Mindfulness For Preschoolers - Effects On Prosocial Behavior, Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking

Early Education and Development
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20
Mindfulness for Preschoolers: Effects on Prosocial

Behavior, Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking
Sara Berti & Ada Cigala
To cite this article: Sara Berti & Ada Cigala (2022) Mindfulness for Preschoolers: Effects on
Prosocial Behavior, Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking, Early Education and Development,
33:1, 38-57, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2020.1857990
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1857990
Published online: 02 Dec 2020.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1235
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 1 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=heed20
EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
2022, VOL. 33, NO. 1, 38–57
https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1857990
Mindfulness for Preschoolers: Effects on Prosocial Behavior,

Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking
Sara Berti and Ada Cigala
Department of Humanities, Social Sciences and Cultural Industries, University of Parma
ABSTRACT
Research Findings: In order to investigate the effects of a mindfulness-based
intervention on preschooler’s social-emotional learning skills, the present
pre-post test pilot study assessed prosocial behavior, self-regulation and
perspective taking in 21 preschool children, randomly assigned either to
the experimental or the control group. Children who received the interven
tion showed significant improvements in prosocial behavior, in the inhibitory
processes of self-regulation and in the ability of perspective taking, particu
larly in its emotional and cognitive components. Practice or Policy: These
preliminary findings, which should be supported by further empirical inves
tigation in larger samples, encourage the use of mindfulness-practices in
preschool-age children in order to enhance social-emotional competence.
Introduction
Since Jon Kabat-Zinn introduced mindfulness-based programs into medical contexts in the 1980s
(Kabat-Zinn, 1982), scientific interest in this new topic has increased exponentially (American
Mindfulness Research Association, 2020). The last few decades have seen a surge of mindfulness-
based interventions (MBIs) applied to different fields, from psychopathology to stress treatment, from
sports performances to education. The evidence shows that these interventions have an impact on
a broad range of outcomes, including cognitive, social and emotional abilities, executive function,
attention, self-regulation, and self-awareness (Jha et al., 2015). These results have inspired an increas
ing interest in the application of MBIs for children and adolescents (O’Toole et al., 2017), prompting
the adaptation of existing programs for different age groups and encouraging the introduction of
mindfulness-approaches in schools (Semple et al., 2017; Zelazo & Lyons, 2012).
Many MBIs have been conducted in primary and secondary school contexts and have actually
brought about improvements in cognition, behavior, academic performance and social-emotional
functioning (Maynard et al., 2017; Semple et al., 2017), but to date we have little research support for
investigating the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions on preschool-age children. The few
interventions implemented so far in preschools have mainly investigated the impact on children’s
social-emotional competence, a complex system of abilities which includes different skills related to
emotional expressiveness, understanding of emotion, regulation of emotions, behavior, social problem
solving, social and relationship skills (Denham, 2006). Although social and emotional learning (SEL)
skills continue to develop throughout the lifespan, preschool age is unquestionably recognized as
a critical period for the growth of these competencies (Denham, 1998; Denham & Burton, 2003),
which should be acquired in the early years to improve the quality of life later on (Domitrovich et al.,
2017; Denham, 2006).
CONTACT Sara Berti sara.berti@unipr.it Department of Humanities, Social Sciences and Cultural Industries, University of
Parma, Parma 43121.
© 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 39
Contemplative practices may indeed be considered a sub-type of SEL interventions (Poehlmann-

Tynan et al., 2016): they may enhance socio-emotional competence, by focusing on self-awareness,
emotional regulation and emotional recognition. Among the contemplative practices in use, MBIs in
particular seem to be effective on the development of these abilities. Mindfulness is defined as “the
awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and non-
judgmentally to the unfolding of experience moment by moment” (Kabat-Zinn, 2003, p. 145): this
practice was found to involve the activation of specific areas in the brain which are the same as those
involved in attention control, emotion regulation and self-awareness (Tang et al., 2015). Some authors
believe that, due their specific characteristics, mindfulness practices may deepen SEL within preschool
educational contexts (Lawlor, 2016).
MBIs in educational contexts have, in fact, much in common with SEL programs, which are
relatively well-established in the field of school interventions. Both MBIs and SEL aim to enhance
the development of socio-emotional competencies such as self-awareness, self-management, social
awareness, relationship management, and responsible decision making, emphasizing the development
of positive self, moral, social, and emotional understanding (Lawlor, 2016). Nevertheless, MBIs differ
in also focus on promoting attitudes of acceptance, resilience, compassion, feelings of benevolence and
loving-kindness toward self and others (Cullen, 2011).
Mindfulness and SEL interventions are also implemented in similar ways: both reserve specific
moments for education and practice beyond school lessons, both usually take place in non-classroom
settings and use support materials such as handouts or audiovisual supplements. MBIs, however,
include some specific practices not used in SEL, such as sitting meditation, body scan and breathing
techniques in order to promote deep concentration on the inner state (Gueldner & Feuerborn, 2016),
as well as exercises of benevolence and compassion for others and acceptance of reality as it is, in order
to support the development of kindness and resilience (Flook et al., 2015).
The effects of MBIs in preschool age have been studied mainly in relation to two important SEL
skills: prosocial behavior and self-regulation. Prosocial behavior refers to voluntary actions intended to
help or benefit others (Eisenberg & Miller, 1987) and includes different categories of behavior, such as
caring, sharing, and helping (Mussen & Eisenberg, 1977). These behaviors can be observed at different
levels, according to the Bronfenbrenner ecological theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1992), which defines four
levels of environmental systems which contain norms and rules that influence people’s behavior. The
micro-level concerns the immediate environment in which an individual is operating (e.g.: for a child,
the family or the classroom . . .). The meso-level is considered when two microsystems are interacting
(e.g.: the connection between the family and the school). The exo-level is external to the individual
experience, but it indirectly affects the individual (e.g.: a child’s parent workplace). The macro-level is
the larger system where the individual lives (e.g.: the cultural context).
According to the ecological systems theory, prosocial behavior could be considered at a micro-level
when it investigates the origin of prosocial tendencies, at a meso-level when it refers to the behavior of
dyads in a specific context, and at a macro-level when it refers to behavior between social groups and large
organizations (Penner et al., 2005). Prosocial behavior is considered an important predictor of a child’s
social adjustment in later years (Crick, 1996). It has proven, moreover, to be correlated with sympathy and
perspective taking in adulthood (Eisenberg et al., 1999), positive interactions in social contexts, solidarity,
respect for personal identities, creative problem solving and agency (Roche Olivar, 2002). The practice of
mindfulness may help the growth of prosocial behavior by encouraging children to pay attention to, and
label, their feelings and emotions, to reflect on their inner experiences without judgment, and to be
empathetic with peers and other people. Moreover, MBIs often include activities that, implicitly or
explicitly, promote compassion and feelings of benevolence and kindness for others. Implicitly, because
during Mindfulness sessions the instructor should convey a non-judgmental attitude of respect and
inclusion, giving space to the expression of each child, and leading the group to listen and pay attention
to each one. Explicitly, by involving children in specific activities such as defining daily good intentions, or
in practices to extend gratitude, care and well wishes to every other child of the class, not just their best
friends. For these reasons, mindfulness interventions may favor the development of prosocial behavior.
40 S. BERTI AND A. CIGALA
Self-regulation refers to ‘the ability to control one’s thoughts, behaviors, emotional reactions and
social interactions, even when impulses and urges run contrary to proximal or distal goals’ (Howard &
Melhuish, 2017, p. 257). Some authors consider self-regulation as the external manifestation of
executive function skills (Ponitz et al., 2009), which denote a set of cognitive processes composed of
three components: working memory, inhibitory control and attentional flexibility (Miyake et al.,
2000). Self-Regulation in the early years has been seen to predict some characteristics in adult life,
such as health, educational attainment and financial stability (Moffit et al., 2011). It is considered
a fundamental factor in child development (Blair & Diamond, 2008) and it is shown to be related to
academic success (Blair & Diamond, 2008; Ursache et al., 2012), metacognitive functions (Boekaerts &
Corno, 2005) and social competence (Kochanska et al., 2000). Since during Mindfulness practice
children are invited to focus on their present experience, moment by moment, to bring awareness to
a specific object (e.g., their breath or an external stimulus) and to bring their attention back to it each
time their mind wanders, MBIs could be assumed to help the development of self-regulation skills.
Given the aforementioned considerations, MBIs may be recommended in the early stages of life,
but to date there is little research on the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions to enhance SEL
skills in preschool age children. The few published studies on this topic are pretest-posttest designs
which compare experimental and control groups before and after MBIs, by using direct measurement
or parent and teacher report to assess SEL skills. Most of the studies which used direct measurements
with children showed improvements in the experimental group compared to the control group on
prosocial behavior (Flook et al., 2015; Thierry et al., 2018; Viglas & Perlman, 2018), self-regulation and
executive function (Jackman et al., 2019; Lim & Qu, 2016; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al.,
2015; Thierry et al., 2016; Viglas & Perlman, 2018). However, some measurements did not find any
differences in the groups after the intervention (Flook et al., 2015; Jackman et al., 2019; Razza et al.,
2015; Thierry et al., 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018). Contrasting findings were also found in the studies
which used parent and teacher report to assess SEL skills: some measures indicated improvements
after the training (Flook et al., 2015; Lemberger-truelove et al., 2018; Moreno-Gómez & Cejudo, 2018;
Viglas & Perlman, 2018) while other did not (Lemberger-truelove et al., 2018; Razza et al., 2015; Wood
et al., 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018). It should be observed that when, in the same study, a construct was
assessed both with direct measures and teacher report tools, often the first showed significant findings
while the others did not. This might be an interesting point, because it may indicate that some
improvements in children’s skills occur after the training, even if they are not noticed by adults. The
use of parent and teacher report measures has, in actual fact, been considered a limitation by the very
authors who have used them, who have suggested the use of more direct measurements. This could
imply that measurement in the field needs to be more consistent: the adult report outcome may not
reflect actual improvements in children’s behavior. Parents and teachers may expect so much from the
children who have experienced the intervention that they may fail to notice small improvements.
Moreover, as ratings are averages of their observations of children, they could be influenced by
children’s behavior prior to intervention; since parents and teachers are in close daily contact with
the children and have known them for a long time, their vision may be affected by their potentially
slightly biased and fixed views of them, even when the ratings dictate a specific time frame to be
considered. It is, therefore, important for research in this area to apply a standard set of measurement
tools, whenever possible. Otherwise, it becomes impossible to distinguish whether particular programs
are in fact working or not, or whether the findings are affected by the choice of measurement tool.
To our knowledge, among the studies published so far, only one used a brief measure of theory of
mind (Zelazo et al., 2018), but none of the studies considered the construct of perspective taking in its
three components. Perspective taking (PT) is defined as “the ability to intuit another person’s
thoughts, feelings, and inner mental states” (Epley & Caruso, 2008, p. 297); it is a multidimensional
construct (Abrahams, 1979; Fireman & Kose, 2010) which includes three main levels: emotional,
cognitive and visual. Emotional PT allows us to understand others’ emotions and feelings (Harris &
Lipian, 1989); Cognitive PT allows us to intuit others’ thoughts and intentions (Baron-Cohen et al.,
2001; Eisenberg et al., 2001) and some authors consider the cognitive dimension of perspective taking
as the ability of theory of mind (Barnes-Holmes et al., 2004); Visual PT allows us to see others’ spatial-
visual point of view, when it is different from ours (Moll & Meltzoff, 2011; Moll & Tomasello, 2006).
Perspective taking is a fundamental competence in both intellectual and social development: it
makes it possible to view a situation from the perspective of others, anticipating their intentions,
desires, beliefs and emotions (Epley et al., 2004). It has been demonstrated to improve negotiation
skills (Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001), to reduce negative stereotyping (Yee & Bailenson, 2006), to
foster social bonds and facilitate social coordination (Galinsky et al., 2005). Therefore, perspective
taking plays a crucial role in adaptation and improving social and interpersonal interactions (Weil
et al., 2011). PT has been found to be related to the growth of social and cognitive abilities (Astington
& Jenkins, 1999; Dunn & Cutting, 1999; Klin et al., 2000), and the improvement of school adaptation
(Dunn, 1995). Moreover, it has been correlated with prosocial behavior (Carlo et al., 2010; Hinnant &
O’Brien, 2007) and executive function (Brown-Shmidt, 2009; Nilsen & Graham, 2009). Since PT is
shown to be correlated with other SEL skills that have shown improvements after MBIs, it would be
interesting to observe the effects of Mindfulness on this ability, which has not been the subject of much
investigation so far. It should also be noted that most of the studies were conducted in the United
States – apart from a few isolated studies in other parts of the world (Canada, Singapore, Spain) – and
no studies have been conducted to date in the Italian preschool context. The contrasting findings of the
few published studies and the lack of research carried out so far on the effects of MBIs on the growth of
preschoolers’ social-emotional competence demonstrate the need for further attention to this topic.
Aims of the Present Study

