Structural Relationships Between Triarchic Thinking Mindfulness and Cognitive Control in Postgraduate Students

Structural Relationships Between Triarchic Thinking Mindfulness and Cognitive Control in Postgraduate Students | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Structural Relationships Between Triarchic Thinking Mindfulness and Cognitive Control in Postgraduate Students Maryam Dylan, Bilal Alwan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-9310446/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 7 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Research Objective: This study sought to construct and interpret an optimal structural model that reveals the nature of the causal relationships and the direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking as an independent variable on cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness as a mediating variable. Research Sample: The study was applied to a sample of (600) male and female graduate students at the University of Anbar. Research Instruments: Three instruments were employed. For triarchic thinking, the researchers adopted the Triarchic Thinking Scale developed by Chae & Lee (2018), which is based on Lipman's (2003) model. For Mindfulness , the researchers adopted the Mindfulness Scale developed by Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004). For cognitive control, the researchers constructed a scale based on the Shadow Mind (2020) theory of cognitive control. Statistical Methods: ( SPSS) and ( AMOS 24) software were utilized to extract validity and reliability indicators for the research scales, along with path analysis to identify the directional pathways of the dimensions and the potential causal relationships among the selected variables. Research Findings: The study arrived at the following findings: the proposed structural model for the relationships between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness as a mediating variable, demonstrated a good fit. The findings further revealed the existence of statistically significant positive direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control, statistically significant positive direct effects of Mindfulness on cognitive control, and statistically significant positive direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness among graduate students. In light of these findings, the researchers put forward a set of recommendations and suggestions. Causal Modeling Triarchic Thinking Mindfulness Cognitive Control Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Introduction The concept of triarchic thinking represents a contemporary approach that focuses on the dynamics and integration of the creative process. It views creativity as the product of continuous interaction among different modes of thinking across the various stages of problem-solving, where the outcomes of each stage serve as a starting point for the next, creating an ongoing cycle that contributes to the generation of innovative solutions. This type of thinking affirms that such reciprocal interaction is the very essence of creativity, as it equips individuals with the capacity to develop and formulate ideas in unconventional ways, ultimately yielding more original and effective outcomes (Horikami & Takahashi, 2022). Triarchic thinking also functions as an effective cognitive style that transcends the individualistic tendency in forming judgments, enabling individuals to examine situations from multiple perspectives with objectivity. This, in turn, enhances social harmony, fosters values of cooperation and respect for intellectual diversity, and consolidates a culture of dialogue and collaborative effort in pursuit of collective goals (Lipman, 2003). This was further affirmed by (Dombayci, 2014) who established that triarchic thinking encompasses three principal dimensions: its significance for the individual through the development of thinking, creativity, and decision-making; its importance in relation to others through the reinforcement of social values and bonds; and its extended influence on the natural environment through the pursuit of its preservation and the achievement of societal well-being. A limited number of previous studies have examined the relationship between triarchic thinking and other psychological variables. The findings of Chae and Lee (Chae & Lee, 2018 ) revealed a positive correlational relationship between high-level triarchic thinking and each of the following variables: gender, academic year, and teaching curriculum. Similarly, the findings of ( Al-Sudani ,2025)which addressed triarchic thinking and its relationship to academic flourishing among university students, demonstrated that university students possess a measurable level of triarchic thinking, and further revealed a statistically significant positive correlational relationship between triarchic thinking and academic flourishing. Mindfulness , for its part, is considered one of the positive psychological constructs that has garnered increasing attention in recent years, with research expanding across the fields of psychology, education, and community studies, given its status as a key skill that contributes to the achievement of success across various dimensions of personal, academic, and professional life (Al-Dabi, 2013). Mindfulness is regarded as an instrument for attaining individual and scholarly excellence, functioning as a self-directed psychological energy that enhances consistent performance and attenuates disruptive emotional responses to achievement. It further provides a foundational reference for the development of self-regulation and the capacity to perform under stress, particularly within advanced academic environments that demand high levels of cognitive alertness (Keng et al., 2011). Mindfulness represents a significant process in education and learning, as the state of attention and alertness it cultivates helps students focus on present experiences and observe similarities and differences among ideas and objects without passing judgment on thoughts or feelings (Allen et al., 2006). Mindfulness is associated with a number of cognitive functions, most notably directed attention and reflective thinking. Students with high levels of Mindfulness demonstrate a superior capacity to regulate their emotional responses and address academic demands efficiently, while maintaining a high level of concentration in the completion of academic tasks (Shapiro et al., 2006),Brown and Ryan (2003) noted the existence of individual differences in levels of Mindfulness : individuals with low levels are characterized by fragmented attention and the dominance of disorganized thought patterns linked to emotional reactivity, whereas those with high levels exhibit organized mental activity associated with elevated psychological well-being and emotional adaptation (Brown & Ryan, 2003). Mindfulness encompasses three core features: the conscious and deliberate direction of attention, full engagement with the present moment, and the acceptance of feelings and thoughts without judgment, observing them calmly as transient states (Cardaciotto et al., 2008) ((Ali & Alwan, 2025). Cognitive control, meanwhile, is considered one