Abstract
A growing body of research suggests that mindfulness is associated with relational processes and outcomes, including intimate behavior and experience. Yet, substantial questions exist as to interpersonal manifestations of intrapsychic mindfulness. The current study used a qualitative approach to explore participant descriptions of intimate experience, across six interpersonal communication contexts (talk, sex, play, grief, conflict, and forgiveness), for evidence of relational mindfulness themes. Using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) as a guide, analysis produced 10 themes represented by three mindfulness supra-categories: (1) present with - presence, emotional expression, and feeling understood, (2) awareness of - attention, observation, defining, and understanding, (3) nonjudgment by - acceptance, vulnerability, and nonreactivity. All themes were identified in participant responses across the six interpersonal contexts, with the exception of nonreactivity in play and grief. Significantly, these findings broaden the lens with which mindfulness researchers may continue to explore the mindfulness - interpersonal relationship connection.
The recent boon of mindfulness research has linked mindfulness and mindfulness-related behaviors to various relational processes, outcomes, and measures of quality (Jones et al., 2019; Karremans et al., 2017; Manusov et al., 2020; Skoranski et al., 2019). It has also been suggested that mindfulness, “creates a space for intimacy to emerge” (Kelley, 2021, p. 75). As such, the current investigation takes up Karremans and Papies’ (2017) charge “to understand how and when mindfulness works” (p. 9) using a qualitative methodology to examine descriptions of intimate encounters for evidence of relationally-based mindfulness themes. Following current trends that focus on interpersonal expressions of mindfulness (e.g., Pratscher et al., 2018), we seek to provide insight into ways individuals may represent mindfulness in descriptions of intimate experience across relationship type (family, friendship, and romantic relationships) and as expressed in a variety of relationship contexts (talk, sex, play, grief, conflict, forgiveness).
Mindfulness
Early mindfulness research typically focused on inner states. However, recent studies have established associations between mindfulness and various variables associated with personal relationships. For instance, studies have identified positive associations between mindfulness and parenting (Chaplin et al., 2021), adolescent social skills (Greco et al., 2011) and, most relevant to the present study, relationship satisfaction and intimate safety (Barnes et al., 2007; Maher et al., 2019; Wachs & Cordova, 2007).
Mindfulness studies with potential implications for interpersonal relationships define mindfulness in a variety of ways. Baer et al. (2006) propose a five-faceted model of mindfulness based on analysis of 112 items taken from five existing mindfulness measures. The resulting Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) includes: describe, act with awareness, nonjudgment, nonreactivity, observe. Describe represents the ability to put words to one’s inner experience, in essence, one’s thoughts and feelings. This includes being able to label one’s emotions. Act with awareness involves staying focused and attentive to what is happening in the present, not running on “autopilot” or being easily distracted. Nonreactivity is the process of not reacting to one’s inner experience, often taking note of it and letting it pass. This may take the form of not being “lost in” one’s emotional experience or “taken over” by distressing thoughts. Nonjudgment references not judging one’s own inner experience, often removing “should” from the evaluation of one’s thoughts and emotions (“I should not be feeling/thinking the way I am feeling/thinking”). Observe involves paying attention to oneself and environment through the five senses. It includes attending to outside stimuli such as bird sounds and the feeling of wind and sun on one’s body, and awareness of internal stimuli, such as the taste and texture of food, and the effect of internal emotions on one’s thinking.
Feldman et al. (2007) propose mindfulness as constituted of four parts, including the ability to regulate attention, focus on the present (that which is immediate), be aware of one’s experience, and accept or be nonjudgmental of one’s experience. They found that these elements, as assessed on a 12-item measure (CAMS-R), demonstrate correlations with distress, well-being, and emotion-regulation. All of these associations have potential ramifications for an individual’s personal relationships, but in particular emotion regulation has been associated with relational quality and intimacy (Chan & Rawana, 2021; Hebert, 2017; Kennedy & Kramer, 2008; Shahar et al., 2018).
Manusov (2015) also discusses mindfulness in light of its association with relationship outcomes and suggests a tri-part mindfulness conceptualization as generally accepted by scholars: “to be aware of, and accept without judgment, experiences as they exist in the present moment” (p. 191). This rather parsimonious model focuses on nonjudgment, as discussed by Baer et al. (2006) and Feldman et al. (2007) and awareness in the present moment, which subsumes the attributes of attention, observation, and describing.
Mindfulness and relating to others
Interest in mindfulness’ influence on personal relationships has been growing over the past two decades (note this special issue of JSPR). Studies linking mindfulness to various relationship outcomes have primarily focused on positive relationship indicators and the ability to manage discord. For instance, findings from a number of studies suggest that mindfulness is related to relationship satisfaction and quality (Karremans et al., 2020a; Kozlowski, 2013; Lenger et al., 2016), as well as sexual satisfaction, forgiveness, and conflict resolution (Karremans et al., 2020b; Leavitt et al., 2019; Smedley et al., 2021).
The mindfulness-relationship satisfaction connection has been found to be strongly associated with emotion regulation (Karremans et al., 2017; Wachs and Cordova (2007), as well as acceptance (Kappen et al., 2018; 2019), and responsiveness (Adair et al., 2018). Following, we review extant literature focusing on various ways that mindfulness has been connected to interpersonal relationships and interactions, most specifically through emotion regulation, acceptance, and responsiveness.
Emotion regulation
Karremans et al. (2017) suggest four mechanisms central to negotiating close relationships that may mediate the relationship between mindfulness and relational processes and outcomes: awareness of otherwise implicit responses, emotion regulation, executive control, and self-other connectedness. Of these four mechanisms, emotion expression and regulation have received a great deal of attention. For instance, Pruitt and McCollum (2010), found long-term meditators to associate decreased emotion reactivity as positively related to their relationship health and an increased sense of partner freedom and safety.