The first intention of the current pilot study is to provide additional data on the effects of an MBI on
some children’s abilities already investigated in previous research: self-regulation and prosocial
behaviors. Despite some contrasting results, these social and cognitive competences showed significant
improvements after MBIs in most published studies. A further goal of the experiment is to investigate
these abilities with direct measures, since some of the previous studies considered parent or teacher
report measures as limitations and suggested more direct measurements of self-regulation and
prosocial behavior, such as performance-based tasks and third-party observations of children’s
behavior (Flook et al., 2015; Viglas & Perlman, 2018). A second aim of the study is to evaluate whether
MBIs could have an impact on a children’s competence as yet uninvestigated in previous research:
perspective taking.
Hence, the specific hypotheses of the present pilot study were: (1) in accordance with previous
research on MBIs in preschool-age children (Flook et al., 2015; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Thierry
et al., 2016, 2018; Viglas & Perlman, 2018), we expected the experimental group to manifest significant
improvements in prosocial behavior and self-regulation scores, compared to the control group, after
the intervention; (2) since perspective taking has not yet been investigated in studies focused on the
effects of MBIs on preschoolers, but it is shown to be correlated with other social-emotional abilities
investigated so far (Carlo et al., 2010; Cigala et al., 2015; Nilsen & Graham, 2009), we expected the
experimental group to manifest significant improvements in perspective taking scores, compared to
the control group, after the intervention.
Method
Sample
The children were recruited from an Italian kindergarten located in a comprehensive school complex
which housed a nursery, a primary school and a secondary school. The kindergarten included three
mixed-age classes (3 to 6 years old). Each class consisted of 24 children and was taught by two teachers.
The organization and structure of the service was similar to most of the kindergartens in northern
Italy. Informed consent was required for all the older children, those who were to start school the
Table 1. Demographic variables across the experimental and the control group.
Demographic Variables Experimental Group (n = 10) Control Group (n = 11)
Child gender 5 girls, 5 boys 4 girls, 7 boys
Child agea 65.66 (4.16) 65.54 (3.36)
Socioeconomic statusb 50.85 (10.3; 33–64.5) 55.68 (7.6; 38.5–64.5)
Presence of siblings 7 yes, 3 no 7 yes, 4 no
Mother’s nationality 8 Italian, 2 non-Italian 9 Italian, 2 non-Italian
Father’s nationality 10 Italian, 0 non-Italian 11 Italian, 0 non-Italian
a
Mean (Standard Deviation); bMean (Standard Deviation; Range)
following year (n = 28). Twenty-two informed consent forms were signed, but one child whose parents
provided consent failed to complete the program because the child stopped attending the school before
the posttest phase. He was, therefore, excluded from the study. The final sample included twenty-one
children (12 boys, 9 girls; M age = 65.60 months; range = 60.89–73.21 months).
The participants were typically developing children with Italian citizenship; most of the chil
dren’s parents were Italian (90.48%) and only a few (9.52%) came from other countries: Sweden
(2.38%), Hungary (2.38%), Albania (2.38%) and Russia (2.38%). Most of the children had siblings
(66.66%), 33.33% were only children. Most parents were married (90.47%), but 9.53% were
divorced. The socio-economic status (SES) of the families was calculated using Hollingshead’s 4
factor index (Hollingshead, 1975) based upon the parents’ education and occupation. The mean SES
of the families fell in the middle SES range (M = 53.4; SD = 9.1; range 33–64.5). Of the mothers,
9.52% had completed up to grade 8, 38.10% had completed high school, 4.76% had completed
a bachelor’s degree, 38.10% had completed a master’s degree and 9.52% had a PhD. Of the fathers,
9.52% had completed up to grade 8, 38.10% had completed high school, and 52.36% had a master’s
degree. The modal occupation type for mothers was office worker (42.85%) and for fathers inde
pendent professional (38.09%). These data indicate that the sample belongs to an Italian middle
socio-economic community; no conditions of socio-economic disadvantage or anomalous develop
ment were found in any of the participating subjects. Participants were randomly assigned either to
the experimental group (n = 10) or to the control group (n = 11), balancing gender and age. The
details of the demographic factors (child gender, child age, family SES) across the experimental and
control group are presented in Table 1.
Measures and Instruments

