명상도서관
マインドフルネスの習得過程における異なる訓練要因の比較
자세히보기
- 자료유형학위논문
- 저자명林 滋子・玉瀬 耕治
- 학회/출판사/기관명帝塚山大学
- 출판년도2016
- 언어일본어
- 학술지명/학위논문주기第5号 pp.29-39
- 발행사항帝塚山大学心理学部紀要
- ISBN/ISSN2187-0918
- 소개/요약On the basis of the ideas derived from Cognitive Therapy and Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction, Segal, Williams, and Teasedale (2002) has proposed Mindfulness-Based-Cognitive Therapy (MBCT), which has been verified as a useful tool for depressive clients as well as some other mental diseases. The authors reviewed the literature of mindfulness trainings and explored what kind of factors might contribute to the treatment effectiveness in the process of mindfulness training and what might be the most essential single factor for the effectiveness if any. The authors speculated that the direction of attention in mindfulness training might be one of the most common factors in different similar trainings. To examine the expected effectiveness ofthe factor in mindfulness training, three groups of undergraduate students were constructed; Mindfulness Training group (MT), Attention Training Technique group (ATT), and No-treatment Control group. The main difference of the treatment groups was in the direction of attention: In the MT group attention was directed to inside of the body whereas in the ATT group that was directed to outside. It was hypothesized that the MT and ATT groups would be superior to the control group in terms of the scores of the mindfulness scales (Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire), and that the MT group would be higher in the decentering score of Japanese Experiences Questionnaire (J-EQ) and lower in the rumination score of the same questionnaire than the control group, and also that the ATT group would get higher scores in active attention of attentional function visual scale than the control group. The duration of the experiment was 8 weeks for each group and the training was conducted separately in small groups of each group. The 3×8 or 3×3 analysis of variance was applied for the data analysis.No significant group difference in the expected direction was found in this experiment as shown in Table 2 and Table 3. One of the reasons might be in insufficient training of the three minute breathing space (MT group) as well as the attention training technique (ATT group), although they were repeated for 8 weeks.Another possibility might be that the participant was not willing to do the training work as well as home-work enthusiastically. The tools of measurement might not be detectable for the hypotheses as well.
TOP
사전신청
오시는길
명상챗봇