Emotion regulation has been specifically associated with mindfulness in forgiveness and conflict contexts. Yang et al. (2022) report that interpersonal mindfulness is a stronger predictor of interpersonal forgiveness than trait mindfulness, and that interpersonal and trait mindfulness are both related to forms of anger regulation. Karremans et al., 2020b provide an important description of how emotion regulation functions within the forgiveness process, “When people mindfully attend to their hurt feelings regarding a past offense, they seem to experience less intense negative emotions, and more forgiving emotions, toward the offender” (p. 306). The researchers emphasize that by taking time to observe one’s pain in a “decentered” manner, one may avoid mindlessly drowning in hurt feelings and, rather, think more about the offender’s perspective.
“Drowning in hurt feelings,” or emotional flooding (Gottman, 1994), has been associated with less productive conflict, in large part due to highly aroused individuals being prone to high reactivity. In this regard, relational mindfulness researchers have discovered high trait mindfulness to be associated with less severe stress response (emotion regulation) during conflict (Barnes et al., 2007) as well as nonreactivity and the subsequent reduction of unregulated emotion often associated with recurrent conflict (Park et al., 2019). Consistent with these findings, Harvey et al. (2018) discovered mindfulness to be associated with actors’ own use of compromise (a less reactive conflict strategy) and relationship satisfaction; and, the researchers noted that female mindfulness predicted less male reactivity and increased male satisfaction.
Related to emotion regulation, but less frequently studied, is mindfulness’ relationship to emotional expression. Wachs and Cordova (2007) found, for married couples, that the relationship between mindfulness and relationship quality was mediated by skilled emotion repertoires that included identifying and communicating emotions, as well as regulating anger. Gillespie et al. (2015), utilizing a qualitative research design, also found mindfulness training to be related to emotional balance (calm and focus) in romantic relationships. Other qualitative work has discovered meditation training to be associated with reduced negative affect for both meditating individuals and non-meditating partners (May et al., 2020).
Acceptance and responsiveness
A number of studies have focused on acceptance and responsiveness as key players in mindfulness’ association with relationship satisfaction. Kappen et al. (2018) conceptualize acceptance as “the ability and willingness to accept the partner’s imperfections without feeling the urge to change the partner” (p. 1544), and have found acceptance to be a significant mechanism underlying the mindfulness-relationship satisfaction connection, especially for participants scoring low in trait mindfulness (Kappen et al., 2019). Likewise, Karremans et al. (2020a), in a study involving romantic couples, confirmed the mindfulness-relationship satisfaction association and noted increases in relational quality and partner acceptance.
Relevant to research on acceptance, Adair et al. (2018) suggest responsiveness (understanding, validating, caring) as a mediator of the mindfulness-relationship satisfaction association. They discovered that participants high in trait nonjudgment and observation saw their partners as more responsive which, in turn, predicted satisfaction. This, of course, is not surprising given that acceptance and responsiveness both are associated with aspects of nonjudgment. Adair and colleagues also suggest that acting with awareness (both for self and partner) may heighten individuals’ perceptions of their partner’s responsiveness. Related, awareness and nonjudgment also constitute what Leavitt et al. (2021) conceptualize as sexual mindfulness, which has been associated with sexual harmony and orgasm consistency.
Relational mindfulness summary
The preceding review demonstrates a relationship between mindfulness and various relationship outcomes and processes across a variety of relationship contexts: conflict, forgiveness, intimacy, friendship, and sex. It is evident that the emotion regulation-mindfulness relationship is a significant one and is complemented by emotional expression with one’s partner (Karremans et al., 2017); Wachs & Cordova, 2007). Equally important is the recognition that acceptance (Kappen et al., 2018; 2019) and responsiveness (feeling understood, validated, and cared for; Adair et al., 2018) are likely mechanisms facilitating the mindfulness-relational quality association. Important for the present investigation, studies focused on the role of mindfulness in interpersonal relationships are introducing relational mindfulness language into the mindfulness-relationship conversation, such as, vulnerability, acceptance, responsiveness, emotional expression, and feeling validated, cared for, and understood.
Intimacy
Intimacy has recently been conceptualized as related to mindfulness (Kelley, 2021). While intimacy has generally been defined as a feeling of closeness and connectedness between relational partners (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1983; Laurenceau et al., 2005), the Model of Intimate Relating (MIR) (Kelley, 2021) highlights aspects of access and affect related to intimacy and mindfulness. MIR emphasizes intimate discovery (access) of one’s relational partner and the experience of connection (close emotions) with that individual. Kelley (2021) further proposes that discovery may be characterized in part by awareness and nonjudgment of one’s partner, and that close emotions may be characterized in part by presence and nonjudgment.
Consistent with Kelley’s conceptualization, a number of researchers have suggested mindfulness effects related to intimacy. For instance, Karremans et al. (2017) identify self-other connectedness (closeness, intimacy), as a mechanism mediating the mindfulness-relationship outcome connection. Similarly, Maher and Cordova (2019), focusing on relational equanimity (awareness, nonjudgment, and nonreactivity), found mindfulness for meditators and their partners to be related to intimacy. The researchers go on to state that their findings provide preliminary evidence for the following relational path:
meditation→equanimity→intimacy→relationship satisfaction
Further, Khalifian and Barry’s (2016, 2021) explorations of trust, attachment, and mindfulness with newlywed couples have discovered a negative relationship between trust and disengagement for individuals who scored low in mindfulness. For Khalifian and Barry, disengagement is characterized by disinterest, inattentiveness, and avoidance, elements that are the inverse of - commonly held components of intimacy and mindfulness.
Alongside science
The current study’s focus on relational partners’ unprompted use of relational mindfulness themes in descriptions of intimate encounters calls for awareness of various cultural, religious, and spiritual traditions that offer insight into mindful practices and their connections as to how we relate to others. For instance, Stofleth and Manusov (2019) have studied the differences between researcher and popular press understandings of mindfulness, and Khoury et al. (2017) compare and contrast Buddhist and Western conceptualizations/operations of mindfulness, suggesting embodiment as a common theme in both traditions.