Prosocial Behavior
Prosocial behavior was evaluated through non-participant naturalistic observations in order to pre
serve the ecological validity of the assessment. Both in pretest and posttest phases, three observation
sessions were conducted for each participant on three different days, during free-play sessions (twice
on two different days, lasting 30 minutes each) and during lunch time (once, lasting 30 minutes), so
that each child was observed for a total of 90 minutes. The observer noted the emission frequency of
specific target behaviors at a meso-level (Penner et al., 2005) on a preset coding grid; items were taken
from Roche Olivar’s prosocial behavior assessment scheme (Roche Olivar, 2002) and from the Italian
social behavior assessment questionnaire ‘Questionario per la valutazione dei comportamenti sociali’
(QVCS; D’Odorico et al., 2000); the items referred to the three categories of social behaviors: helping,
sharing and comforting. This coding grid had already been used in previous research (Cigala et al.,
2015) and the observer was trained to use it in preschool contexts. Cronbach’s alpha score for the
reliability of the internal consistency of the coding grid is.69 for each behavior separately.
Self-Regulation
Self-regulation was assessed using the Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulder task (Ponitz et al., 2008) and a go/
no-go task. The HTKS is a game with paired rules: the child is asked to ‘touch their head’ or ‘touch
their toes’ and to ‘touch their shoulders’ or ‘touch their knees’. In the first part of the game, the child
must follow the order, he/she is then instructed to respond in the opposite way (e.g., touching toes
when told to touch head). The original task includes a final session in which all four commands are
shuffled, but this was not carried out in the present study. The go/no-go task is considered a well-
established measure of attentional focus, impulsivity, and inhibitory control for preschool children
(Yong-Liang et al., 2000). In the present study, 40 stimuli representing two different images (go/no-go)
appeared in random order on a digital screen for up to 500 ms, with an inter-stimulus interval
diminishing after a set of eight-images, from 1500 ms to 1000 ms. Inhibition was required in 40% of
the stimuli. The researcher asked the child to press a sound button when he/she saw the go stimulus
(responsive component) and not to press it when he/she saw the no-go stimulus (inhibitory compo
nent). Correct pressing was a correct response to the go stimulus and no pressing was a correct
response to the no-go stimulus.
Emotional Perspective Taking

The emotional dimension of perspective taking was assessed using the Test of Emotion
Comprehension (TEC; Pons & Harris, 2000) and storytelling-based emotional recognition tests,
created ad hoc for the experiment. The TEC evaluates the understanding of emotions in children
aged 3–11 years: the researcher tells some stories to the child accompanied by illustrations that arouse
emotions; at the end of each story, he asks the child to identify the appropriate emotional reaction of
the protagonist, choosing one of the four possible facial expressions depicted in the book. The test
assesses three levels of emotion comprehension: external (e.g.: facial expressions); mental (e.g.: control
of emotional expression) and reflexive (e.g.: morality). For the study, the test used was the Italian
version of the one validated by Albanese and Molina (2008), whose KR-20 internal consistency
reliability score is .79. In the storytelling-based emotional recognition tests, the researcher reads
a tale aloud to the child with a picture book, and after some key events in the story, he asks the
child which emotion the character is experiencing: happiness, sadness, anger or fear. Each of the four
target emotions emerges three times during the tale, so the child has to recognize the right emotion
twelve times in the whole story: the child scores 1 for each correct answer and 0 for each incorrect
answer, so he/she can obtain a score from 0 to 3 for each emotion, and a total score from 0 to 12 for the
whole test. In the present study, the tale was adapted from ‘Rainbow fish and friends’ (Donovan, 2002)
at pretest and from ‘Pinga gets lost’ (Von Flue, 1990) at posttest; the images and texts of the original
stories were slightly modified to eliminate words and drawing details (e.g.: tears, eye expressions) that
could have suggested answers to the children.
Cognitive Perspective Taking

The cognitive dimension of perspective taking was assessed using two false belief tasks and one
appearance-reality distinction task: the Sally-Ann task (Baron-Cohen et al., 1985; Wimmer &
Perner, 1983), the unexpected-content task (Perner et al., 1987) and the deceptive object task
(Flavell, 1988). In the Sally-Ann task, the researcher tells the child a story with a picture book
about two girls who have different beliefs regarding the location of a puppet. At the end of the story,
the researcher asks the child the “belief” question, to understand if he/she grasped the different
points of view. During the posttest phase the researcher tells the same story, changing some details
(e.g.: mice instead of girls; cheese instead of the puppet). In the unexpected-content task, the
researcher shows the child a tin that looks as though it contains a Cola drink (Ice-cream in the
posttest phase): then he reveals that it actually contains rice (cork stoppers in the posttest phase). At
the end, the researcher asks the child what he/she believed was in the tin, before knowing the truth
(false belief question – self) and what might be the belief of a friend who doesn’t know the truth
(false belief question – others). In the deceptive objects task, the researcher shows the child
a deceptive-looking object, asking him/her not to touch it but to think about what it is; after a few
seconds, the object is given to the child, who can then touch and examine it. Then the researcher asks
the child what he/she thought the object was before touching it (false belief question – self), what it
looks like (appearance question) and finally what it actually is (reality question). For the present
study, the deceptive objects were an eraser that looked like a chocolate candy at the pretest and
a bouncy ball that looked like an egg at posttest.
Visual Perspective Taking

The visual dimension of perspective taking was assessed using two visual perception tasks (Flavell
et al., 1968, 1981) and a hiding game (Hughes & Donaldson, 1979). The first visual perception task
consists of a sheet of paper showing two drawings, one on the front and one on the back; the
researcher shows the two sides of the paper to the child then he puts the graphic board between
himself and the child, holding it vertically so that each person can see just one side of the paper, then
he asks: “What am I seeing?”. The child accomplishes the task if he/she responds that the researcher
is seeing the researcher-side drawing. The second visual perception task consists of an image
represented on paper: the researcher firstly shows the full image to the child then hides half of the
image, placing a card perpendicular to the sheet between the child and himself; finally, he asks the
child which part of the image the researcher is seeing. The child accomplishes the task if he/she
responds that the researcher is seeing the researcher-side image. The hiding game consisted of a 3D-
model representing an environment recognizable to the children (e.g., a farm) with two 3D-
characters (e.g., the farmer and his wife). The researcher puts a character in a specific position on
the model and asks the child to hide the other character in three different places on the model, so
that the first character cannot see it. This is done three times, so that the child can choose nine
different hiding places. The child accomplishes the task if he/she hides his character in a place that is,
effectively, hidden from the other character’s sight.
Design and Intervention

