionate orientation to present
moment experiences during teaching, represents a fundamental self-regulatory resource that
could strengthen the ability to invest in classroom relationships, management and instruction
[62], and sustain rethinking about habitual stressful appraisal of working conditions, such as
relations with students and colleagues.
Furthermore, the evidence that mindfulness could moderate a negative workload stress
appraisal, but not the lack of job resources, is another important finding, which puts more
insights on how this personal resource act within the theoretical model of the JD-R [19] [20].
On the one hand, it emerged that having higher levels of mindfulness acts as a protective factor
against the presence of stress inducing factors such as the negative workload stress appraisal.
In this vein it seems that teachers higher on mindfulness are more able to understand and con-
trol the activation of cognitive schemas that are based on the threatening perception of work-
ing events. On the other hand, the absence of a moderating effect between mindfulness and
the meaningfulness of work could be explained by the assumption of the COR theory [28] [29]
that burnout increases when people are lacking valued job resources. In this vein, it could be
hypothesized that, for those teachers that experience low levels of meaningfulness of work, this
could be not a valued job resource and even if teachers experience high levels of mindfulness,
this personal resource is not able to compensate for the lack of meaningful work. Moreover,
this result is consistent with the theoretical assumption about the main role of personal
resources [30] within the JD-R model [19] [20], as they can primarily help to lessen the impact
that job demands, or their negative stressful appraisal, have on the onset of burnout.
However, to date it is not so clear how job and personal resources can interact in predicting
job burnout, and future research should invest more interest about the role exerted from
mindfulness. In this vein, future studies could focus on the booster effect that the interaction
between job resources and personal resources may have on work engagement [63].
Finally, these results give further insights on how mindfulness can act as a personal resource
within the JD-R model, favoring a more in-depth view of its significance in the teaching
profession, regarding which, except of the increasing interest paid to MBI’s effectiveness stud-
ies (e.g., [17]), no other studies have implemented correlational studies aimed at assess how
trait mindfulness could be linked to occupational wellbeing outcomes.
Supporting information
S1 File. process.
(SAV)
S2 File. MPLUS.
(DAT)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Gloria Guidetti, Sara Viotti, Rosa Badagliacca, Lara Colombo, Daniela
Converso.
Data curation: Gloria Guidetti, Rosa Badagliacca, Daniela Converso.
Formal analysis: Gloria Guidetti, Sara Viotti, Daniela Converso.
Investigation: Gloria Guidetti, Daniela Converso.
Methodology: Gloria Guidetti, Sara Viotti, Daniela Converso.
Project administration: Daniela Converso.
Supervision: Daniela Converso.
Writing – original draft: Gloria Guidetti.
Writing – review & editing: Gloria Guidetti, Sara Viotti, Rosa Badagliacca, Lara Colombo,
Daniela Converso.
References
1. Glomb TM, Duffy MK, Bono JE, Yang T. Mindfulness at work. Research in Personnel and Human
Resources Management, 2011; 30. https://doi.org/10.1108/s0742-7301(2011)0000030005
2. Baer RA. Mindfulness training as a clinical intervention: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Psy-
chology: Science and Practice, 2003; 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg015
3. Chiesa A, Serretti A. Mindfulness-based stress reduction for stress management in healthy people: A
review and meta-analysis. J Alter Complement Med. 2009; 15(5). https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2008.
0495 PMID: 19432513
4. Dane E, Brummel JB. Examining workplace mindfulness and its relations to job performance and turn-
over intentions. Human relations, 2013; 67(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713487753
5. Judge TA, Bono JE. Relationship of core self-evaluations traits—self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy,
locus of control, and emotional stability—with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. J
Appl Psychol, 2001; 86(1). doi: .1037//0021-9010.86.1.80
6. Hulsheger UR, Alberts HJ, Feinholdt A, Lang JW. Benefits of mindfulness at work: The role of mindful-
ness in emotion regulation, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction. J Appl Psychol, 2013; 98(2).