Baer (2019), writing from a Buddhist perspective, recognizes important concerns that have been expressed regarding the separation of mindfulness into discrete components and from other factors with which it is interwoven, including wisdom, ethical behavior, and the four “immeasurables” (compassion, loving kindness, sympathetic joy, equanimity). This holistic mindfulness perspective is instructive to the current study which seeks to take an open stance as to how mindfulness may be represented in interpersonal relationships.
Presence
Presence, as typically referenced in contemporary mindfulness research, refers to being aware in the present moment. For instance, Karremans and Kappen (2017) highlight the importance of present moment awareness for positive relationship functioning. Yet, presence with a relational partner can also be understood as something that is dynamically experienced between and within relational partners. Galovan et al. (2022) specifically embed interpersonal mindfulness effects within a conceptual model of relationship flourishing (Galovan & Schramm, 2018) that appeals to Buber’s notion of I-Thou relationship. Buber (1967), himself, saw genuine dialogue as the establishment of “living mutual relation”: Whether spoken or silent—where each of the participants really has in mind the other or others in their present and particular being and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living mutual relation between himself and them (p. 113).
Similarly, Hanh (1995) describes a relational energy that creates space for others to grow: The most precious gift we can offer others is our presence…. Mindfulness relieves suffering because it is filled with understanding and compassion. When you are really there, showing your loving-kindness and understanding, the energy of the Holy Spirit is in you (p. 20).
Hanh’s statement includes references to relational processes similar to those suggested by Karremans and Kappen (2017). So, too, Zajonc (2009) offers a relational understanding of presence as he describes true human encounters as: Meetings where the core reality of the person across from us is more fully present before and within [italics ours] us. When this occurs, something intangible is sensed and exchanged. We live for a moment together in the world formed by our mutual attending (p. 142).
Rationale
The present review of research on mindfulness and interpersonal relationships strongly suggests that mindfulness is related to personal relationship processes and outcomes (Karremans & Papies, 2017; Skoranski et al., 2019) across a number of relationship types and contexts. Important to the current investigation is that relationship-based mindfulness research is expanding conceptualizations of how mindfulness may be expressed or experienced during interpersonal encounters. Relational mindfulness research emphasizes the interaction or experience between partners, such as, when Pratscher et al. (2018), describe interpersonal mindfulness as awareness of both self and other and the experience of a nonjudgmental and nonreactive presence with one’s partner that may ultimately manifest as attentive listening, acceptance, emotion regulation, and caring.
Key elements of the mindfulness-interpersonal relationship association appear to be emotion regulation and emotional expression (Karremans et al., 2017) Wachs & Cordova, 2007), as well as nonjudgment, vulnerability, acceptance, responsiveness, and feeling understood (Adair et al., 2018). Additionally, it is suggested by some that presence can be associated with connection between relationship partners, a complement to awareness in the moment (Galovan et al., 2022; Zajonc, 2009).
Conceptual similarities between mindfulness and intimacy (Kelley, 2021) make pertinent the exploration of this phenomenon. When one considers intimacy as comprised of discovery (access), connection (close emotions), and a safe space for vulnerability, the mindfulness – intimacy relationship can be potentially conceptualized as awareness of the relational partner (discovery); presence with the relational partner (connection), and, nonjudgment by the relationship partner (vulnerability and safety; Pruitt & McCollum, 2010). This suggested close alliance between mindfulness and intimacy is consonant with work by Gillespie et al. (2015) who propose that, “Conceptualizing mindfulness practice as strictly an individual activity with only individual results may stem from a Western cultural focus on individual growth” (p. 405).
Skoranski et al. (2019), recognize the difficulty in assessing mindfulness (intrapsychic) within social (interpersonal) contexts. The present investigation approaches this challenge by utilizing a qualitative research approach to explore how individuals’ reports of intimate encounters may reflect aspects of interpersonal mindfulness. Our basic assumption is, “that the internal process of mindfulness likely manifests in observable behaviors” (May & Reinhardt, 2017, p. 105).
To this end, the present study essentially takes a reverse approach to Karremans et al.’s (2017) theoretical modeling of how mindfulness might affect romantic relationships. Rather than identifying basic mechanisms that mediate between intrapsychic mindfulness and basic relationship processes and outcomes, we begin with participant descriptions of intimate experience as it occurs across six interpersonal contexts and varied relationship types (note that Karremans et al., 2017, suggest that mindfulness mechanisms “may generalize beyond romantic relationships,” p. 43). We then work our way backward to find instances of unprompted relationship-based descriptions of mindfulness.
The following questions guided our investigation:
Do individuals describe their intimate encounters in ways that reflect a relational mindfulness experience? If so:
What themes are useful in understanding participants’ descriptions of relational mindfulness? And,
How does use of relational mindfulness themes vary by interpersonal context?
Method
Procedure and sample
The current study is part of an omnibus project designed to examine individuals’ descriptions of intimacy across six interpersonal contexts: talk, sex, play, grief, conflict, and forgiveness. This data was particularly appropriate for the current study given that most of these contexts have been examined in previous mindfulness-relationship research.
Data collection was based out of a large public university in the Southwestern United States. Utilizing an online survey, two-hundred-two participants were recruited through communication classes and social media (1.5% of total responses). Participants provided responses to six open-ended prompts, one for each interpersonal context (e.g., Please describe a time where talking has demonstrated or created intimacy in one of your relationships).
Analysis for the omnibus project was oriented toward discovering intimacy themes. During this analysis it became evident that language suggesting mindfulness experience was inherent in participant descriptions of intimate encounters. Thus, the current investigation is a secondary analysis of the omnibus study data.
Participant ages ranged from 18 to 70 (mean = 25.78, SD = 9.1), with approximately 56% identifying as cisgender women, 29% as cisgender men, and 15% as unidentified or other. Sexual orientation was reported as 88% heterosexual, 5% bisexual, 4% gay/lesbian, and 3% other. Highest level of education broke out, as follows: graduate, 19%; bachelor’s degree, 39%; some college, 41%; high school degree, 1%; other, 1%. Participants also identified as: Asian/Pacific Islander, 5%; African American/Black, 5%; Caucasian/White/European, 61%; Hispanic, 23%; Native American, 1%, other, 4%.