A pre-posttest design was conducted. Participants were individually assessed before and after the
intervention; the assessment included three testing sessions and three observational sessions for each
child, both in the pretest and posttest phase. The testing sessions lasted about 15 minutes each and
took place in a quiet room, away from the children’s regular classrooms. The observational sessions
lasted about 30 minutes each and took place in the ecological context of the preschool environment.
Testing sessions and observations were carried out by a trained researcher who was not aware of the
intervention condition and study hypotheses.
The MBI lasted 6 weeks and included two types of activities: 6 weekly sessions of mind
fulness-based playful activities and 9 brief sessions of short mindfulness-meditation. The chil
dren were then involved 3 times a week, on alternate days, for a total of 15 sessions. The weekly
sessions consisted of meetings lasting about 30 minutes which included a brief introduction,
some play activities and, at the end, some time to share their thoughts and feelings about the
experience. The contents of the meetings were drawn from specific literature on mindfulness for
children (Hanh, 2011; Montano & Villani, 2016; Snel, 2013). In the first session, the children
were asked to explore their inner world, by concentrating on breathing and imagining a peaceful
secret garden inside them. In the second session, they were asked to focus on their emotions and
the related reactions of their body, after which a playful activity was conducted to help the
children visualize the effects of meditation on the crowding of emotions in the mind. In the
third session, a “mindful eating” experience was conducted with a raspberry, instructing the
children to pay attention to their inner sensations. In the fourth session, the children were asked
to focus their attention on their five senses, by recognizing some hidden objects, focusing on one
sense at a time. In the fifth session, the children were introduced to the practice of meditation,
and a brief meditation session was conducted with the aid of some pebbles that the children
were asked to hold in their hands. In the last session, the children were asked to talk about their
experience during the earlier sessions and a concluding activity was carried out, with a woolen
thread that the children handed to each other, symbolizing the connection between all the
participants in the training course. The main contents of each session are presented in the
Appendix. The brief sessions consisted of 5–10-minute meditations accompanied by specific
mindfulness audio-tracks for children (Hanh, 2011; Snel, 2013), designed to make them more
aware of their own breathing and feelings.
The intervention was conducted by an instructor who had attended a Mindfulness Based Stress
Reduction program (MBSR; Kabat-Zinn, 1990) and who was familiar with the work done with pre
schoolers. Furthermore, the instructor was a practitioner of mindfulness meditation in everyday life, as
suggested by researchers and practitioners for conducting mindfulness interventions (Kabat-Zinn, 2003).
The intervention sessions took place in a little wooden house located in the preschool garden; the size and
features of this location fulfilled the guidelines described in Montano and Villani (2016): it was separate
from the classrooms, neither too bright nor too dark, comfortably heated, without furniture, mirrors,
books or toys, and with a door that could be closed during the activities. The indoor space was decorated
with hanging curtains on the ceiling, a large, thick pile rug on the floor and seat cushions (one for each
child) arranged in circular shape. This kind of setting was intended to promote comfort, tranquility and
intimacy by creating a cozy atmosphere. On the interior front wall, there were six posters representing
the six weekly sessions: week by week they were filled with drawings and materials which referred to the
activities carried out during each meeting (see Appendix).
After each session, the instructor filled a grid recording each child’s behavior during the
intervention. Three parameters were considered: participation (does the child participate
actively? Does he/she answer to the instructor’s questions? Does he/she ask questions or com
ment the activities?) compliance (does the child adhere to the rules of conduct? Does he/she
respect his/her turn to speak? Does he/she listen to others?) and attention (can the child
concentrate on the focus of the activity? Does he/she respond to requests to pay attention?).
For each of the three parameters, the instructor indicated an individual score for each child on
a 5 point Likert scale, from 0% (does not participate/is not compliant/is not attentive) to 100%
(fully participates/fully compliant/fully attentive). The means of the scores showed medium-high
scores for each child in the intervention group, except for one participant who showed low
scores for each parameter. The total mean percentages are the following: Participation = 74.19%,
Compliance = 78.23%) Attention = (Mean: 79.44%). During the implementation of the MBI, the
control group participated in sitting-down, calming activities with their regular teachers (e.g.:
painting, story-book reading). Following the completion of the posttest phase, the control group
also received the intervention.
Data Analyses
Scoring
To evaluate perspective taking, we distinguished its emotional, cognitive and visual components: for each
of the three variables (Emotional PT; Cognitive PT; Visual PT) we considered the sum of the scores from
the corresponding tests. We also considered a total PT variable, summing the scores from the three
components (PT). To evaluate Self-Regulation, we considered the total scores from the HTKS task
(HTKS Task) and the total scores from the go/no-go task (Go/No-Go Task). We also distinguished the
scores related to the responsive component and the inhibitory component of the Go/No-Go Task. To
evaluate prosocial behavior, we considered the total scores from the observation grid, included helping,
sharing, and comforting behaviors. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness and
kurtosis) and non-parametric bivariate correlation for these variables were calculated (Tables 2–4).
Pretest and Intervention Analysis

Before the evaluation of the training program, a pretest analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
carried out in order to verify the presence of any differences between the experimental group
Table 2. Pretest descriptive analysis in experimental and control groups: mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis.
Experimental Group Control Group
Variables M SD Skew. Kurt. M SD Skew. Kurt.
Prosocial Behavior 4.90 3.28 0.04 −1.92 4.64 2.20 0.86 −0.35
HTKS Task 28.90 28.90 −2.63 7.65 26.54 11.50 −1.27 −1.16
Go/No-Go Task 33.89 3.33 −0.91 0.41 32.18 3.74 0.33 −0.75
-Responsive component 23.20 1.93 −2.66 7.19 20.27 3.90 −0.68 −1.52
-Inhibitory component 10.60 2.12 −0.13 −0.69 11.91 2.62 −0.61 0.22
Perspective Taking 20.80 5.39 −1.61 3.01 22.73 4.71 −0.41 −1.10
-Emotional PT 11.80 2.66 −1.02 1.63 13.09 2.12 0.39 −1.15
-Cognitive PT 4.90 1.45 −0.61 0.44 5.73 1.10 0.11 −1.60
-Visual PT 4.10 2.18 −0.80 −0.72 3.91 4.71 −0.75 −0.95
M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Skew. = Skewness; Kurt. = Kurtosis
Table 3. Posttest descriptive analysis in experimental and control groups: mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis.
Experimental Group Control Group
Variables M SD Skew. Kurt. M SD Skew. Kurt.
Prosocial Behavior 8.40 2.41 0.60 0.01 4.91 2.47 −0.20 −1.22
HTKS Task 32.60 11.80 −2.85 8.46 31.82 5.42 −1.13 2.56
Go/No-Go Task 37.00 2.75 −1.20 1.24 33.82 3.19 −0.11 0.11
-Responsive component 23.50 0.97 −2.27 5.36 22.64 1.43 −1.70 3.90
-Inhibitory component 13.50 2.32 −0.30 −1.67 11.18 1.28 −0.56 −0.42
Perspective Taking 28.20 3.94 −1.69 2.76 26.00 3.26 0.36 −0.53
-Emotional PT 16.40 2.01 −1.10 1.55 14.45 2.73 −0.37 0.01
-Cognitive PT 6.70 0.48 −1.03 −1.22 6.27 1.27 −2.05 4.19
-Visual PT 5.10 1.91 −1.85 1.87 5.27 1.19 −2.38 6.45
M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; Skew. = Skewness; Kurt. = Kurtosis
Table 4. Model significance at F test of analysis of variance.

