Problem

1. Sexual Orientation, Mindfulness, Mindfulness Practice, and Openness, Acceptance and Comfort with Diversity Richard C. Zamora, M.S. New Mexico State University Amber E. McCadney, M.S. Penn State University Julie B. Swagerty, M.S., Anne Weese, M.S., Maria Howell, M.A., Sue C. Jacobs, Ph.D. Oklahoma State University Methods Participants were solicited via online resources such as Facebook and directed to the questionnaire on Surveymonkey.com. This was a geographically diverse sample with approximately 25 % of the 494 participants from Oklahoma and Texas, 71.5% female, 25.9 % male, and 1.2% other/multiple answers. Mean age was 26.5 (18-72 years). 72.7 % were Caucasians, 10.3% Multiracial, 5.1% African Americans, 3.6% Hispanic/Latino/a, 3.0% Asian Americans, and 2.6% Asians. 80.8% identified as heterosexuals, 4.7% as bisexuals, 4.7% as gay men, 3.0% as lesbians, and 2.4% chose “other.” Thirteen preferred not to indicate sexual orientation (excluded their data for this analysis). Over 35% had training in mindfulness with 23.3 % practicing regularly. We used the Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (PHLMS; Cardaciotto, A., Herbert, J.D., Forman, E.M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V., 2008. P. 205) to measure mindfulness bi-dimensionally, Awareness and Acceptance with reliabilities of α = .829 and α = .875 respectively. Awareness is “the behavioral component of mindfulness because it involves the continuous monitoring of the totality of experience” (p 205). Acceptance is “the way in which present-moment experience is conducted: nonjudgementally, with an attitude of openness, acceptance, and even compassion towards one’s experience” (p 205). We used the Miville-Guzman Universality-Diversity Short Scale (M-GUDS-S; Fuertes, J.N., Miville, M. L., Mohr, J. J., Sedlacek, & Gretchen, D., 2000), which measures social attitudes, to measure Diversity of Contact (DC; α = .802), Comfort with Differences (CD; α = .854), Relativistic Appreciation of diversity (RA; α = .853), and the total S-MGUD-S scale (α = .679). Demographic questions included Ethnicity, Educational attainment, Spiritual/Religious views, Political views, and Sexual Orientation. Besides questions related to mindfulness training and practice, we modified a series of questions from Lillis and Hayes (2007) on prejudice bias awareness/acknowledgement and intentions to engage in action/behaviors related to reducing prejudice related to sexual orientation, race, and religion. Problem Our purpose was to examine differences between self-identified participants of a non-majority sexual orientation(gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, other) and heterosexuals in social attitudes accepting of diversity and the relationship of these attitudes to mindfulness. We define mindfulness as “the tendency to be highly aware of one’s internal and external experiences in the context of an accepting, nonjudgmental stance towards those experiences” (Cardaciotto, A., Herbert, J.D., Forman, E.M., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V., 2008. P. 205). Few investigators have looked at the relationship of mindfulness to openness to diversity or differing viewpoints. It seems logical that a construct characterized as “accepting” and “non-judgmental” might be linked to increased openness to and appreciation of diversity. We previously found (Jacobs, Weese, Zamora, Howell, Swagerty, & Richards, 2010) that people who self-reported having mindfulness training had greater mindfulness awareness and acceptance than those without training. Accordingly, Lillis and Hayes (2007) suggested that the application of acceptance and mindfulness training may be effective in the reduction of prejudice. As Smith, Axelton, and Saucier (2009) suggested, individuals who have more contact with lesbians and gay men could possibly show reduced negative attitudes/prejudicial bias against a marginalized group. Furthermore, Sawyerr, Strauss, and Yan (2005) found that openness to experience in diversity is related to awareness and acceptance ofdiversity, but that the relationship was moderated by race, age and gender. Whites who scored higher in self-transcendence, related to “universalism and benevolence,” showed decreased openness to diversity and less comfort with difference. Interestingly, while non-Whites scoring higher in self-transcendence showed some decreased comfort with difference, their openness to diversity was not decreased. This finding may be explained by an increased tolerance of discomfort that may result from an experience with “other” and a greater ability to adapt one’s schema or framework to appreciate difference. In our present study of a non-clinical population, we wondered whether members of a minority or marginalized group, who may have a shared experience of discrimination or prejudice, might be more accepting and appreciative of differences in others. In looking at whether members of the non-majority (i.e. non-heterosexual) might be more comfortable and willing to engage in behaviors with diverse others, we also expected that those with greater awareness would be more comfortable with people different from them and have a greater relativistic appreciation of diversity. Research Questions 1. Is there a difference in diversity contact, comfort with differences and relativistic appreciation of diversity or in mindfulness awareness or acceptance based on sexual orientation? 