Analysis
Exploration of the data was conducted by two trained data analysts and the primary author, and was guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases of thematic analysis (TA): familiarize, generate initial codes, formulate themes, review themes, define themes, name themes, and produce report. The two trained data analysts had a general familiarity with mindfulness from their own faith traditions and relatively brief discussions in communication and psychology classes. In addition, one coder maintained their own mindfulness practice through yoga and meditation. The first author has been trained as a spiritual director within a contemplative Christian tradition and regularly engages mindful practices of centering prayer, T’ai Chi, and guided imagery (Kelley, 2022).
Data analysis was guided by the notion that “existing theories, concepts, and knowledge are part of the reflexive TA researcher’s set of resources for analyzing the data” (Braun & Clarke, 2022, p. 10). As such, analysis training began by familiarizing our data analysts with mindfulness concepts, emphasizing Baer et al.’s (2006) FFMQ and Feldman et al.’s (2007) four-fold approach. For the initial analysis, analysts were provided a mindfulness scheme based on the fore-mentioned intra-psychic models, including nonreactivity, observing, acting with awareness, describing, and nonjudging.
Data analysts were strongly encouraged to view analysis as an open process as we sought to generate a framework that reflected participants’ contextually situated reality (Braun & Clarke, 2022). As such, reflexiveness (Braun & Clarke, 2022) characterized the analysis at every phase in the hopes of maintaining a healthy tension between traditional mindfulness frameworks and relational mindfulness language that may not fall into established intrapsychic categories. Practically this meant that the analytic phases of review themes, define themes, name themes, and produce report were iterative. That is, we cycled through them in the spirit of Braun and Clarke’s (2022) position that “even at the endpoint of coding, things are still provisional” (p. 9), while recognizing, “the potential for codes to evolve to capture the researcher’s deepening understanding of the data” (Braun & Clarke, 2021, p. 39). For us, this deepening understanding extended into the report phase. Although novel to some social science methodologies, Braun and Clarke (2022) identify “writing as a tool for deepening reflexivity” (p. 19), which is consistent with autoethnographic approaches that recognize reflection while writing as a means to new discovery (Bochner & Ellis, 2016; Kelley, 2020, 2022).
Classification of data into themes was based on Owen’s (1984) criteria for identifying themes in relational discourse. The three guidelines are recurrence (a thread of meaning is recurrent), repetition (exact words or phrases are repeated), and forcefulness (intensity of a comment, such as a word or phrase placed in all CAPS) (Owen, 1984). Using these criteria, a theme was considered present for a particular participant if it occurred anywhere in a participant’s description of their intimate encounter.
Initial analysis of 10 percent of participant responses was used to check fit of the pre-determined, intra-psychically-based analytic scheme with the data, and resulted in only 42% coder agreement. Extensive reflexive discourse, including the first author who was not part of the coding team, led to a modification of the analytic scheme in order to better represent participant responses. This process of searching for conceptual fit between generated themes and participant data characterized the whole of the analytic process.
The resulting analytic scheme included eight themes: presence, understanding, awareness, observation, description, acceptance, vulnerability, nonreactivity. These themes were used to code approximately 60% of the data (the original 10% was recoded, plus 50% of the remaining responses) resulting in an 88% coder agreement; after coder discussion of mismatched coding instances, coders achieved 98% agreement. Continued reflexive discourse produced a ninth theme, emotional expression, which resolved the remaining mismatched coded responses. Subsequently, the remaining data was individually coded.
Through continued researcher reflexivity, it was decided that the following mindfulness concepts could be used as supra-categories for organizing and reporting data: presence with, awareness of, nonjudgment by (Kabat-Zinn, 1990, 1994; Manusov, 2015). During this process it also became apparent that the theme, understanding, as initially coded, represented two aspects of understanding, one focused on being present with the relational partner (feeling understood as emotional immediacy), the other more related to awareness of the partner (knowing various aspects about one’s partner). Because these subcategories represented different supra-categories, the decision was made to recode responses originally coded as understanding into the themes of understanding and feeling understood.
Results
RQ1
RQ1 asks whether individuals describe their intimate encounters in ways that reflect mindfulness experience. Results from the data reveal that relational mindfulness themes were used in approximately 83% of participants’ descriptions of intimate encounters across the six contexts. Following, the first number in each pairing represents valid responses to the intimacy question for a particular context (e.g., Please describe a time where talking has demonstrated or created intimacy in one of your relationships), followed by the number of responses that included mindfulness themes: talk 164/147; sex 129/90; play 130/105; grief 136/121; conflict 137/121; forgiveness 134/108; total, 830/692).
Interestingly, while relational mindfulness descriptions were used by a majority of respondents, no respondents, across contexts, specifically mentioned the terms “mindful,” “mindfulness,” “aware,” “awareness” or “nonjudgment.” The term “presence” was used in two responses, one in the context of grief and the other in the context of play. Play also contained one response that utilized the term “present.”
RQ2
RQ2 asks what themes are useful in understanding participants’ descriptions of relational mindfulness? As described, previously, we chose to organize the 10 themes generated through thematic analysis according to the supra-categories of presence with, awareness of, and nonjudgment by. These supra-category labels include prepositions (with, of, by) to distinguish between intrapsychic mindfulness and relationally-based mindfulness experience (prepositions are used to indicate relationship to an object/person).
The first supra-category, presence with, is comprised of themes that indicate presence with one’s partner through physical (typically) and emotional immediacy, emotional expression, and feeling understood. The second supra-category, awareness of, is comprised of themes that indicate attention, observation, definition, and understanding of one’s partner’s behavior, emotion, cognition, or psychological state. The third supra-category, nonjudgment by, is comprised of themes indicating nonjudgment by one’s partner through acceptance, vulnerability and safety, and nonreactivity. As with most thematic research, the following relationally-based mindfulness themes are distinct, but not discrete regarding their representation of participants’ experience.