Pre-post Pre-post x Group
Variables F (df) p F (df) p
Prosocial Behavior 11.18 (1,19) .003 8.18 (1,19) .010
HTKS Task 4.71 (1,19) .043 0.13 (1,18) .721
Go/No-Go Task 16.55 (1,18) .001 6.71 (1,18) .019
-Responsive component 4.45 (1,19) .048 2.67 (1,19) .012
-Inhibitory component 0.12 (1,18) .073 6.89 (1,18) .017
Perspective Taking 69.73 (1,19) .001 10.43 (1,19) .004
-Emotional PT 72.32 (1,19) .001 21.30 (1,19) .001
-Cognitive PT 24.52 (1,19) .001 7.02 (1,19) .016
-Visual PT 9.18 (1,19) .007 0.22 (1,19) .646
df = degrees of freedom
and control group at the pretest in all variables considered: PT; Emotional PT; Cognitive PT;
Visual PT; Prosocial Behavior; HTKS Task; Go/No-Go Task; Responsive component Go/No-Go
Task; Inhibitory component Go/No-Go Task. In the intervention analysis, for each variable
considered (PT; Emotional PT; Cognitive PT; Visual PT; Prosocial Behavior; HTKS Task; Go/No-
Go Task; Responsive component Go/No-Go Task; Inhibitory component Go/No-Go Task)
repeated-measure analysis of variance MANOVA was performed, considering pretest and
posttest measures as within-participant factor and experimental vs. control groups as between-
participant factor. Since several comparisons were carried out, we considered an alpha level of
.01. In addition, we conducted qualitative analyses on children’s individual scores to analyze the
improvement of each child in the experimental group.
Results
The pretest analysis revealed that there were no significant differences at baseline between the
experimental group and the control group, apart from the Responsive component Go/No-Go Task
[F(1,19) = 4,59; p = .01] which was significantly higher in the experimental group. The intervention
analyses are reported below for each variable considered. Descriptive statistics for pretest and posttest
scores are presented in Tables 2 and 3. The model significance at F test of analysis of variance are
presented in Table 4.
Prosocial Behavior
The repeated-measure analysis of variance for prosocial behavior indicated a significant effect of pre/
post factor [F(1,19) = 11.18; p =.003] and a significant pre/post x experimental condition interaction
[F(1,19) = 8.18; p =.010]. For this variable, the results revealed a significant improvement on scores at
posttest for the experimental group.
Self-Regulation
The repeated-measure analysis of variance on HTKS Task revealed a significant effect of pre/post
factor [F(1,19) = 4.71; p =.043] and no significant effect of pre/post x experimental condition. In the
repeated-measure analysis of variance on Go/No-Go Task, the Responsive component Go/No-Go Task
was entered in the analysis as a covariate in order to control for its effect which differed between the
two groups (experimental/control) at baseline at pretest. The results yielded a significant effect of pre/
post factor on Go/No-Go Task [F(1,18) = 16.55; p =.001] and on the Responsive component Go/No-Go
Task [F(1,19) = 4.45; p =.048] and a significant effect of pre/post x experimental condition on Go/No-Go
Task [F(1,18) = 6.71; p =.019], on the Responsive component Go/No-Go Task [F(1,19) = 2.67; p =.012] and
on the Inhibitory component Go/No-Go Task [F(1,18) = = 6.89; p =.017]. For these variables the results
revealed a significant improvement on scores at posttest for the experimental group.
Perspective Taking
The results of repeated-measure analysis of variance showed a significant pre/post factor effect
indicating that the participants scored higher on PT [F(1,19) = 69.73; p =.001]. Emotional PT
[F(1,19) = 72.32; p =.001]; Cognitive PT [F(1,19) = 24.52; p =.001] and Visual PT [F(1,19) = 9.18;
p =.007] at posttest with respect to pretest. Moreover the repeated-measure yielded a significant
effect of the pre/post x experimental condition on different considered variables: PT [F(1,19) =
10.43; p = .004]; Emotional PT [F(1,19) = 21.30; p =.001]; Cognitive PT [F(1,19) = 7.02; p =.016]. For
these variables the results revealed a significant improvement on scores at posttest for the
experimental group.
Individual Scores
By comparing the individual scores, some variability emerged in the pretest and posttest scores. It was
observed that most in the children of the experimental group whose scores were lower than the mean
value at pretest, obtained delta scores (pretest-posttest) higher than the mean delta value for each
significantly improved variable. This happened in 100% of the children with low baselines (scores
lower than the mean value) for emotional PT, in 100% for cognitive PT, in 75% for total PT, in 80% for
prosocial behavior and in 60% for the inhibitory component of the go/no-go task. These results
indicate that children with low baselines tended to improve more than the others in the variables
investigated.
Discussion
The present study set out to analyze the effects of a mindfulness-based intervention on young
children’s SEL skills, assessing prosocial behavior, self-regulation and perspective taking. The research
hypotheses assumed that the experimental group would perform significantly better than the control
group for each variable investigated.
The first hypothesis assumed that the experimental group would show significant improvements in
prosocial behavior and self-regulation scores compared to the control group: this was partially
confirmed. In accordance with other research which analyzed the effect of mindfulness on prosocial
behavior (Flook et al., 2015; Thierry et al., 2018), in the current study the experimental group
performed significantly better than the control group on this variable after the intervention. In
addition to being in line with previous studies, our preliminary study enriches the results achieved
so far by using direct observations in the ecological context to assess prosocial behavior, while the
published studies used teacher report questionnaires or performance-based tasks.
These findings suggest that MBIs may have positive effects on prosocial attitude, that, besides
fostering a good social experience with both peers and adults in the kindergarten context, it is
important for the development of social skills in later years: prosocial behavior is in fact a predictor
of social adjustment, positive interactions in social contexts, solidarity, respect for personal identities,
creative problem solving and agency (Crick, 1996; Roche Olivar, 2002). In their broader meaning,
these results seem to highlight a significant relationship between the individual’s competence to reflect
on him/herself and his/her competence to relate to others. In particular, children’s ability to focus on
their present experience, to get in touch with their thoughts, emotions and sensations and thus to
acquire greater self-knowledge, seems to promote compassion and feelings of benevolence and
kindness toward others.
The self-regulation evaluation showed notable results for the total score of the go/no-go task and
for the variable related to its responsive and inhibitory component, significantly improved in the
experimental group. This could mean that mindfulness interventions may improve self-regulation in
preschool-age children. The different effects of the intervention on the inhibitory and responsive
component of self-regulation is in line with other studies which suggest differentiating inhibitory and
reactive forms of emotion-regulation in children (Spinrad et al., 2006).
In contrast with previous studies (Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Viglas & Perlman, 2018), no
significant differences between groups were found on the HTKS task results. With regard to this data,
it should be specified that the test turned out to be difficult for the participants; children seemed
frustrated at the end of the first part of the test (head/toes), and even more so during the second part
(knees/shoulders), asking for a different game, sitting down, lowering their eyes, so that it was
necessary to omit the third part of the original test. Due to frustration, the children may not have
felt involved and may not have been motivated to perform during the HTKS Task.
Although both measures of self-regulation used in the present study had a similar mechanism –
requiring the activation or inhibition of an action in response to the command -, one of them showed
improvements while the other did not. Also, the findings of previous studies are unclear about the
effects of mindfulness interventions on self-regulation and executive function: some studies found
significant effects on a specific task and non-significant effects on another task, referred to the same
construct: for example, Razza et al. (2015) found significant improvements in a toy wrap task but not
in a toy wait task; Poehlmann-Tynan et al. (2016) found improvements in the HTKS task but not in
a distress task. Therefore, it is important to conduct further research in order to gain a better
understanding of which factors are affected by mindfulness and how the interventions could be
more effective, considering the importance of self-regulatory skills in child development.
The second hypothesis assumed that the experimental group would show significant improvements
on perspective taking scores compared to the control group: this was partially confirmed. The
experimental group showed a greater increase in the emotional and cognitive dimensions of perspec
tive taking, while the visual dimension did not show significant differences. This could mean that the
MBI primarily affected the children’s understanding of others’ emotions and, secondly, it helped the
children to understand others’ cognitive point of view, but it did not affect the ability to imagine
others’ visual perspective. It should be noted that there is a correspondence between these results and
the contents of the MBI implemented: the intervention activities actually focused on emotions,
thoughts and physical sensations more than on visual perception, so no improvements on visual PT
could be justified by the fact that there was no targeted training. Despite the fact that no differences
were found in the visual component of the construct, a statistically significant improvement can be
seen in the total PT variable including all three aspects, suggesting that the intervention improved the
general ability of perspective taking.
This result could be a potentially novel contribution to the field, as there are no studies with this
specific objective in the literature, to our knowledge. The novelty lies precisely in the type of training
used, whose purpose, unlike that of other types of training used in previous studies (Mori & Cigala,
2018), is not to “teach children the point of view of the other”, but rather to help children to focus on
themselves, to acquire a greater awareness of their thoughts, emotions and feelings. Therefore, this
result means that self-awareness furthers the understanding of the differentiation between one’s own
perspective and that of others, and promotes the development of the ability to identify the other’s
point of view, especially in terms of thoughts and emotions. Furthermore, this result could be an
interesting outcome, also considering the fact that perspective taking ability has proven to be related to
other important child development skills, such as divergent thinking (Suddendorf & Fletcher-flinn,
1999), imagination (Taylor & Carlson, 1997), moral sensibility (Dunn et al., 2000), language devel
opment (Astington & Jenkins, 1999), and peer-acceptance (Slaughter et al., 2002).
Other interesting data emerge on observing the improvement of the two groups from pretest to
posttest. Although the improvement of the experimental group showed higher statistical significance
in all three dimensions of PT, it should be noted that the control group demonstrated significant
improvements in the emotional and visual components of Perspective Taking as well. This could be
due to the growth of the children and to the contents of the preschool activities that were focused on
emotional development. Based on the data collected in previous studies (Mori & Cigala, 2018) with the
same tasks proposed to preschool children, we can exclude the effect of test repetition.
Given the aforementioned considerations, it should be noted that only the experimental group
showed improvements in the cognitive component of PT. This result suggests several interpretative
hypotheses. First, it is conceivable that, since the age of the participants is considered a “critical period”
during which they can acquire false beliefs (Wellman et al., 2001), the intervention seems to have a role
of promotion for emerging perspective taking competencies. Moreover, since the cognitive compo
nent is the least emphasized of the three dimensions of PT in educational contexts (Mori & Cigala,
2016) and is poorly addressed in educational practices both at schools and in the family, MBI training
could provide a significant opportunity for children in the experimental group, compared to other
children, to reflect on their own thoughts, intentions and cognitive points of view.
We also observed that children with low baselines at pretest benefited more from the intervention:
this was confirmed by the qualitative analyses conducted on individual children’s scores: most of the
children with low baselines at prestest obtained the highest scores at posttest. This is in line with
literature showing that the interventions benefit the children who need them the most (Bierman et al.,
2008; Tominey & Mcclelland, 2011) and this is particularly important in the context of prevention,
also taking into account that social-emotional competence is considered an essential factor for
reducing risk and promoting wellness in children (Domitrovich et al., 2017), as well as being
a predictor of important outcomes across the lifespan (Jones et al., 2015).
In the light of these arguments, we retain that this study could have some important relevance for
the application. In particular, the results, if read in the light of children’s daily experience, reveal that
the spaces for reflection, for being with oneself and for listening to oneself, represent a very significant
experience for children, even at an early age. These dimensions are not greatly present in the
organization of the children’s standard day, which is often planned and highly-structured, and
which is characterized more by “doing” than “thinking”. In fact, often adult educational strategies
are aimed at “occupying/filling” the children’s space, rather than “freeing” them. In this sense, even the
pervasive use of electronic devices from a very early age rarely allows a child in his/her daily life to have
moments to reflect on himself/herself and to get in touch with his/her thoughts, emotions and bodily
sensations.
The results obtained in the present study suggest that helping children to acquire an awareness of
their own thoughts, emotions and sensations could help them to develop an adequate capacity for self-
regulation and for understanding the emotional, cognitive and perceptive point of view of others, as
well as the ability to act prosocially toward their peers. In this sense, the results of the study could offer
interesting stimuli for educational planning both in the family and at school.
Strengths and Limitations