2. Does sexual orientation impact the relationship between mindfulness acceptance and the above social attitudes? 3. Do participants of a non-majority sexual orientationwho reported having mindfulness training have greater mindfulness awareness and acceptance than those without mindfulness training? 4. Are there differences in awareness of prejudicial bias and/or willingness to engage in behaviors with diverse others based upon sexual orientation? Does mindfulness training increase the awareness of prejudicial bias and/or willingness to engage in behaviors with diverse others for both the heterosexual and non-heterosexual samples? Results Analyses were performed using PASW 17.0. Question 1. Using independent samples t-tests, there were differences based upon sexual orientation on the S-MGUD-S total score t (376) = -3.120, p = .002, DC subscale t(392) = -4.330, p = .000, RA subscale t(387) = -3.524, p = .000, and CD subscale t(387) = 3.969, p=.000. No differences were found between the two groups on the PHLMS Acceptance and Awareness subscales. On all scales/subscales with differences, the non-heterosexual group had higher mean scores than the heterosexual group indicating higher contact with diversity and greater appreciation of difference or diversity except for the CD subscale, comfort with diversity, which was reversed. Question 2. Mindfulness Acceptance was not related to the S-MGUDS nor to its subscales, except for CD for the heterosexual sample (p=-119, 1 tailed p= .018, N= 315). Mindfulness Awareness, as expected, was significantly related to the S-MGUDS and subscales for both the non-heterosexual and heterosexual samples. Simple regression analysis entering sexual orientation and Mindfulness Awareness predicted S-MGUDS (F [2,359] =10.013, p=.000). However, the amount of variance accounted for was quite low (4.8% and 2.5% for Awareness alone). Question 3. 52.1 % of the non-heterosexual sample and 67.9 % of the heterosexual sample indicated receiving training in at least one mindfulness technique. 31.5 % of the non-heterosexual sample and 21.6 % of the heterosexual sample indicated that they regularly practice mindfulness. Although mindfulness training and practice increased Mindfulness and S-MGUDS scores for the heterosexual sample, they did not for the non-heterosexual sample. Question 4. Prejudicial bias was measured by asking the participants to rate their agreement with statements by assigning a number from 1 (low agreement) to 100 (high agreement). Examples of the statements include, “XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX”. Using independent samples t-tests, there were significant differences based on sexual orientation on the personal awareness and acknowledgement of prejudicial bias questions, with participants of a non-majority sexual orientationshowing an increased awareness of prejudicial biases t (362) = -.608, p = .021. Additionally, there were significant differences between heterosexual and participants of a non-majority sexual orientationon questions indicating willingness to engage in contact with diverse others and thus likely reduce prejudice t (357) = -3.351, p = .000, t (357) = -5.183, p = .000, t (357) = -2.463, p = .017, and t (356) = -2.588, p = .016. These items were endorsed more frequently by the non-heterosexual sample. The results indicated that there was a higher percentage of reported mindfulness training in the sexual orientation majority compared to the sexual orientation minority participants. As a whole, those who reported training in mindfulness were not more aware of their prejudicial bias. However, that was not true for people of non-majority sexual orientations. Conclusion Our findings, although limited by participant self-selection and self-report questionnaires, offer support for additional research in the area of mindfulness, mindfulness training, and openness to and acceptance of diverse others. In the poster, we will present in more detail our findings on the relationship between mindfulness awareness training and prejudice bias awareness and behaviors which may reduce prejudice. We will discuss implications for mindfulness interventions for both participants who self-identified as heterosexual and participants who identified as a non-majority sexual orientationto possibly increase acceptance, openness, and exposure to diversity and possibly reduce prejudice. Future research may explore mindfulness techniques to increase awareness and acceptance of diverse/ marginalized groups; such interventions may increase positive attitudes towards these groups as Smith et. al., (2009) suggested. Contact Information Please send inquiries to Sue C. Jacobs, PhD at sue.c.jacobs@okstate.edu or (405) 744-9895 *The research was done at Oklahoma State University. Two of the authors have finished the OSU program and are now at two different institutions.