Presence with
The supra-category, presence with, focuses on statements that represent a sense of immediacy (Feldman et al., 2007). Participants’ descriptions in this supra-category manifested as statements of being present (physically/emotionally) with one’s partner, engaging in emotional expression with one’s partner, and feeling understood when with one’s partner in such a way that indicates a sense of psychological and emotional immediacy.
Presence
Participant language that represented presence focused on words and phrases that indicated connection with one’s relational partner in the moment—“being with” the other in the “now,” with no distractions. Statements typically reported physical presence with a relational partner that included a sense of psychological and emotional immediacy. Respondents frequently spoke of “being there” in a way that indicated more than physical presence. Likewise, some described “sitting with,” holding/cuddling, or finding presence through reminiscence and storytelling. The interpersonal contexts of play and grief produced the most presence responses.
Respondents’ experiences of presence included noteworthy moments, such as affectionate touch while riding a motorcycle with a romantic partner or the connection experienced doing CrossFit with one’s father. One respondent shared about virtual, emotional presence with their distant brothers: Simply bonding over games especially online today, you can create bonds easily when engaging in the same activity as someone. My brothers and I are close because of video games because we all live so far from one another, we don’t always talk on the phone so this is one way we can create closeness or intimacy.
In the grief context, presence was shown as “being there” and supporting others during times of loss. For example: After my “big” sister’s youngest son killed himself, I was uncertain what to do or say, until I saw her. In that moment, I just held her and didn’t let go. In the days that passed, I was there as a calm presence and witness for her, letting her cry or sit in stunned silence.
Within the context of play, respondents shared that games and other amusing activities kept them present with their partners. One respondent shared a beautiful moment of presence with her family during play. Note in this example that the playful activity is all-consuming such that “nothing mattered but our little family,” and that their freedom of emotional expression demonstrates an emotional immediacy that adds to the sense of presence with one another: When I was very heavy with my second child, my husband chased me all around the house with our toddler in tow. The three of us were laughing and giggling so hard because he didn’t “catch” me. Nothing mattered but our little family.
Emotional expression
Our respondents described interaction that represented emotional expression by focusing on the visible, audible, or tactile expression of one’s emotion to one’s partner. As is evident in the preceding example, expression of one’s emotion can be associated with a sense of immediacy (presence) with one’s partner. The following quote illustrates emotional expression within the context of forgiveness: When I was open with another friend and apologizing for acting rude to them for not wanting the same thing as I and during that openness I expressed my feelings. Expressing those feelings caused intimacy and closeness with one another.
Another respondent described how “showing and sharing” emotions can create a deep sense of presence with one’s partner. The language used here, “He held me while I cried and forgave me, and it created intimacy…” demonstrates high levels of physical and psychological immediacy with one another: I made my boyfriend really mad and hurt his feelings to the point where he couldn’t talk to me without getting more upset with me. One night, I wanted to go over to his house to talk and to apologize….I couldn’t apologize without crying….He held me while I cried and forgave me, and it created intimacy by showing and sharing our emotions.
Certain respondents described the relational importance of interpersonal emotion regulation and expression as they “worked out” their emotions together: We worked out all the negative emotions we had been holding in and she finally let out how frustrated she was that I was gone for so long. We worked it out and after that...well ya know. It was one of the closest times I have ever felt with her and after that our relationship has been so much stronger.
It was also common for individuals to report emotional expression as leading to a physical expression of intimacy: My cousins and I often talk through our discouragements and doubts in life, so when one of them reaffirms my strengths and pushes me back to a positive mind frame, I feel immense intimacy. Whenever my heart pounds with pride that I could have such blessings like them, I feel the need to show intimacy by embracing them with a grateful hug!
Feeling understood
Feeling understood was related to a psychological sense of immediacy with one’s partner. In the following response, from the talk context, a participant describes the relationship between feeling understood and closeness: With my current boyfriend when [we] just had started dating I talked to him about my past. I told him how I had a miscarriage in my previous relationship and how my ex boyfriend cheated on me multiple of times. I communicated this with him so he could understand how my past made me scared to trust or believe in any other guy. Me talking about my fears made us closer. He understood me more.
For many participants, feeling understood took the form of processing similar lived experiences or shared experiences that led to increased intimacy. In reflecting on grief, one respondent described, Both me and my ex boyfriend had lost our mothers when we were young and although we were not grieving at the time we met, we were able to sympathize with each other and on a deeper level which made us more intimate.
The following response demonstrates how feeling understood can facilitate a sense of presence by no longer feeling alone: Talking to my sisters about sex for the first time was ground-breaking for us. Though we were all in college, each of us was a virgin, and all had felt alone and awkward about that. By finally bringing it up not only did we feel less alone and more ‘normal’, it opened the door to talk about relationships and sexuality in a way we never had before.
Awareness of
The supra-category, awareness of, as described by participants, was indicated by attentiveness, observation, description, and understanding of one’s partner’s behavior, internal states, and beliefs (cognitive or emotional).
Attentiveness
Attentiveness manifested in the data as various types of sustained attention to one’s partner. Attentive responses often included focusing on one’s partner and being aware of the other’s needs. Within the context of play, one respondent described attentiveness to their partner in this manner: “My significant other races cars so during race week I will play the part of struggle and she closes her eyes and I rattle off stressful situations and she can reflect and get through it.” This type of attentiveness could also be seen in the context of sex, where partners focused on each other and attended to one another’s needs. One respondent reflected, I had sex with my boyfriend for the first time last week, and he was constantly checking on me. He kept asking if what he was doing was okay, if i needed anything. He just made things really comfortable and therefore i think more intimate. He makes me feel more like myself.
Another respondent described how their boyfriend nurtured awareness in their relationship through attentive listening, positive affirmations, and relationship assurances. They shared, I had talked about all of my problems and the things i was stressing about to my boyfriend. He listened and…kept reassuring me that it was okay to stress over the things and that he’d be there to make things better for me. I felt closer to him than ever.
Observation
Observation was identified when individuals’ responses described taking note of the emotions, thoughts, and behaviors of their partners. In the context of play, one participant described how watching their friends’ nonverbal behaviors fostered closeness between them, “Through our interaction with the pool game, we developed more deeper understanding by how one acts.”
The following demonstrates observation of nonverbal behaviors and feelings during sexual interaction: There is something about looking deeply into each other's eyes while making love, that has brought intimacy for me. I think to look one in the eye says a lot about the relationship: that you like them, have feelings of love for them, want to look into their heart and soul and want them to look into yours.
Other instances of observation involved participants noting emotions they had never seen displayed previously by their relational partner. One such instance occurred when a participant heard their father crying on the phone during a time of conflict. One time my dad invited me on a trip with him, my step-mom, and brother. A few days later he told me that he had never asked my step-mom and that me going wasn’t going to work out. Devastated, I told my dad I was going to get off the phone and that I didn’t want to talk to him. He begged me to talk to him and later when I decided to call him he was balling on the phone. That was the first time in my life that I had ever got any emotion/intimacy out of my dad.
Description
The theme, description, involved putting words to feelings, situations, attitudes or beliefs. One respondent shared how they and their partner put words to their own identities and experience: In the context of a close friendship, the relationship took on a more intimate nature as the level of self-disclosures increased. The more we shared who we are and how we exist in this world, the good and the bad, the more connected and intimate the relationship became.
Several participants referenced aspects of description as they commented on how talking about life goals helped them feel deeper intimacy with their romantic partner. One described her increased awareness as her husband readily apologized throughout their marriage, “My husband has always been better at saying I am sorry (I am pretty bad at it) and every time he does I feel that it has helped me heal and understand that forgiveness is possible and important.”
Describing also increased awareness and greater intimacy by individuals putting words to their inner thoughts and feelings. Note, also, how the following passageexhibits a strong sense of presence that was felt through emotional expression: My boyfriend and I were arguing and we were yelling back and forth, but the reason why was jealousy. At the verge of tears he yelled, “because I love you and I don’t want to lose you!!” At that moment I felt so connected with him.
Description was also exhibited through words identifying relational partners’ thoughts, feelings, and actions. The following example demonstrates the mother’s description of her daughter’s increased awareness as well as definition of her own (the mother’s) thoughts and feelings: When forgiving my daughter for saying hurtful things to me, I have felt a connection with her as she realizes I love her no matter what and as I express, “Your words hurt me so much but I love you and I forgive you.”
Understanding
In contrast to the previous theme, feeling understood (located in the supra-category, present with), the understanding theme focuses on awareness rather than presence. Participant responses that described understanding frequently referenced gaining or having knowledge about one’s partner. Friends, siblings, parents/children, and lovers all described becoming aware of something new about their relational partners. In a situation with a friend, conflict arose from various misunderstandings. We made it a point to address the issues during a lunch date. During the conversation about the events that had transpired, we came to know and understand one another on a deeper level. We each shared our side of the story, we were vulnerable and honest with one another, and as a result, our friendship grew.
Nonjudgment by
Nonjudgment is described in the intrapsychic mindfulness literature as not judging one’s own inner experience, for example, not using “should” to evaluate one’s thoughts and emotions (Baer et al., 2006), or accepting one’s thoughts, emotions, behaviors (Feldman et al., 2007). In the present study, the supra-category, nonjudgment by, is identified by language that indicates feeling accepted by one’s partner and not feeling judged (“you should have…”), a vulnerability and safety associated with feeling accepted and nonjudged, and descriptions of non-reactivity associated with partners feeling nonjudged and safe with one another.
Acceptance
The theme of acceptance is represented by participant reports indicating a sense of nonjudgment and safety with one’s relational partner. Participants frequently expressed appreciation for being accepted in their entirety, flaws and all, by their relational partners. In the context of play, several respondents described feeling comfortable enough with their partners to act in authentic ways. In the words of one respondent, “Being comfortable enough with one another to just be your true self, and laugh and make jokes. These simple moments helped to create something much bigger.”
Feeling accepted and safe often translated into the freedom to be vulnerable, dropping one’s guard and being oneself, even if being oneself meant being silly at times: Play, is that feeling of dropping your guard and becoming the absolute version of you. There were many times when I would stop putting on a persona of being a manly man and just be me; it was in those times that I was able to express how I felt and I could just be silly around someone.
Some participants provided descriptions of feeling loved or accepted after sharing vulnerable information with someone, while others described disclosing information to others because they already felt safe, accepted, or loved. For example, I was able to share with a friend my true feelings about my life, my relationships, my failures and my future fears. I trusted this person immensely. I knew they loved me unconditionally and without judgement. I knew the things I shared would NEVER be used against me or to hurt me. I knew they would listen and comfort me. This is a closeness I’ve never been able to duplicate anywhere or with anyone else.
Another important example of feeling safe and secure in relational partners’ love comes from a participant describing their relationship with their parents: Conflict with my parents. After every time I managed to mess up and argued with them over my actions I always learned that no matter what I do they'll be there for me. Every time leads to an intimate bonding moment where I am constantly reminded that they will always love me.
Vulnerability
Vulnerability was framed as openness and risk that occurred in the context of feeling accepted and nonjudged by one’s partner. This theme was most often discussed within the contexts of grief and talking. When reflecting on their experience with grief, one respondent emphasized feeling safe enough to be seen at their worst and trusting this information would not be used against them: “When you let someone know you are grieving they learn you at your worst and most vulnerable. Trusting someone with your pain is very intimate.” Participants also described experiences of “opening up” and sharing secrets or personal information. Some of these topics included divulging deep fears and sharing openly about mental illness and past trauma.
Trust, as mentioned in the previous responses, typically accompanied the vulnerability theme. Individuals were vulnerable with people they trusted to protect negative information and not judge them in light of it. One participant described the importance of not feeling judged by her boyfriend when she was grieving the loss of a beloved pet: When I had to put down my dog who I had through my parent's divorce, I was a mess and my boyfriend was my rock and never judged me just because it was a dog, and tried to understand why it was such a big deal to me. I also think it takes a lot of trust to be able to open up to someone like that, and to let them see you completely fall apart.