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031313 PMID: 23276118
7. Malinowski P., Lim HJ. Mindfulness at work: positive affect, hope, and optimism mediate the relation-
ship between dispositional mindfulness, work engagement, and wellbeing. Mindfulness, 2015; 6(6).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0388-5
8. Leroy H, Anseel F, Dimitrova NG, Sels L. Mindfulness, authentic functioning, and work engagement: a
growth modeling approach, J Voc Behav, 2013; 82(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.01.012
9. Samios C. Burnout and psychological adjustment in mental health workers in rural australia: the roles of
mindfulness and compassion satisfaction, Mindfulness, 2018; 9(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-
017-0844-5
10. Shapiro SL, Carlson LE, Astin JA, Freedman B. Mechanisms of mindfulness. J Clinic Psychol, 2006; 62
(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237 PMID: 16385481
11. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-determination theory and facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and wellbeing, Am Psychol, 2000; 55. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68
12. Schultz PP, Ryan RM, Niemiec CP, Legate N, Williams GC. Mindfulness, work climate, and psychologi-
cal need satisfaction in employee well-being. Mindfulness, 2015; 6(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-
014-0338-7
13. Frank JL, Reibel D, Broderick P, Cantrell T, Metz S. The effectiveness of mindfulnes-based stress
reduction on educator stress and well-being: results from a pilot study. Mindfulness, 2015; 6(2). https://
doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0246-2
14. Schlusser DL, Jennings PA, Sharp JE, Frank JL. Improving teacher awarness and wellbeing through
CARE: A qualitative analysis of the underlying mechanism. Mindfulness, 2016; 7(1). https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12671-015-0422-7
15. Flook L, Goldberg SB, Pinger L, Bonus K, Davidson R. Mindfulness for teachers: a pilot study to assess
effects on stress, burnout and teaching efficacy, Mindfulness, 2013; 7(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/mbe.
12026 PMID: 24324528
16. Taylor C, Harrison J, Haimovitz K, Oberle E, Thomson K, Schonert-Reichl K, et al. Examining ways that
a mindfulness-based intervention reduces stress in public school teachers: a mixed-methods study.
Mindfulness, 2016; 7(1):115–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0620-y
17. Emerson L.M, Lyland A, Hudson K, Rowse G, Hanley P, Hugh-Jones S. Teaching mindfulness to teach-
ers: a systematic review and narrative synthesis, Mindfulness, 2017; 8(5). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12671-017-0691-4 PMID: 28989547
18. Frank JL, Jennings PA, Greenberg MT. Validation of the Mindfulness in Teaching Scale. Mindfulness,
2016; 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0461-0
19. Xanthopolou D, Bakker AB, Demerouti E, Schaufeli WB. The role of personal resources in the job
demands-resources model. Int J Stress Manag, 2007; 14(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9321-2
20. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli, WB The Job Demands–Resources Model of burnout.
J Appl Psychol, 2001; 86(3). https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.499
21. Kyriacou C. Teacher stress. Direction for future research. Educ Rev, 2001; 53(1). https://doi.org/10.
1080/00131910124115
22. Van Droogenbroeck F, Spruyt B, and Vanroelen C. Burnout among senior teachers: Investigating the
role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teach Educ, 2014; 43. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2014.07.005
23. Maslach C, Schaufeli WB, Leiter MP. Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol, 2001; 52(1). https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397 PMID: 11148311
24. Loera B, Converso D, Viotti S. Evaluating the Psychometric Properties of the Maslach Burnout Inven-
tory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) among Italian Nurses: How Many Factors Must a Researcher
49. Guidetti G, Viotti S, Badagliacca R, Converso D. Looking for a specific measure for assessing source of
stress among teachers: a proposal for an Italian context, Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 2015; 3: 330–337.
50. Klassen R.M. Teacher Stress: The Mediating Role of Collective Efficacy Beliefs, J Educ Res, 2010;
103:5. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903383069
51. Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Høgh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire—a tool for
the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment, Scand J Work Environ Health
2005; 31(6). https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.948
52. Maslach C Jackson SE. The measurement of experienced burnout. J Occup Behav, 1981; 2. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205
53. Borgogni L., Galati D., Petitta L., and Schweutzer center (2005). Questionario di Checkup organizza-
tivo: Manuale dell’adattamento Italiano, Giunti OS: Firenze.
54. Brislin R.W. Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research, J cross-cult psychol, 1 (3). https://doi.org/
10.1177/1359104570001003011
55. Kline RB. Principles and practices of structural equation modeling 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford
Press; 2005
56. Bentler PM. EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software; 1995.
57. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Mod, 1999; 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
58. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applica-
tions and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 1998
59. Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based
approach. NewYork: Guilford. 2013
60. Baron RM, Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:
conceptual, strategic and statistical consideration. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1986; 51(6). https://doi.org/10.
1037//0022-3514.51.6.1173
61. Zivnuska S, Kacmar KM, Thompson M, Carlson DS. Mindfulness at work: resource accumulation, well-
being, and attitudes. Car Dev Int, 2016; 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-06-2015-0086
62. Roeser R.W., Skinner E., Beers J., Jennings P. (2012). Mindfulness Training and Teachers’ Profes-
sional Development: An Emerging Area of Research and Practice. Child Dev Perspect, 6(2). https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2012.00238.x
63. Hulsheger UR, Walkowiak A, Thommes MS. How can mindfulness be promoted? Workload and recov-
ery experiences as antecedents of daily fluctuations in mindfulness, J Occup Organ Psychol., 2018; 91
(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12206 PMID: 29861554
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: