编辑“覺察”（章节）

=== 學術研究 ===
以上所引用的許多綜述研究還表明有必要在該領域進行更多高質量的研究，例如使用更大的樣本量進行干預研究，使用更多的隨機對照研究，以及在報告的研究中提供更多方法細節的必要性<ref name="Creswell" /><ref name="KengSmoskiRobins2011"/>。大多數研究也把覺察作為一種特質以作衡量，並且在臨床實踐中使用覺察干預的研究中，缺乏真正的隨機化對理解覺察的真正有效性造成了問題。然而，使用隨機樣本的實驗方法表明，覺察作為一種狀態或臨時做法可以影響厭惡等感受情緒並促進抽象決策<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.08.014| vauthors = Chan EY|year=2019|title=Mindfulness and willingness to try insects as food: The role of disgust|journal=Food Quality and Preference|volume=71|pages=375–383| s2cid = 150289273}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Chan EY, Wang Y | title = Mindfulness changes construal level: An experimental investigation | journal = Journal of Experimental Psychology. General | volume = 148 | issue = 9 | pages = 1656–1664 | date = September 2019 | pmid = 31355654 | doi = 10.1037/xge0000654 | s2cid = 198965872 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Wachs K, Cordova JV | title = Mindful relating: exploring mindfulness and emotion repertoires in intimate relationships | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-marital-and-family-therapy_2007-10_33_4/page/464 | journal = Journal of Marital and Family Therapy | volume = 33 | issue = 4 | pages = 464–481 | date = October 2007 | pmid = 17935530 | doi = 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2007.00032.x }}</ref>。還有一些評論研究表明覺察干預組與對照組之間幾乎沒有區別，儘管它們也確實表明他們的干預組接受的治療時間太短，以至於研究無法得出結論<ref name= McLean2017 >{{cite journal | vauthors = McLean G, Lawrence M, Simpson R, Mercer SW | title = Mindfulness-based stress reduction in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review | journal = BMC Neurology | volume = 17 | issue = 1 | pages = 92 | date = May 2017 | pmid = 28506263 | pmc = 5433018 | doi = 10.1186/s12883-017-0876-4 }}</ref><ref name=Taylor2016>{{cite journal | vauthors = Lever Taylor B, Cavanagh K, Strauss C | title = The Effectiveness of Mindfulness-Based Interventions in the Perinatal Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | journal = PLOS ONE | volume = 11 | issue = 5 | pages = e0155720 | year = 2016 | pmid = 27182732 | pmc = 4868288 | doi = 10.1371/journal.pone.0155720 | doi-access = free | bibcode = 2016PLoSO..1155720L }}</ref>。在例如運動的某些領域中，跨研究之間缺乏內部有效性，因此無法對覺察的影響作出任何強而有力的主張<ref name=Noetel2019 />。這些研究還列出了進行更強有力的研究調查的必要性。這還確定了與覺察評估有關的幾個問題，包括目前正使用的自我報告問卷<ref name="Creswell" /><ref name="KengSmoskiRobins2011"/><ref name=Grossman_2008>{{cite journal | vauthors = Grossman P | title = On measuring mindfulness in psychosomatic and psychological research | url = https://archive.org/details/sim_journal-of-psychosomatic-research_2008-04_64_4/page/405 | journal = Journal of Psychosomatic Research | volume = 64 | issue = 4 | pages = 405–408 | date = April 2008 | pmid = 18374739 | doi = 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.02.001 }}</ref>。潛在的偏見也存在於該領域的研究人員，他們也是該領域的從業者，可能會受到壓力而發表正面或顯著的結果{{R|"Nisbet"}}。

許多學者批評了近年的西方心理學出版物中有關覺察的定義或表現方式{{sfn|Bishop|Lau|Shapiro|Carlson|2004}}<ref name="wallace06">{{cite book |title=The attention revolution: Unlocking the power of the focused mind |last=Wallace |first=B. Alan |name-list-style=vanc |author-link=B. Alan Wallace |year=2006 |publisher=Wisdom Publications |location=Boston |isbn=978-0861712762 |url=https://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip065/2005037195.html |access-date=2023-02-05 |archive-date=2007-02-12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070212192746/http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip065/2005037195.html |dead-url=no }}</ref>。這些現代理解與早期佛教典籍中有關於覺察/正念的描述，以及[[上座部佛教]]的權威評論與印度大乘傳統大相逕庭<ref name="wallace06" />{{rp|62}}<ref name="chiesa13">{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/s12671-012-0123-4 |title=The Difficulty of Defining Mindfulness: Current Thought and Critical Issues |journal=Mindfulness |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=255–68 |year=2012 |last1=Chiesa |first1=Alberto |s2cid=2244732 | name-list-style = vanc }}</ref>。亞當·瓦萊里奧（Adam Valerio）提出了這樣的一種觀點，即學術與學科之間關於覺察的定義、理解和普遍呈現方式的衝突可能表明個人、機構或典範式爭奪對覺察(正念)的擁有權，學者、研究人員和其他作家跟宗教團體以個人的身份作出大致相同的方式投入<ref name="Valerio 1–27" />。