While most of our responses discussed positive experiences, one respondent shared a time when their trust was betrayed by an intimate friend: Any time I tell a person a secret. I had a friend recently who had earned a position in my life where I no longer saw her as a friend, I considered her to be a sister. We talked for hours every day, and I trusted her with some very intimate details about my life. She later violated my trust for her own self-gain, tarnishing the intimacy of that friendship.
This recognition of trust and vulnerability was also mentioned regarding sex. In the following quote, one participant discusses the relationship between the physical bareness of sex and emotional bareness/vulnerability: I feel like being completely naked with someone you are having sex with creates so much intimacy, especially for someone who is not comfortable in their own skin. One person allows the other to be seen completely nude inside and out and creates this moment of sacredness.
Nonreactivity
Participant reports that demonstrated nonreactivity included words and phrases identified as responsiveness, intentionality in actions, and “non-mindlessness,” in addition to references of thoughtful self-control and refraining from emotional outbursts. Participants typically did not state that they were nonreactive, rather they described positive aspects that implied nonreactivity.
This theme was discussed most often in the contexts of forgiveness and conflict. Participants often described nonreactivity in terms of thoughtfully “resolving” a conflict. One respondent emphasized responsiveness and intentionality as they discussed forgiveness’s ability to create relational benefits, “by allowing us to acknowledge the possible hurt or damage that occurred and making sure we could move forward.” “Letting go” was a form of nonreactivity during forgiveness episodes. In the words of one respondent, “Letting things go. Moving on. Showing you care more about the person instead of the fault or act that they did (or didn’t do).”
Evident in the previous quotation, responses of nonreactivity often described the ability for partners to manage conflicts through intentionally prioritizing the relationship. For one individual this meant, “Arguing with one another but then being able to forgive each other and understand that we still love each other.” This was typical of descriptions of nonreactivity – to begin by reacting to one’s partner, then settling down to be more responsive with (re)consideration of one’s relational goals. For example, “With my gf [girlfriend] a lot of times when we fight, afterwards we realize it was stupid and what’s really important and feel closer afterwards.”
Participants describing their experiences of nonreactivity often characterized their relationships as “growing closer” or “getting stronger” due to responding rather than reacting. Responding included intentional perspective change that often identified conflicts as “lessons” or “obstacles” to “overcome” and “push through.” We also noted a sequential pattern whereby participants initially described their own mindless reactivity during conflict, followed by stepping back from the conflict, becoming self aware, then reengaging their partner to resolve the difficulty at hand and/or forgive.
RQ3
RQ3 was interested in how the use of relational mindfulness themes varied by interpersonal context. Results noted almost all themes across all six interpersonal contexts, although how the themes presented varied by context.
Talk
Within the context of talk, all relational mindfulness themes were present. In particular, individuals used relational mindfulness themes as they described an environment of nonjudgment - feeling safe enough to “open up” - and when they reported nonreactively discussing serious, private, or hard subjects. Participants who experienced intimacy through talk also emphasized presence with their partner through feeling understood.
Sex
All relational mindfulness themes were present within the context of sex. Themes primarily described attending to and observing one’s partner and, thus, knowing their sexual needs or preferences. There was also an emphasis on vulnerability, in particular as sex led to greater relationship trust and feeling comfortable (safe) with one’s partner. Certain respondents emphasized presence as they shared how eye contact and experiencing “slow” sex created a sense of immediacy, experienced as feelings of “unity” or being “together as one” with their partner.
Play
All relational mindfulness themes were used within the context of play, except for nonreactivity. During play, presence was frequently facilitated through emotional expression with one’s partner, in particular through humor and laughter. Play involved awareness through observing and being attentive to one’s partner’s behaviors. And, importantly, many described play as creating a safe relationship space where they felt comfortable and accepted. In that space they could be vulnerable, letting down their guard to be their true self as they had the freedom to be “silly.”
Grief
Respondents used all relational mindfulness themes within the context of grief except nonreactivity. Individuals reported experiencing vulnerability while grieving with their partners; a vulnerability typically generated from revealing (often non-intentionally) negative emotions and a different public persona than others were used to. Individuals reported being accepted, not feeling judged, during these grief episodes, and experiencing presence and emotional expression with people who would stay with them during challenging times, allowing them to express their emotions (e.g., crying).
Conflict
All relational mindfulness themes were present in participants’ responses regarding conflict. Due to the intensity of many conflicts (“make it or break it” moments), these interactions were often described as including immediacy, both physically and by expressing emotion with one’ partner. Conflict scenarios involved a certain level of awareness of one’s partner, and a number of participants mentioned better understanding their partner through conflict.
Forgiveness
Participant responses within the context of forgiveness contained all relational mindfulness themes. Respondents typically reported the experience of forgiving their relational partner rather than being forgiven for their transgressions. In particular, understanding the other person’s viewpoint or actions was deemed important. Participants highlighted the nonreactivity of forgiveness which facilitated the ability to move on, grow closer, and become stronger. Forgiveness was portrayed as a form of acceptance of the other, providing space for vulnerability as the offender set their pride aside and admitted the mistakes they had made. Participants also described moments of presence and emotional expression with partners through hugging and showing physical affection after forgiveness.
Discussion
Findings from the present thematic analysis have a number of significant implications for the study of mindfulness and intimacy, and the broader study of mindfulness and personal relationships. Our results reveal that, unprompted, individuals’ descriptions of intimate encounters reflect various mindfulness themes across interpersonal contexts and relationship type (RQ1). The data set used for this investigation asked participants whether they had experienced intimacy in any of six interpersonal contexts (talk, sex, play, grief, conflict, forgiveness) and, if so, to describe the encounter. There were no prompts to encourage participants to consider mindfulness in their responses. Yet, embedded in participant reporting was language reflecting mindfulness as associated with their intimate experience.
