Issues with using biological evidence to prove the power of introspection: a reductionist contradiction on Hölzel et al. (2011)

A critical analysis of Hölzel et al. (2011) through the lens of experimental design, emotional regulation, and applied neuroscience

---

Abstract:

This essay critiques the methodological assumptions behind Hölzel et al. (2011), a foundational study in mindfulness research. It explores the tension between holistic psychological interventions and the reductionist nature of neuroimaging tools like MRI, suggesting that while the study’s intentions were holistic, its design lacked the rigour to support its conclusions. Using a hypothetical active control condition (e.g., pottery), the essay illustrates how deeper insight into the mechanisms of emotional regulation could have been achieved.

On the surface, Hölzel et al. (2011) appears reductionist, as the study attempts to draw a direct link between an 8-week MBSR course and changes in grey matter density. It isolates a single environmental variable, mindfulness, and measures its effects using highly specific biological tools like MRI and voxel-based morphometry. The outcome is treated as a biological result of psychological practice, reducing the complexity of experience into structural brain data. I think that we cannot view this study as mere cause and effect because it involves thoughts, feelings, bodily awareness, and social-emotional context. It can’t be reduced to just breathwork or attention, it reflects a full engagement with a person’s internal and external world. So while the intervention is holistic, the study design is relatively reductionist because it aims to quantify the effect of that intervention by isolating biological markers. 

This reveals a tension in the research, they are studying a deep human experience using only biological forms of obtaining the results (MRI and voxel-based morphometry). Therefore, I’d argue that the study is reductionist in its methodology but holistic in intention and that this contrast should be considered when evaluating the findings. On the other hand, I disagree that the researchers weren’t interested in holism at all. I think that the choice to study mindfulness shows a holistic intent, due to it involving attention, emotion, interoception, and self-awareness. The problem isn’t their lack of interest, it’s that they used reductionist tools to measure a complex human process. The biggest issue lies in the design of the control group. By using a passive control group who simply “lived life normally,” and had two MRI scans in the 8-week time frame, the researchers limited the study’s ability to isolate mindfulness as the unique cause of change in grey matter density. 

If they had included an active control group, for example, participants doing 8 weeks of pottery, they could have distinguished mindfulness from other structured, calming experiences that essentially externalise the ability to emotionally regulate in stress-free situations. By adding an 8-week active program for the control group to complete the results of the control group would hypothetically be slightly different to the original study. I would expect to see possible slight grey matter increases in the control group (pottery class) due to continuous social meetings and having a routine, which naturally would reduce stress levels, indirectly allowing one to think and process emotions more easily. In the MBSR group, I would expect the results to stay the same, seeing large increases in grey matter density in the same areas of the brain (such as the hippocampus, and reduced activity in the amygdala). I hypothesise this since mindfulness teaches you to use your internal capabilities to process your emotions and sit with them, by strengthening certain neural connections in your brain. However, just doing a simple 8-week program of pottery is externalising stress relief where people will be ‘relying’ on the pottery class to have momentary stress relief and emotional clarity. 

However, if we consider a hypothetical stressful situation, one that triggers the nervous system into a fight-or-flight response, the pottery group would likely struggle to regulate their emotions using what they’ve learned by making pottery. Their experience of calmness came from being engaged in something externally soothing, like pottery. But in the middle of a panic response, they wouldn’t easily be able to recreate that state. Cognitive functioning is slightly impaired during high-stress situations like that, and it takes a huge amount of effort and awareness to consciously remember a feeling of calm from a class that happened days ago. In reality, most people wouldn’t even think back to that relaxed moment at all, they’d simply be panicking about the present stressor.

In contrast, the MBSR group, having practised mindfulness consistently over eight weeks, would have learned how to face their emotions without fear. I hypothesise that their amygdala would likely show reduced reactivity, while the hippocampus, along with other regions involved in emotional regulation, would have increased grey matter density (as Hölzel et al. discovered). This structural adaptation allows the hippocampus to step in and override the amygdala’s automatic alarm: “Run, this is dangerous!” Instead, the brain is more likely to respond with, “It’s okay. Let’s sit with this. We don’t need to fix, get rid of, or judge this feeling”

That’s the core difference. Mindfulness gives people an internalised method for emotional self-regulation. Pottery (or any similar activity) may offer temporary relief, but mindfulness builds an applicable skill. Ultimately, Hölzel et al.'s study didn’t lack holistic intention, but it fell short methodologically. With an active control group, added self-reports, and a follow-up MRI to track long-term change, the study could have painted a more complete picture of what’s happening beneath the surface.

Original Study:

Holzel et al 2011.pdf

Download PDF • 524KB

---

Commentary (April 2025): Since writing this piece, I’ve continued exploring how mindfulness interventions are measured in neuropsychological research. I’m now interested in combining qualitative interviews with imaging techniques to better understand the lived experience behind the scans.