The present pilot study provides additional data on the effects of MBIs on preschoolers’ prosocial
behavior and self-regulation: the study appears in line with the findings of the research carried out
so far in terms of the application of MBIs with preschool-age children. The significant improve
ments of the experimental group on most of the variables considered, after only six weeks of
training, encourages the use of mindfulness interventions to improve children’s social-emotional
competence.
This study is the first conducted in the Italian preschool context and it is the first to evaluate the
effects of an MBI on the three components of perspective taking, suggesting that mindfulness practice
could improve this important ability, particularly as regards its emotional and cognitive dimensions. It
should be noted that, compared to all the variables considered for the study, the emotional component
of PT was the one that improved most after the intervention; this preliminary data encourage further
studies in order to gain a better understanding of the relation between mindfulness and emotional
competence in children.
Considering that the skills that have proved to be influenced by the intervention are fundamental
for the social-emotional well-being of children and predictive in relation to further skills even in
subsequent stages of development, teachers and practitioners may use mindfulness-based activities in
their classes, starting from preschool age. The activities of the described training could be proposed to
small groups of children, by the teachers themselves. However, it would be important for the
instructor to be a mindfulness practitioner who has attended mindfulness training, and who has
become familiar with the practice.
Another strength of the study is the use of direct measurement to assess children’s socio-emotional
skills. The previous studies in the field recognize the limit of parent or teacher report measures,
suggesting the use of more direct tools. This indicates that measurements in the field need to be more
consistent. The present study gives a contribution to the identification of a set of measures to reliably
assess the effectiveness of interventions with children, which aim to promote prosocial behavior,
perspective taking and self-regulation competence. This set of identified measures consists of both the
individual tests measuring the level of knowledge reached by the children, and observational grids of
their peers’ behaviors applicable in naturalistic contexts. Such a set of measures could also ensure
a possible comparison of results obtained in different studies. Furthermore, in the present study
prosocial behaviors have been operationalized in a clear way, so as to provide a valid observational tool
also for the observations conducted by the teachers. This could provide a valid tool to allow teachers to
conduct more objective and systematic observations, limiting the possible distortions that stem from
their direct involvement in their relationship with children.
Although the current study adds to the growing evidence that mindfulness interventions can be
positive for fostering preschoolers’ social-emotional competence, the findings should be considered in
the light of certain limitations. As a pilot study, the sample size was small, and it was drawn from one
Italian middle SES community with typically developing children, restricting the generalizability of the
results. Another limitation of the study is the lack of a long-term follow-up of the children, to verify the
maintenance of the results and to examine behavioral or academic outcomes at school age. Moreover,
although the use of direct measurements seems to be more effective in assessing children’s socio-
emotional development, reports from teachers and parents could also have been collected in order to
have third-party perspectives, in addition to direct measurements. Finally, a further limitation of this
study is the lack of an alternative treatment for the control-group to compare the effects of two
different interventions. Given these limitations, it is important to build on these preliminary findings
in order to gain a better understanding of the impact of mindfulness programs in early childhood.
Conclusion
The present pilot study indicates the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions in preschool-age
children to enhance prosocial behavior, self-regulation and perspective taking, which are fundamental
SEL skills whose appropriate development is related to further skills at later ages. Although studies on
this issue are still in their preliminary stages, and there are still many aspects that research needs to
clarify on the application of MBIs, the results that emerged after only six weeks of intervention
encourage the use of mindfulness programs for enhancing preschoolers’ social-emotional competence.
Based on the exploratory nature of this study, further empirical investigations with larger samples and
more significant comparison groups should help us succeed in understanding the effects of mind
fulness-based interventions in preschool-age children.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
ORCID
Sara Berti http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5238-1077
Ada Cigala http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1193-1148
References
Abrahams, B. (1979). An integrative approach to the study of the development of perspective taking abilities. Stanford
University.
Albanese, O., & Molina, P. (2008). Lo sviluppo della comprensione delle emozioni e la sua valutazione. La standardizza
zione italiana del Test di Comprensione delle Emozioni (TEC). Unicopoli.
American Mindfulness Research Association. (2020, July 1). American mindfulness research association: Resources.
American Mindfulness Association. htpps://goamra.org/resources
Astington, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (1999). A longitudinal study of the relation between language and theory-of-mind
development. Developmental Psychology, 35(3), 1311. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.5.1311
Barnes-Holmes, Y., Mchugh, L., & Barnes-Holmes, D. (2004). Perspective-taking and theory of mind a relational frame
account. The Behavior Analyst Today, 5(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100133
Baron-Cohen, S., Leslie, A. M., & Frith, U. (1985). Does the autistic child have a “theory of mind”? In B. Gertler & L.
Shapiro (Eds.), Arguing about the mind (pp. 310–318). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0010-0277(85)90022-8
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Hill, J., Raste, Y., & Plumb, I. (2001). The “reading the mind in the eyes” test revised
version: A study with normal adults, and adults with asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-7610.00715
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions and school
readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Developmental
Psychology, 20(3), 821–843. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579408000394
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self-regulation
as a means of preventing school failure Clancy. Developmental Psychology, 20(3), 899–911. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0954579408000436
Boekaerts, M., & Corno, L. (2005). Self-regulation in the classroom : A perspective on assessment and intervention.
Applied Psychology, 54(2), 199–231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00205.x
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Brown-Shmidt, S. (2009). The role of executive function in perspective. Psychonomic Bullettin & Review, 16(5), 893–900.
https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.5.893
Carlo, G., Knight, G. P., McGinley, M., Goodvin, R., & Roesch, S. C. (2010). The developmental relations between
perspective taking and prosocial behaviors: A meta-analytic examination of the task-specificity hypotesis. In
B. W. Sokol, U. Muller, J. I. M. Carpendale, A. R. Young, & G. Iarocci, (Eds.), Self and social regulation: Social
interaction and the development of social understanding and executive functions (pp. 234–269). Oxford university
Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327694.003.0010
Cigala, A., Mori, A., & Fangareggi, F. (2015). Learning others’ point of view: Perspective taking and prosocial behaviour
in preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 185(8), 1199–1215. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2014.
987272
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of
children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67(5), 2317–2327. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131625
Cullen, M. (2011). Mindfulness-based interventions: An emerging phenomenon. Mindfulness, 2(3), 186–193. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12671-011-0058-1
D’Odorico, L., Cassibba, R., & Buono, S. (2000). Le interazioni tra pari all’asilo nido: Metodi di valutazione e variabili
rilevanti. Età Evolutiva, 67, 3–14.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional development in young children. Guilford Press.
Denham, S. A. (2006). Social-emotional competence as support for school readiness: What is it and how do we assess it?
Early Education and Development, 17(1), 57–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1701
Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (2003). Social and emotional prevention and intervention programming for preschoolers.
Kluwer Academic Plenum. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0055-1
Domitrovich, C. E., Durlak, J. A., Staley, K. C., & Weissberg, R. P. (2017). Social-emotional competence : An essential
factor for promoting positive adjustment and reducing risk in school children. Child Development, 88(2), 408–416.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12739
Donovan, G. (2002). Rainbow fish & friends. Ready, set, swim! North-Sout.
Dunn. (1995) . From one child to two. Fawcett Bo.
Dunn, J., & Cutting, A. L. (1999). Understanding others, and individual differences in friendship interactions in young
children. Social Development, 8(2), 201–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00091
Dunn, J., Cutting, A. L., & Demetriou, H. (2000). Moral sensibility, understanding others, and children ’ s friendship
interactions in the preschool period. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.
1348/026151000165625
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Carlo, G. (1999). Consistency and
development of prosocial dispositions: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 70(6), 1360–1372. https://doi.org/
10.1111/1467-8624.00100
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors the relation of empathy
to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 10(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., & Koller, S. (2001). Brazilian adolescents’ prosocial moral judgment and behavior: Relations to
sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographic characteristics. Child Development, 72(2),
518–534. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00294
Epley, N., & Caruso, E. M. (2008). Perspective taking: Misstepping into others’ shoes. In K. D. Markman, W. M. P. Klein,
& J. A. Suh, (Eds.), Handbook of imagination and mental simulation (pp. 297–312). Psychology Press. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9780203809846.ch20
Epley, N., Morewedge, C. K., & Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but
differential correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(6), 760–768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.
02.002
Fireman, G. D., & Kose, G. (2010). Perspective taking. In E. H. Sandberg & B. L. Spritz (Eds.), A clinician’s guide to
normal cognitive development in childhood (pp. 85–100). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203843697
Flavell, J. H. (1988). The development of children’s knowledge about the mind: From cognitive connections to mental
representations. Developing theories of mind. American Psychologist, 41(4), 244–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.41.4.418
Flavell, J. H., Botkin, P. T., Fry, C. L., Wright, J. W., & Jarvis, P. E. (1968). The development of role-taking and
communication skills in children. Wiley.
Flavell, J. H., Everett, B. A., Croft, K., & Flavell, E. R. (1981). Young children’s knowledge about visual perception:
Further evidence for the Level 1–Level 2 distinction. Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.
1037/0012-1649.17.1.99
Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in
preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 44–51.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038256
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Wang, C. S. (2005). Self – other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social
coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 109–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1368430205051060
Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
Gueldner, B. A., & Feuerborn, L. L. (2016). Integrating mindfulness-based practices into social and emotional learning:
A case application. Mindfulness, 7(1), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0423-6
Hanh, T. N. (2011). Planting seeds: Practicing mindfulness with children. Parallax Press.
Harris, P. L., & Lipian, M. S. (1989). Understanding emotion and experiencing emotion. In C. Saarni & P. L. Harris
(Eds.),Children’s Understanding of Emotion. (pp.241–258).Cambridge University Press.
Hinnant, B., & O’Brien, M. (2007). Cognitive and emotional control and perspective taking and their relations to