Using reflexive thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2022) as a guide, we noted ten relationally-based mindfulness themes in participant responses (RQ2). These themes can be understood in light of three mindfulness supra-categories, commonly recognized by scholars. These supra-categories have been modified with prepositions in our reporting to indicate their relational nature: present with, awareness of, and nonjudgment by. Themes constituting the supra-category, present with, included emotional/physical presence, emotional expression, and feeling understood. Each of these themes provides a sense of immediacy, psychological and visceral, that creates an almost tangible sense of presence with one’s partner. The supra-category, awareness of, was represented by attentiveness, observation, description, and understanding one’s partner. Each of these themes function to enhance one’s relational consciousness and focus on knowing one’s partner. The third supra-category, nonjudgment by, was comprised of acceptance, vulnerability, and nonreactivity, all of which are themes associated with creating a safe space for intimacy and, as one respondent reported, “to just be your true self.” Of the 10 relational mindfulness themes, the three most commonly reported were feeling understood, attentiveness, and vulnerability, each representing one of the three supra-categories.
Our analyses also brought clarity to the data across the six interpersonal contexts of talk, sex, play, grief, conflict, and forgiveness (RQ3). While all themes were largely present in all interpersonal contexts (except nonreactivity in the contexts of play or grief), individuals’ descriptions exemplifying these themes showed distinctiveness across the six contexts. For example, within the context of play, presence was often discussed in relation to positive emotional expression and the physical and emotional immediacy associated with laughing and playfighting. Whereas, in the context of grief, presence was commonly described as involving the expression of “negative” emotions along with physical immediacy, such as holding a friend as she cries.
Issues to consider
While most mindfulness models emphasize nonreactivity as an important aspect of intrapsychic mindfulness, our findings raise the question as to whether interpersonal mindfulness might, at times, actually be characterized by reactivity (a lack of emotional control) and spontaneity. For example, participants’ play descriptions reported enjoyment in the reactions produced by teasing or play-fighting. In fact, it appears that spontaneous emotional expression (e.g., laughing) was valued and created a sense of presence and closeness. And in descriptions of grief, participant responses described the inability to control intense emotions and reactions as they were “lost in” or “taken over” by their emotional response. This lack of emotion regulation, when experienced with a safe, nonjudgmental, present partner, was associated with increasing closeness in the relationship. These examples suggest that less regulation can at times lead to closeness during play and grief when associated with visceral/emotional immediacy (presence) and nonjudgment.
The role emotion plays in the mindfulness–relationship association also demonstrates the dynamic interplay of the supra-categories. Because participant descriptions of intimate encounters typically included multiple themes, it is probable that there is mutual influence between the three supra-categories. For instance, for some respondents there was a sense of being present with their partner because of increased awareness and a sense of safety that came from not being judged. Also, as previously discussed, emotion regulation (or lack thereof) and expression was at times associated with experiencing presence with one’s partner as well as feeling nonjudged.
This qualitative investigation also provides new insights into the nature of interpersonal mindfulness. While our study supports current research-generated mindfulness models by highlighting existing themes (attentiveness, definition, observation, and nonreactivity), our findings also suggest that, within a relationship context, aspects of mindfulness might be experienced and labeled differently using terminology such as emotional expression, vulnerability, feeling understood, and acceptance.
Related, the present analysis truly embodied a reflexive process that, in turn, allowed us to engage the difficult process of conceptualizing interpersonal phenomena that have roots in intrapsychic experience. Even late in the analytic process, through reflexive discourse we added ninth and 10th themes to our conceptual framework to better represent the data. This process was consistent with Braun and Clarke’s (2021) recognition that reflexive coding evolves as researchers’ understanding of the data deepens. Our coding began with guidance from existing mindfulness models. After finding difficulty obtaining acceptable agreement between coders, and a lack of good fit applying an intrapsychic-based model to interpersonal data, we engaged in a discursive process that led us to modify the beginning coding schema from 5 to 10 themes. The additional themes reflected aspects of the original schema, but brought out particular nuances important to the interpersonal context. A good example of this is that our findings suggest an important distinction between feeling understood and understanding. Understanding is a term that has begun to find a place in the mindfulness literature (e.g., Adair et al., 2018). However, in our data, descriptions of understanding could be more clearly understood using two themes that represented separate supra-categories: understanding - knowledge of one’s partner and thus increased awareness of one’s partner; feeling understood - psychological immediacy associated with a sense of presence with one’s partner (“you get me”).
Limitations
There are certain limitations of this study. First and foremost is the nature of the data. Because participant responses were gathered as part of an omnibus study, certain demographic information that might inform participants’ use of relational mindfulness themes, such as experience with meditation or disability, was not gathered. Responses were, also, only gathered across six interpersonal contexts that, while significant, are only a sampling of the full human experience. Additionally, participant responses reflected almost exclusively positive representations of intimate interaction. Although many responses report difficult situations, such as in the grief, conflict, and forgiveness contexts, the emphasis of participant responses was typically on the positive experience of intimacy in those moments, as opposed to describing less healthy ways that intimacy might be intertwined with co-dependence or abusive patterns. It may in fact be the case that the study of mindfulness (or lack thereof) may also have something to contribute to understanding these darker aspects of interpersonal relationships.
In addition, the data was limited, in certain regards, in that participants were not asked to think about mindfulness or measured as to their levels of state and trait mindfulness. As such, we cannot speak confidently regarding our participants’ inner states. And, yet, a strength of the current study is that we have a record of individuals’ unprompted use of relational mindfulness themes in their descriptions of intimate encounters.
A final consideration
Manusov (2015) reminds us of the potential relational power of mindfulness when she states, “if we become more mindful (in the sense that we encourage awareness, being present, and not judging), we can be more fully with another person and ourselves just as we are” (p. 196). In this regard, the conceptualization of relational mindfulness language in the present investigation makes salient the nature of mindfulness as a safe space for the discovery, emotional closeness, and vulnerability of intimacy – I am present with you, aware of you, not judged by you – and calls for continued investigation of the mindfulness-interpersonal relationship connection.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