empathy in 5-year-old children. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 168(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.
168.3.301-322
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). The four-factor index of social status. Yale University.
Howard, S. J., & Melhuish, E. (2017). An early years toolbox for assessing early executive function, language,
self-regulation, and social development: Validity, reliability, and preliminary norms. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 35(3), 255–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916633009
Hughes, M., & Donaldson, M. (1979). The use of hiding games for studying the coordination of viewpoints. Educational
Review, 31(2), 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/0013191790310207
Jackman, M. M., Nabors, L. A., McPherson, C. L., Quaid, J. D., & Singh, N. N. (2019). Feasibility, acceptability, and
preliminary effectiveness of the openmind (OM) program for pre-school children. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 28(10), 2910–2921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01506-5
Jha, A. P., Morrison, A. B., Parker, S. C., & Stanley, E. A. (2017). Practice is protective: Mindfulness training promotes
cognitive resilience in high-stress cohorts. Mindfulness, 8(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0465-9
Jones, D. E., Greenberg, M., & Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and public health: The relation
ship between Kindergarten social competence and future wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11),
2283–2290. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1982). An outpatient program in behavioral medicine for chronic pain patients based on the practice of
mindfulness meditation: Theoretical considerations and preliminary results. General Hospital Psychiatry, 4(1), 33–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-8343(82)90026-3
Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophe living. Delta Trade Paperbacks.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology: Science
and Practic, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg016
Klin, A., Schultz, R., & Cohen, D. (2000). Theory of mind in action: Developmental perspectives on social neuroscience.
In S. Baron-Cohen, H. Tager-Flusberg, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Understanding other minds: Perspectives from develop
mental neuroscience (2nd ed., pp. 357–388). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780199692972.001.0001
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change,
antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 220. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0012-1649.36.2.220
Lawlor, M. S. (2016). Mindfulness and social emotional learning (SEL): A conceptual framework. In K. A. Schonert-
Reichl & R. W. Roeser (Eds.), Handbook of mindfulness in education: Integrating theory and research into practice (pp.
65–80). Springer-Verlag Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3506-2_5
Lemberger-truelove, M. E., Carbonneau, K. J., Atencio, D. J., Zieher, A. K., & Palacios, A. F. (2018). Self-
regulatory growth effects for young children participating in a combined social and emotional learning and
mindfulness-based intervention. Journal of Counseling & Development, 96(3), 289–302. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jcad.12203
Lim, X., & Qu, L. (2016). The effect of single-session mindfulness training on preschool children’s attentional control.
Mindfulness, 8(2), 300–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-016-0600-2
Maynard, B. R., Solis, M. R., Miller, V. L., & Brendel, K. E. (2017). Mindfulness-based interventions for improving
cognition, academic achievement, behavior, and socioemotional functioning of primary and secondary school
students. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 13(1), 1–144. https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2017.5
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity
of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive
Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
Moffit, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., Houts, R., Poulton, R., Roberts, B. W.,
Ross, S., Sears, M. R., Thomson, W. M., & Caspi, A. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health,
wealth, and public safety. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America108(7),
2693–2698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108
Moll, H., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2011). How does it look? Level 2 perspective-taking at 36 months of age. Child Development,
82(2), 661–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01571.x
Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Level 1 perspective-taking at 24 months of age. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 24(3), 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X55370
Montano, A., & Villani, S. (2016). Programma mindfulness “Il fiore dentro”. Per insegnare ai bambini a gestire lo stress ed
essere più felici. Eclipsi.
Moreno-Gómez, A.-J., & Cejudo, J. (2018). Effectiveness of a mindfulness-based social-emotional learning program on
psychosocial adjustment and neuropsychological maturity in effectiveness of a mindfulness-based social – emotional
learning program on psychosocial adjustment and neuropsychological. Mindfulness, 10(1), 111–121. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12671-018-0956-6
Mori, A., & Cigala, A. (2016). Perspective taking: Training procedures in developmentally typical preschoolers. Different
intervention methods and their effectiveness. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10648-015-9306-6
Mori, A., & Cigala, A. (2018). ‘Putting oneself in someone else’s shoes during childhood : How to learn it’ training for
preschool age children. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 750–766. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12255
Mussen, P., & Eisenberg, N. (1977). Roots of caring, sharing and helping: The development of prosocial behavior in
children. Freeman.
Nhat Hanh, T. (2011). Planting seeds:Practicing mindfulness with children. Parallax Press.
Nilsen, E. S., & Graham, S. A. (2009). The relations between children’s communicative perspective-taking and executive
functioning. Cognitive Psychology, 58(2), 220–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.07.002
O’Toole, C., Furlong, M., Mcgilloway, S., & Bjørndal, A. (2017). Preschool and school-based mindfulness programmes
for improving mental health and cognitive functioning in young people aged 3 to 18 years (Protocol). Cochrane
Database of Systematic Reviews, 2017(1), CD012518. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012518
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A. (2005). Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives.
Annual Review of Psychology, 56(1), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
Perner, J., Leekam, S. R., & Wimmer, H. (1987). Three-year-olds ’ difficulty with false belief : The case for
a conceptual deficit. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2), 125–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
835x.1987.tb01048.x
Poehlmann-Tynan, J., Vigna, A. B., Weymouth, L. A., Gerstein, E. D., Burnson, C., Zabransky, M., Lee, P., & Zahn-
waxler, C. (2016). A pilot study of contemplative practices with economically disadvantaged preschoolers: Children ’
s empathic and self-regulatory behaviors. Mindfulness, 7(1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0426-3
Ponitz, C. C., Mcclelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured observation of behavioral
self-regulation and its contribution to Kindergarten outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 605–619. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0015365
Ponitz, C. E. C., Mcclelland, M. M., Jewkes, A. M., Mcdonald Connor, C., Farris, C. L., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Touch
your toes ! Developing a direct measure of behavioral regulation in early childhood. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 23(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.01.004
Pons, F., & Harris, P. (2000). Test of emotion comprehension: TEC. University of Oxford.
Razza, R. A., Bergen-Cico, D., & Raymond, K. (2015). Enhancing preschoolers ’ self-regulation via mindful yoga. Journal
of Child and Family Studies, 24(2), 372–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-013-9847-6
Roche Olivar, R. (2002). L’intelligenza prosociale. Imparare a comprendere e comunicare i sentimenti e le emozioni.
Erickson.
Semple, R. J., Droutman, V., & Reid, B. A. (2017). Mindfulness goes to school: Things learned (so far) from research and
real-world experiences. Psychology in the Schools, 54(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21981
Slaughter, V., Dennis, M. J., & Pritchard, M. (2002). Theory of mind and peer acceptance in preschool children. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20(4), 545–564. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151002760390945
Snel, E. (2013). Sitting like a frog: Mindfulness exercises for kids (and their parents). Shambala Publications.
Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Fabes, R. A., Valiente, C., Shepard, S. A., & Reiser, M. (2006). Relation of
emotion-related regulation to children’s social competence: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 6(3), 498–510. https://doi.
org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.498
Suddendorf, T., & Fletcher-flinn, C. M. (1999). Children ’ s divergent thinking improves when they understand false
beliefs children ’ s divergent thinking improves when they understand false beliefs. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2),
115–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1202
Tang, Y., Hölzel, B. K., & Posner, M. I. (2015). The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation. Nature Reviews.
Neuroscience, 16(4), 213. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3916
Taylor, M., & Carlson, S. M. (1997). The relation between individual differences in fantasy and theory of mind. Child
Development, 68(3), 436–455. https://doi.org/10.2307/1131670
Thierry, K. L., Bryant, H. L., Nobles, S. S., & Norris, K. S. (2016). Two-year impact of a mindfulness-based program on
preschoolers ’ self-regulation and academic performance two-year impact of a mindfulness-based program on
preschoolers’. Early Education and Development, 27(6), 805–821. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1141616
Thierry, K. L., Vincent, R. L., Bryant, H. L., Kinder, M. B., & Wise, C. L. (2018). A self-oriented mindfulness-based
curriculum improves prekindergarten students’ executive functions. Mindfulness, 9(5), 1443–1456. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s12671-018-0888-1
Tominey, S. L., & Mcclelland, M. M. (2011). Red light, purple light: Findings from a randomized red light, purple light:
Findings from a randomized trial using circle time games to improve behavioral self-regulation in preschool. Early
Education and Development, 22(3), 489–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2011.574258
Ursache, A., Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). The promotion of self-regulation as a means of enhancing school readiness
and early achievement in children at risk for school failure. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 122–128. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00209.x
Viglas, M., & Perlman, M. (2018). Effects of a mindfulness-based program on young children ’ s self- regulation,
prosocial behavior and hyperactivity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(4), 1150–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10826-017-0971-6
Von Flue, S. (1990). Pingu and his friends. Goodreads.
Weil, T. M., Hayes, S. C., & Capurro, P. (2011). Estabilishing a deiectic relational repertoire. The Psychological Record, 61
(3), 371–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03395767
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false
belief. Child Development, 72(3), 655–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304
Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in
young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)
90004-5
Wood, L., Roach, A. T., Kearney, M. A., & Zabek, F. (2018). Enhancing executive function skills in preschoolers through
a mindfulness-based intervention : A randomized, controlled pilot study. Psychology in the Schools, 55(6), 644–660.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22136
Yee, N., & Bailenson, J. (2006). Walk a mile in digital shoes: The impact of embodied perspective-taking on the reduction
of negative stereotyping in immersive virtual environments. Proceedings of Presence 2006: The 9th Annual
International Workshop on Presence,2006,24(26).
Yong-Liang, G., Robaey, P., Karayanidis, F., Bourassa, M., Pelletier, G., & Geoffroy, G. (2000). ERPs and behavioral
inhibition in a Go/No-go task in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Brain and Cognition, 43(1),
215–220.
Zelazo, P. D., Forston, J. L., Masten, A. S., & Carlson, S. M. (2018). Mindfulness plus reflection training: Effects on
executive function in early childhood. Frontiers in Psychology, 6(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.
00208
Zelazo, P. D., & Lyons, K. E. (2012). The potential benefits of mindfulness training in early childhood: A developmental
social cognitive neuroscience perspective. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1750-8606.2012.00241.x
Appendix Main Contents of the Weekly Activities
Meetings Introduction Main Activity Last Part Hanging on Poster

1st Meeting The children were invited to The children were asked to Each child could explain to Drawings of each
the wooden house and find a comfortable the group what he/she secret garden
they could explore the position and to close had seen and felt. described by the
new place for a while. their eyes. Then the children.
Then the presenter presenter invited them to
explained that they could concentrate on their
meet there six times to breathing and to imagine
play some games and to a secret garden inside
try new experiences. The themselves, a place
presenter also left them where they could feel
free to choose whether free, joyful and loved.
they wanted to Inspired by “There’s
participate or not. a Secret Garden Inside
Me” (Montano & Villani,
2016).
2nd Meeting The children were invited to The children were asked to Each child could talk about Drawings of each
name the emotions they put some colored sand in his/her emotional episode described
knew and to represent a glass vase full of water, experience; all the by the children.
them through body imagining that the sand children were asked to
mimic. Then they were was one of their observe their reactions to
asked to think about an emotions and that the bad emotions and to try
episode of their life and vase was their mind. The to let them go in the
to talk about their presenter showed them future, calming their
feelings. that by mixing the water mind through
and then letting it rest, mindfulness breathing
the sand would settle on
the bottom, just like their
emotions would do when
they had calmed their
mind. Inspired by “Mind
in a Jar” (Nhat Hanh,
20111).
3rd Meeting The children were asked to A raspberry was given to The children were asked Drawing of a raspberry
talk about dinner time each child, asking them about their experience and writings on the
and their experience with not to eat it immediately during the activity and children’s
food. but to observe it. Then were invited to pay more comments.
the presenter helped the attention to their
children to explore the perceptions during future
fruit as if they were meals.
seeing it for the first time,
becoming aware of its
characteristics: colors,
texture, heat, smell and
finally taste. Inspired by
“The Raisin Meditation”
(Nhat Hanh, 2011)
4th Meeting The children were asked to The children were asked to Each child could talk about Materials used during
name the physical senses use one sense at a time to his/her experience of one the activities and
they knew and to explain recognize some hidden or more of the five drawings of each
why they are useful for objects: they explore senses. experience
people. scallop shells by touch, described by the
coffee beans by smell, children.
raspberries by taste,
outdoor noises by
hearing.
Inspired by “Involve all
the senses” (Nhat Hanh,
2011)
(Continued)
(Continued).
Meetings Introduction Main Activity Last Part Hanging on Poster
5th Meeting The presenter talked to the The children were given Each child was asked to talk A transparent envelope
children about four pebbles and were about his/her meditation with four pebbles
meditation, explaining guided in a meditation: experience. and drawings of the
how it can be a useful holding one pebble at four scenarios
practice when they a time, they could evoked during the
experience negative imagine them to be four meditation.
emotions. different natural
elements: the mountain,
representing stability; the
flower, representing
freshness, the lake,
representing calm; the
wind, representing
freedom. Inspired by “The
pebble meditation” (Nhat
Hanh, 2011).
6th Meeting The children were asked to Holding the yarn of a wool Each child was thanked by Portraits of every child
talk about their ball, the presenter passed the presenter for and of the presenter,
experience during the the ball to a first child something special that all connected with
past six weeks and were asking him to say what he/she had said or done yarn.
asked to think back on he/she liked about the during the mindfulness
some of the activities and mindfulness intervention. intervention.
express which one they Then he asked the child
liked best. to hold the yarn and pass
the wool ball to another
participant who would do
the same thing, and so on
until all the children had
participated. At the end,
the presenter, showing
the web that had been
created, suggested that
doing things together
connects people to one
another. Inspired by “The
Web of Life” (Nhat Hanh,
2011).

Mindfulness For Preschoolers - Effects On Prosocial Behavior, Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mindfulness For Preschoolers - Effects On Prosocial Behavior, Self-Regulation and Perspective Taking

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Early Education and Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Mindfulness for Preschoolers: Effects on Prosocial

Sara Berti & Ada Cigala

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1857990

Published online: 02 Dec 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1235

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Mindfulness for Preschoolers: Effects on Prosocial Behavior,

Contemplative practices may indeed be considered a sub-type of SEL interventions (Poehlmann-

Aims of the Present Study

Measures and Instruments

Emotional Perspective Taking

Cognitive Perspective Taking

Visual Perspective Taking

Design and Intervention

Pretest and Intervention Analysis

Table 4. Model significance at F test of analysis of variance.

Strengths and Limitations

Appendix Main Contents of the Weekly Activities

Meetings Introduction Main Activity Last Part Hanging on Poster

You might also like