of the foundational pillars of information processing and behavioral regulation, and is also referred to as executive functioning. It denotes a set of higher-order cognitive processes that direct behavior toward the achievement of goals, with its efficacy increasing in challenging situations through the evaluation of alternatives and the planning of actions prior to their execution (Brown, 2013). The concept of cognitive control refers to the individual's ability to inhibit inappropriate automatic responses and modify behavior in accordance with the demands of the prevailing situation and goal. This concept is closely linked to performance monitoring processes, which assist in the detection of errors and the identification of the need for increased mental effort; furthermore, the effectiveness of cognitive control depends on the accuracy of the individual's assessment of their own cognitive capacities (Alker, 2025). Individuals who are distinguished by cognitive control are among the most open to other viewpoints and capable of managing their thoughts; they demonstrate greater emotional stability than others, maintaining a psychologically sound state that is removed from disturbances and varied reactive responses (Abramowitz et al. 2001). Consequently, cognitive control is regarded as a fundamental element that exerts influence across various mental processes, including thinking itself; impairment in this type of control negatively affects the quality of thinking and diminishes the individual's capacity to organize their thoughts, rendering them more susceptible to engagement in repetitive patterns of negative thinking (Koster et al. 2017). Cognitive control is further characterized by its association with processes of perception and the regulation of stimulus reception and interpretation. It also constitutes a system of strategies that assists individuals in understanding and adapting to situations, reflects the level of cognitive maturity, and is influenced by social norms in regulating the satisfaction and deferral of needs (Al-Nusairi, 2015). Cognitive control endows individuals with the capacity to organize and consciously direct their thinking, thereby enabling them to transcend automatic reactions and manage their responses to various situations. This is achieved through the modification of thoughts and strategies in alignment with the nature of the situation at hand, which in turn contributes to the enhancement of cognitive flexibility (Good, 2009). Research Questions The problem of the present study can be identified through the following research questions: -To what extent does the proposed structural model fit the relationships between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness as a mediating variable, among graduate students? -Do statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control exist among graduate students? -Do statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness on cognitive control exist among graduate students? - Do statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness exist among graduate students? - Can cognitive control be predicted through both Mindfulness and triarchic thinking among graduate students? Significance of the Study: The significance of the study can be summarized as follows: Theoretical Significance: 1-The study addresses one of the important research topics, namely the modeling of causal relationships among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students. 2-The study examines three relatively contemporary cognitive-psychological variables in the field of educational psychology — triarchic thinking, cognitive control, and Mindfulness — given their pivotal role in explaining the cognitive and academic behavior of graduate students. 3-The study further contributes new scientific knowledge by linking triarchic thinking, as an integrative cognitive style that combines analytical, creative, and ethical dimensions, with cognitive control, which represents the regulatory mechanism of higher-order mental processes, and with Mindfulness , which reflects the individual's capacity for conscious mental presence during learning and decision-making. Practical Significance 1-The findings may be utilized in the development of educational and counseling programs tailored to graduate students, through the cultivation of their triarchic thinking skills, the enhancement of their cognitive control capacities, and the development of Mindfulness , all of which contribute to the improvement of academic and research performance. 2-The findings of the study may further assist universities and faculty members in designing modern teaching strategies that are attentive to the development of mindful awareness and cognitive regulation, moving away from traditional rote-learning methods, thereby fostering deep thinking and sound academic decision-making among students. 3-The present study provides three instruments — the Triarchic Thinking Scale, the Mindfulness Scale, and the Cognitive Control Scale — that are distinguished by sound psychometric properties and may be utilized by other researchers in future investigations. Research Objectives: The present study aims to: 1-Arrive at a causal model that explains the causal relationships (effects) among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students. 2-Identify the direct and indirect effects (paths) of triarchic thinking (as an independent variable) on cognitive control (as a dependent variable), mediated by Mindfulness (as a mediating variable). Research Hypotheses :- The present study encompasses the following main hypotheses: 1-The proposed structural model for triarchic thinking (independent variable) and cognitive control (dependent variable), mediated by Mindfulness (mediating variable), does not demonstrate a good fit among graduate students. 2-There are no statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control among graduate students. 3-There are no statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness on cognitive control among graduate students. 4-There are no statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness among graduate students. Research Delimitations: The present study is delimited to graduate students at the University of Anbar for the academic year (2025–2026). Research Terminology : First: Triarchic Thinking — Definition: Lipman (2003) defines it as : a mental activity through which the individual seeks to understand situations and analyze them, drawing on emotional experience (emotions) in forming judgments and responding to situations by means of three types of thinking: creative, critical, and caring thinking (Lipman, 2003, p. 265). Operational Definition : The total score obtained by the respondent based on their responses to the items of the Triarchic Thinking Scale. Second: Mindfulness — Definition: Kabat-Zinn (2003) defines it as: "the awareness that arises from paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally" (Kabat-Zinn, 2018, p. 27). Operational Definition: The total score obtained by the respondent based on their responses to the items of the Mindfulness Scale. Third: Cognitive Control — Definition: Shadow and Mind (2020) define it as : "the manner in which individuals regulate their thoughts so as to remain aligned with their goals" (Shadow & Mind, 2020, p. 22). Operational Definition : The total score obtained by the respondent based on their responses to the items of the Cognitive Control Scale. Research Methodology and Procedures Given that the present study aims to examine the modeling of causal relationships among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students, the researchers adopted the descriptive correlational (causal) method. Ethical Approval : This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the College of Education for Human Sciences, University of Anbar, Iraq, in accordance with institutional guidelines and regulations. The study protocol was reviewed and approved under the reference number (Not applicable). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. Research Population and Sample The research population of the present study is defined as graduate students at the University of Anbar for the academic year (2025–2026). The total number of students in the scientific specialization reached (1001) male and female students. The research sample consisted of (600) male and female students selected randomly from the graduate studies population at the University of Anbar, as illustrated in Table (1). Table (1): Research Population Distributed by Gender, Specialization, and Academic Level Research Sample Research Population Total Doctorate Master’s Total Doctorate Master’s Specialization Females Males Females Males Females Males Females Males 306 49 40 111 106 1001 143 196 392 270 Scientific 294 46 40 106 102 948 72 138 409 329 Humanities 600 95 80 217 208 1949 225 334 791 599 Total Study Instruments First: The Triarchic Thinking Scale In light of the theoretical framework, previous studies, and a review of existing scales, and in fulfillment of the objectives of the present study, the researchers adopted the Triarchic Thinking Scale developed by (Chae and Lee ,2018), which was translated and adapted for the Iraqi environment by the researcher Nour Muhammad Hashim Muhammad Al-Sudani (2025), and which is based on (Lipman ,2003) model. Scale Description: The scale consists of (25) items measuring triarchic thinking across three principal domains: critical thinking, creative thinking, and caring thinking. Responses are recorded on a five-point scale (Always applies to me, Applies to me, Applies to me to some extent, Rarely applies to me, Never applies to me), with scores assigned as follows: to a very large extent (5 points), to a large extent (4 points), to a moderate extent (3 points), to a small extent (2 points), and to a very small extent (1 point). Verification of the Psychometric Properties of the Triarchic Thinking Scale First: Scale Validity: Validity was computed using the following methods: a. Experts Validity: The scale in its initial form was presented to a panel of (16) psychology faculty members, who were asked to express their views regarding the scale's dimensions, the extent to which they measure the intended purpose of the scale, the appropriateness of the scale items in relation to the intended purpose, their belonging to the designated dimensions, and the soundness of their wording. Following the incorporation of the reviewers' observations, the scale was finalized in its definitive form consisting of (25) items. b. Construct Validity: Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between each item score and the total scale score after removing the item score from the total score. The resulting correlation coefficients ranged from (0.297) to (0.547), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level. - Pearson correlation coefficients were also computed between each item score and the score of the dimension to which it belongs, after removing the item score from the total dimension score. The values were as follows: for the critical thinking dimension, coefficients ranged from (0.444 to 0.602) and were statistically significant; for the creative thinking dimension, they ranged from (0.553 to 0.657) and were statistically significant; and for the caring thinking dimension, they ranged from (0.316 to 0.552). Additionally, correlation coefficients between the three dimensions and the total score on the Triarchic Thinking Scale were computed, yielding values of (0.863, 0.717, and 0.895) respectively. c. Factorial Validity: Based on the theoretical framework and previous studies, it was hypothesized that a general factor of triarchic thinking exists, along with its constituent sub-factors, namely: critical thinking, creative thinking, and caring thinking. The confirmatory factor model was tested, consisting of three independent variables (scale dimensions) and one latent variable (triarchic thinking). The three-factor model with a single latent variable was tested and subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using (AMOS 24) software. Accordingly, the model was constructed as illustrated in Figure (1). Table (2): Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Single Latent Factor Model of the Triarchic Thinking Scale Relative Fit Index (RFI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Normed Fit Index (NFI) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Chi-square ratio (χ²/df) Chi-square (χ²) statistical test Index 0.821 0.974 0.838 0.016 0.953 0.961 1.159 315.275 Degree of freedom 272 Significance 0.066 Index value 1-0 1-0 1-0 0.1-0 1-0 1-0 5-0 The value of X2 must be statistically insignificant. Acceptable range of index Table (2) reveals that the resulting confirmatory factor analysis model demonstrates acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (χ²= 315.275) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit with the data under examination. The factor loadings of the three dimensions on the latent variable ranged from (0.670 to 0.781), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level of significance, thereby confirming the adequacy of the proposed model for the sample data and indicating that the scale, across its three dimensions, measures a single underlying latent construct. Second: Scale Reliability: The reliability of the scale was verified by computing Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole, which yielded a value of (0.90), while the coefficients for the three dimensions were (0.89, 0.91, and 0.87) respectively. The alpha coefficients computed after removing each item's score from the total scale score were found to be lower than the overall alpha coefficient, ranging between (0.85 and 0.89), indicating that all scale items are stable and that the removal of any individual item does not contribute to an increase in the overall reliability coefficient. Second: The Mindfulness Scale In fulfillment of the objectives of the present study, and drawing upon a comprehensive review conducted by the researchers of the relevant psychological and educational literature and previous studies pertaining to the subject, the researchers adopted the Mindfulness Scale developed by Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., & Allen, K. B. (2004), as translated into Arabic and adapted to the Iraqi environment by the researcher Zahraa Dhiaa Kareem Nasir (2025). It is noteworthy that this scale was grounded in its theoretical foundations in Kabat-Zinn's (2004) theory of Mindfulness . Scale Description : The Mindfulness Scale consists of (39) items distributed across four principal dimensions: Observation, comprising (12) items; Description, comprising (8) items; Acting with Awareness, comprising (10) items; and Acceptance, comprising (9) items. Responses are recorded on a five-point Likert scale as follows: Completely applies to me, Often applies to me, Sometimes applies to me, Rarely applies to me, and Never applies to me. Verification of the Psychometric Properties of the Mindfulness Scale First: Scale Validity :- The validity of the scale was verified using the following methods: a. Experts Validity : The scale in its initial form was presented to a panel of (16) psychology faculty members, whose opinions were sought regarding the scale's dimensions and the extent to which they measure the intended purpose, the appropriateness of the items in relation to that purpose, their belonging to the designated dimensions, and the soundness of their wording. In light of the reviewers' observations and recommendations, the scale was finalized in its definitive form consisting of (39) items. b. Construct Validity: Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between each item score and the total scale score after removing the item score from the total. These coefficients ranged from (0.296) to (0.578), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level. - Pearson correlation coefficients were also computed between each item score and the score of the dimension to which it belongs, after removing the item score from the total dimension score. The results were as follows: coefficients for the Observation dimension ranged from (0.282 to 0.608); for the Description dimension from (0.386 to 0.606); for the Acting with Awareness dimension from (0.423 to 0.563); and for the Acceptance dimension from (0.434 to 0.593), all of which were statistically significant. Furthermore, the correlation coefficients between the four dimensions and the total scale score were (0.845, 0.863, 0.882, and 0.878) respectively. c. Factorial Validity: Based on the theoretical framework and previous studies, it was hypothesized that a general factor of Mindfulness exists, with four constituent sub-factors: Observation, Description, Acting with Awareness, and Acceptance. To verify the construct validity of this concept, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, whereby a model was designed comprising four observed variables representing the scale dimensions and a single latent variable representing Mindfulness . The model was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 24 software, and its structure is illustrated in Figure (2). This procedure yielded a model with satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as presented in Table (3) below: Table (3): Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Single Latent Factor Model of the Mindfulness Scale Relative Fit Index (RFI) Comparative Fit Index (CFI) Normed Fit Index (NFI) Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) Chi-square ratio (χ²/df) Chi-square (χ²) statistical test Index 0.806 0.990 0.817 0.009 0.936 0.943 1.047 729.158 Degree of freedom 696 Significance =0.186 Index value 1-0 1-0 1-0 0.1-0 1-0 1-0 5-0 The value of X2 must be statistically insignificant. Acceptable range of index Table (3) reveals that the confirmatory factor analysis model demonstrates acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (χ²= 729.158) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit with the data under examination. The factor loadings ranged from (0.766 to 0.849), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level, thereby confirming the adequacy of the proposed model for the sample data and indicating that the scale, across its four dimensions, measures a single underlying latent construct. Second: Scale Reliability:- The reliability of the scale was verified by computing Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole, which yielded a value of (0.87), while the coefficients for the four dimensions were (0.86, 0.89, 0.85, and 0.88) respectively. The alpha coefficients computed after removing each item's score from the total scale score were found to be lower than the overall alpha coefficient, ranging between (0.84 and 0.86), indicating that all scale items are stable and that the removal of any individual item does not contribute to an increase in the overall reliability coefficient. Third: The Cognitive Control Scale Drawing on the theoretical framework and previous studies, the researchers constructed the Cognitive Control Scale based on (Shadow and Mind ,2020) theory. Following its presentation to the expert panel, the scale was finalized at (30) items formulated as verbal situational scenarios distributed equally across five dimensions: Mental Discipline, Persuasion, Self-Help, Emotional Control, and Self-Respect. Each item represents a situation encountered by the student, followed by three response alternatives: the first represents high cognitive control and is assigned a score of (3); the second represents moderate cognitive control and is assigned a score of (2); and the third represents an absence of cognitive control and is assigned a score of (1). The items in their initial form were presented to two Arabic language specialists for linguistic evaluation, and the researchers incorporated their observations accordingly. Verification of the Psychometric Properties of the Cognitive Control Scale First: Scale Validity :- The validity of the scale was verified using the following methods: a. Experts Validity : The scale in its initial form was presented to a panel of (16) psychology faculty members, whose opinions were sought regarding the scale's dimensions and the extent to which they measure the intended purpose, the appropriateness of the items in relation to that purpose, their belonging to the designated dimensions, and the soundness of their wording. In light of the reviewers' observations and recommendations, the scale was finalized in its definitive form consisting of (30) items. b. Construct Validity: Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between each item score and the total scale score after removing the item score from the total. These coefficients ranged from (0.301) to (0.595), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level. - Pearson correlation coefficients were also computed between each item score and the score of the dimension to which it belongs, after removing the item score from the total dimension score. The results were as follows: coefficients for the Mental Discipline dimension ranged from (0.433 to 0.572); for the Persuasion dimension from (0.387 to 0.661); for the Self-Help dimension from (0.488 to 0.612); for the Emotional Control dimension from (0.473 to 0.627); and for the Self-Respect dimension from (0.457 to 0.628), all of which were statistically significant. Furthermore, the correlation coefficients between the five dimensions and the total scale score were (0.759, 0.780, 0.800, 0.807, and 0.772) respectively. c. Factorial Validity: Exploratory factor analysis was employed to identify the factor structure of the Cognitive Control Scale following verification that the conditions for its application were met. The analysis yielded a single factor, which was then rotated using orthogonal rotation via Kaiser's Varimax method. The results were consistent, with the eigenvalue of the factor reaching (12.434), accounting for (45.619%) of the total variance, as illustrated in Table (4). Table (4): Eigenvalue of the Dominant Factor of the Cognitive Control Scale Explained variance ratio latent root Number of paragraphs Number of individuals Name of the worker 41.445 12.434 30 600 Cognitive control The results obtained following rotation were consistent with those of the direct analysis prior to rotation. The interpretation of the factor was based on (Guttman's Lower Bounds) criterion, which considers a factor to be statistically significant when its (Eigenvalue) equals or exceeds one. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the scale measures a single factor, namely cognitive control, as illustrated in Figure (3). Fifth: Statistical Methods :- The researchers relied on ) SPSS ( and ) AMOS 24 ( software to extract the following: 1- Factor analysis for the research scales 2- Path analysis to identify the directional pathways of the dimensions and the potential causal relationships among the selected variables. 3- Goodness-of-fit indices to determine the extent to which the proposed model fits the data. 4- Chi-square to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed model for the results and verify its conformity with the ideal level. Study Results and Discussion First Objective: To arrive at a causal model that explains the causal relationships and effects among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students. Null Hypothesis derived from this objective: The proposed structural model for the relationship between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness as a mediating variable, does not demonstrate a good fit among graduate students. To test this hypothesis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) available in( AMOS 24 )was employed to model the relationships among the independent variable (triarchic thinking), the mediating variable (Mindfulness ), and the dependent variable (cognitive control). Bootstrapping was conducted to detect the significance of the direct and indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable, and to test the mediating role of Mindfulness in the relationship between triarchic thinking and cognitive control. Figure (4) illustrates the structural equation model of the causal relationships among triarchic thinking as an independent variable, Mindfulness as a mediating variable, and cognitive control as a dependent variable. Cognitive Control (as a Dependent Variable) The structural equation model illustrated in Figure (4) demonstrated satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (χ²) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit between the proposed model and the data under examination, as presented in Table (5). Table (5): Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Structural Equation Model of the Causal Relationships among Triarchic Thinking, Mindfulness , and Cognitive Control (N= 600) No. Indicator Name Indicator Value Acceptable Range 1 Chi-Square Test (χ²) Degrees of Freedom (df) Significance Level of χ² 2.195 1 0.078 χ² value should be statistically non-significant 2 Relative Chi-Square (χ²/df) 2.195 From 0(zero) to 5 3 GFI — Goodness of Fit Index 0.991 From 0 (zero) to 1 4 AGFI — Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index 0.987 From 0 (zero) to 1 5 RMSEA — Root Mean Square Error of Approximation 0.004 From 0 (zero) to 0.1 6 NFI — Normed Fit Index 0.997 From 0 (zero) to 1 7 CFI — Comparative Fit Index 1.00 From 0 (zero) to 1 8 RFI — Relative Fit Index 1.00 From 0 (zero) to 1 9 IFI — Incremental Fit Index 1.00 From 0 (zero) to 1 10 TLI — Tucker-Lewis Index 0.996 From 0 (zero) to 1 Table (5) reveals that the structural equation model of the causal relationships demonstrates satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (χ²= 2.195) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit between the proposed model and the data under examination. The direct and indirect effects of the variables on the dependent variable are illustrated in Figure (5). Table (5) reveals that the proposed model demonstrated satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (χ²) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit between the proposed model and the data under examination. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that the proposed structural model for the relationship between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness as a mediating variable, demonstrates a good fit among graduate students. Second Objective: To identify the direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking as an independent variable on cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness as a mediating variable. First Null Hypothesis derived from this objective: There are no statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control among graduate students. To test this hypothesis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) available in (AMOS 24) was employed. Table (6) presents the results of the standardized regression weights (effect coefficients), their significance, and measurement errors among triarchic thinking as an independent variable, Mindfulness as a mediating variable, and cognitive control as a dependent variable. Table (6): Results of the Standardized Regression Weights for the Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects Contained in the Structural Model, Accompanied by Critical Ratio Values, Measurement Error, Effect Estimates, and Statistical Significance Direct , indirect and overall effects of the independent on the mediating and dependent variables Type of Effect Standardized Regression Weight (Effect) Measurement Error Critical Ratio (CR) Significance Level Triarchic Thinking → Mindfulness Direct 0.562 0.055 16.646 0.001 Total 0.562 0.055 16.646 0.001 Triarchic Thinking → Cognitive Control Direct 0.302 0.024 7.169 0.001 Indirect 0.250 0.028 6.295 0.001 Total 0.552 0.042 15.374 0.001 Mindfulness→ Cognitive Control Direct 0.444 0.015 11.992 0.001 Total 0.444 0.015 11.992 0.001 Table (6) reveals the existence of statistically significant positive direct, indirect, and total effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control at the (0.001) significance level, mediated by Mindfulness . The direct effect reached (0.302), the indirect effect (0.250), and the total effect (0.552), meaning that for every one standard deviation increase in triarchic thinking scores, cognitive control scores increased by (0.552). Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control exist among graduate students. Second Null Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness on cognitive control among graduate students. The results of structural equation modeling presented in Table (6) revealed the existence of a statistically significant positive direct and total effect of Mindfulness on cognitive control at the (0.001) significance level, with the direct and total effect reaching (0.444), meaning that for every one standard deviation increase in Mindfulness scores, cognitive control scores increased by (0.444). Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness on cognitive control exist among graduate students. Third Null Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness among graduate students. The results of structural equation modeling presented in Table (6) revealed the existence of a statistically significant positive direct and total effect of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness at the (0.001) significance level, with the direct and total effect reaching (0.562), meaning that for every one standard deviation increase in triarchic thinking scores, Mindfulness scores increased by (0.562). Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness exist among graduate students. Interpretation and Discussion of Results The findings reveal a good fit for the structural model linking triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control, which is consistent with the theoretical proposition that higher-order cognitive processes do not operate in isolation but rather function within an integrated system of mental and regulatory operations. Triarchic thinking, according to Lipman's model, encompasses critical, creative, and caring thinking patterns that contribute to the organized processing of information and conscious decision-making, thereby enhancing the individual's capacity to regulate their thoughts and cognitive behavior. The direct effect of triarchic thinking on cognitive control can be interpreted by the fact that individuals who possess high levels of critical, creative, and caring thinking are better equipped to analyze situations, generate alternatives, and review their thoughts prior to responding , a finding that aligns with the concept of cognitive control as a higher-order regulatory process that governs cognitive responses and directs them toward goal attainment. The direct effect of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness can be interpreted by the fact that this type of thinking demands a high level of conscious attention to the cognitive situation and the capacity to observe thoughts and feelings during problem-solving. Individuals who employ analytical, creative, and caring thinking tend to exhibit a higher degree of mental presence and concentration in the present moment. The direct relationship between Mindfulness and cognitive control can likewise be interpreted by the fact that mental alertness and attention to the present moment assist the individual in monitoring their thoughts and emotions and regulating their automatic responses, thereby enhancing their capacity for cognitive behavioral regulation and more balanced and considered decision-making. Finally, the indirect effect of triarchic thinking on cognitive control through Mindfulness indicates that advanced thinking contributes primarily to the enhancement of awareness and attentiveness to the present moment, and this awareness in turn elevates the individual's capacity to regulate their thoughts and organize their cognitive behavior. In this way, Mindfulness fulfills the role of a mediating variable that explains the mechanism through which the effect of triarchic thinking is transmitted to cognitive control among graduate students. Recommendations: 1-Prioritizing the development of triarchic thinking among graduate students by incorporating educational activities based on critical, creative, and caring thinking into university curricula. 2-Designing specialized training and counseling programs aimed at fostering Mindfulness among students, given its pivotal role in enhancing concentration, attention, and the regulation of cognitive processes. 3-Integrating cognitive control skills into educational programs and academic activities, in view of their effective contribution to improving the academic and research performance of graduate students. 4-Employing the scales of the present study in diagnosing students' levels of triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control, and utilizing them in future educational and psychological studies. Suggestions: 1-Examining the role of other mediating or moderating variables in the relationship between triarchic thinking and cognitive control, such as emotional intelligence and academic motivation. 2-Conducting comparative studies across scientific and humanities disciplines, or between genders, with the aim of identifying differences in the levels of the variables under investigation. 3-Employing advanced statistical models such as multilevel structural equation modeling and longitudinal analysis to identify developmental trajectories of these variables over time, or utilizing the psychometric neural network model in examining the causal effects among them. Declarations Declarations : Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Consent for Publication: Not applicable. Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. References Abramowitz, J. S., Tolin, D. F., & Street, G. P. (2001). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression: A meta-analysis of controlled studies. Clinical Psychology Review , 21(5), 683–703. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00057-0⁠ Al-Dabaa, F., & Mahmoud, A. (2013). The Effectiveness of Mindfulness in Reducing Symptoms of Psychological Depression Among a Sample of University Students. Journal of Psychological Counseling, (34), 1–75. Alker, L. (2025). Monitoring and cognitive appraisal as moderators of cognitive control and mental health : An experimental study in a geriatric population. Mental Illness, 2025, Article ID 9888704. https://doi.org/10.1155/mij/9888704 Ali, N., Alwan, B. (2025). Self-Defeating Personality Traits among Postgraduate Students in Iraqi Universities: An Analytical Study by Gender and Academic Level. Dragoman , (19), 519-536. Antwerp: ATI. DOI: https://doi.org/10.63132/ati.2025.selfde.0167 Allen, N. B., Blashki, G., & Gullone, E. (2006). Mindfulness-based psychotherapies: A review of conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and practical considerations. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry , 40 (4), 285–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2006.01794.x Al-Nusairi, Q. (2015). The Effectiveness of a Counseling Program Based on Cognitive Control in Reducing Cognitive Failures Among Students of the College of Basic Education . Unpublished Master's Thesis, College of Basic Education, Al-Mustansiriya University, Iraq. Al-Sudani, N. (2025). Triple Thinking According to Lipman's Model and its Relationship to Academic Flourishing Among University Students . Unpublished Master's Thesis, College of Education Ibn Rushd for Human Sciences, University of Baghdad. Brown, J. W. (2013). Beyond conflict monitoring: Cognitive control and the neural basis of thinking before you act. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22( 3), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412470685 Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 (2), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 Cardaciotto, L., Herbert, T., Forman, E., Moitra, E., & Farrow, V. (2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance : The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107311467 Chae, S. F., & Lee, M. S. (2018). Determinants of latent profiles in higher-order thinking skills of Korean university students. Problems of Education in the 21st Century , 76(4), 483. Dombayci, M. A. (2014). Teaching of Environmental Ethics: Caring Thinking. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology , 15(3A), 1404-1421. Good, D. J. (2009). Explorations of cognitive agility: A real-time adaptive capacity (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University. Horikami, A., & Takahashi, K. (2022). The tripartite thinking model of creativity . Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101026 Kabat-Zinn, J. (2018). Meditation is not what you think : Mindfulness and why it is so important . New York, NY: Hachette Books. Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review , 31 (6), 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006 Koster, E. H. W., Hoorelbeke, K., Onraedt, T., Owens, M., & Derakshan, N. (2017). Cognitive control interventions for depression: A systematic review of findings from training studies. Clinical Psychology Review , 53 , 79–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.02.002 Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed.). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press. Muhi, A. (2025). Cognitive Control Among Preparatory Stage Students. Iraqi Journal of Human, Social and Scientific Research , (16), 145–164. Shadow, D., & Mind, J. (2020). Mental control (1st ed.). Independently Published. Shapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., & Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 62 (3), 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237 Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviews received at journal 14 May, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 May, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Apr, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 29 Apr, 2026 Editor invited by journal 13 Apr, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 12 Apr, 2026 First submitted to journal 12 Apr, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-9310446","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":634422726,"identity":"a1a0de99-a948-4db4-a5ba-8b645d42573d","order_by":0,"name":"Maryam Dylan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Anbar","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Maryam","middleName":"","lastName":"Dylan","suffix":""},{"id":634422729,"identity":"c6b18adb-055a-4025-bf37-fba0f04c1f91","order_by":1,"name":"Bilal Alwan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Anbar","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Bilal","middleName":"","lastName":"Alwan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-04-03 08:09:12","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9310446/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9310446/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":108774690,"identity":"bec157eb-8c11-4799-a3f7-65179ec6e0e5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 09:10:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":49449,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis Model for Triarchic Thinking with a Single Latent Variable (Triarchic Thinking)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9310446/v1/386220e0faa87d9b94eefdab.png"},{"id":108774673,"identity":"be000ec7-5866-457c-8057-0d6055b688cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 09:09:59","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":195838,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConfirmatory Factor Analysis Model with Four Dimensions and a Single Latent Variable (Mindfulness )\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9310446/v1/16b3f8b5db2132e6e0e0b137.png"},{"id":108774686,"identity":"1775b502-b790-418a-9d1e-5fdb5db024ab","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 09:10:03","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":75354,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScree Plot of the Eigenvalue of the First Factor of the Cognitive Control Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond: Scale Reliability\u003c/strong\u003e:- The reliability of the Cognitive Control Scale was verified by computing Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole, which yielded a value of (0.93), while the coefficients for the five dimensions were (0.90, 0.93, 0.94, 0.91, and 0.88) respectively. The alpha coefficients computed after removing each item's score from the total scale score were found to be lower than the overall alpha coefficient, ranging between (0.89 and 0.92), indicating that all scale items are stable and that the removal of any individual item does not contribute to an increase in the overall reliability coefficient.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9310446/v1/dbfe46cf2f2f93cf66b85b52.png"},{"id":108774938,"identity":"3519978b-43d1-461f-a917-b765e6e3aa46","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 09:11:02","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":48690,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStructural Equation Model of the Causal Relationships among Triarchic Thinking (as an Independent Variable), Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;(as a Mediating Variable), and Cognitive Control (as a Dependent Variable)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9310446/v1/e00ac9270d92a3f367b3be46.png"},{"id":108774718,"identity":"5e868cde-c997-4669-87b3-3a3d4a3b950c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 09:10:13","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54580,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect and Indirect Effects of the Independent Variable (Triarchic Thinking) on the Dependent Variable (Cognitive Control) through the Mediating Variable (Mindfulness )\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9310446/v1/7b4796173ee800d1874bc380.png"},{"id":108775364,"identity":"9917797c-2c86-4148-9b30-e18692bc11c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-08 09:12:41","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":729010,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-9310446/v1/1da09cba-5591-47a2-ab36-2b33e1ceb313.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Structural Relationships Between Triarchic Thinking Mindfulness and Cognitive Control in Postgraduate Students","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe concept of triarchic thinking represents a contemporary approach that focuses on the dynamics and integration of the creative process. It views creativity as the product of continuous interaction among different modes of thinking across the various stages of problem-solving, where the outcomes of each stage serve as a starting point for the next, creating an ongoing cycle that contributes to the generation of innovative solutions. This type of thinking affirms that such reciprocal interaction is the very essence of creativity, as it equips individuals with the capacity to develop and formulate ideas in unconventional ways, ultimately yielding more original and effective outcomes (Horikami \u0026amp; Takahashi, 2022). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Triarchic thinking also functions as an effective cognitive style that transcends the individualistic tendency in forming judgments, enabling individuals to examine situations from multiple perspectives with objectivity. This, in turn, enhances social harmony, fosters values of cooperation and respect for intellectual diversity, and consolidates a culture of dialogue and collaborative effort in pursuit of collective goals (Lipman, 2003). This was further affirmed by (Dombayci, 2014) who established that triarchic thinking encompasses three principal dimensions: its significance for the individual through the development of thinking, creativity, and decision-making; its importance in relation to others through the reinforcement of social values and bonds; and its extended influence on the natural environment through the pursuit of its preservation and the achievement of societal well-being.\u003cbr\u003eA limited number of previous studies have examined the relationship between triarchic thinking and other psychological variables. The findings of Chae and Lee (Chae \u0026amp; Lee, 2018 ) revealed a positive correlational relationship between high-level triarchic thinking and each of the following variables: gender, academic year, and teaching curriculum. Similarly, the findings of ( Al-Sudani ,2025)which addressed triarchic thinking and its relationship to academic flourishing among university students, demonstrated that university students possess a measurable level of triarchic thinking, and further revealed a statistically significant positive correlational relationship between triarchic thinking and academic flourishing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mindfulness , for its part, is considered one of the positive psychological constructs that has garnered increasing attention in recent years, with research expanding across the fields of psychology, education, and community studies, given its status as a key skill that contributes to the achievement of success across various dimensions of personal, academic, and professional life (Al-Dabi, 2013). Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;is regarded as an instrument for attaining individual and scholarly excellence, functioning as a self-directed psychological energy that enhances consistent performance and attenuates disruptive emotional responses to achievement. It further provides a foundational reference for the development of self-regulation and the capacity to perform under stress, particularly within advanced academic environments that demand high levels of cognitive alertness (Keng et al., 2011).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Mindfulness\u0026nbsp; represents a significant process in education and learning, as the state of attention and alertness it cultivates helps students focus on present experiences and observe similarities and differences among ideas and objects without passing judgment on thoughts or feelings (Allen et al., 2006).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;is associated with a number of cognitive functions, most notably directed attention and reflective thinking. Students with high levels of Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;demonstrate a superior capacity to regulate their emotional responses and address academic demands efficiently, while maintaining a high level of concentration in the completion of academic tasks (Shapiro et al., 2006),Brown and Ryan (2003) noted the existence of individual differences in levels of Mindfulness : individuals with low levels are characterized by fragmented attention and the dominance of disorganized thought patterns linked to emotional reactivity, whereas those with high levels exhibit organized mental activity associated with elevated psychological well-being and emotional adaptation (Brown \u0026amp; Ryan, 2003). Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;encompasses three core features: the conscious and deliberate direction of attention, full engagement with the present moment, and the acceptance of feelings and thoughts without judgment, observing them calmly as transient states (Cardaciotto et al., 2008) ((Ali \u0026amp; Alwan, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cognitive control, meanwhile, is considered one of the foundational pillars of information processing and behavioral regulation, and is also referred to as executive functioning. It denotes a set of higher-order cognitive processes that direct behavior toward the achievement of goals, with its efficacy increasing in challenging situations through the evaluation of alternatives and the planning of actions prior to their execution (Brown, 2013). The concept of cognitive control refers to the individual's ability to inhibit inappropriate automatic responses and modify behavior in accordance with the demands of the prevailing situation and goal. This concept is closely linked to performance monitoring processes, which assist in the detection of errors and the identification of the need for increased mental effort; furthermore, the effectiveness of cognitive control depends on the accuracy of the individual's assessment of their own cognitive capacities (Alker, 2025).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Individuals who are distinguished by cognitive control are among the most open to other viewpoints and capable of managing their thoughts; they demonstrate greater emotional stability than others, maintaining a psychologically sound state that is removed from disturbances and varied reactive responses (Abramowitz et al. 2001). Consequently, cognitive control is regarded as a fundamental element that exerts influence across various mental processes, including thinking itself; impairment in this type of control negatively affects the quality of thinking and diminishes the individual's capacity to organize their thoughts, rendering them more susceptible to engagement in repetitive patterns of negative thinking (Koster et al. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Cognitive control is further characterized by its association with processes of perception and the regulation of stimulus reception and interpretation. It also constitutes a system of strategies that assists individuals in understanding and adapting to situations, reflects the level of cognitive maturity, and is influenced by social norms in regulating the satisfaction and deferral of needs (Al-Nusairi, 2015). Cognitive control endows individuals with the capacity to organize and consciously direct their thinking, thereby enabling them to transcend automatic reactions and manage their responses to various situations. This is achieved through the modification of thoughts and strategies in alignment with the nature of the situation at hand, which in turn contributes to the enhancement of cognitive flexibility (Good, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Research Questions","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; The problem of the present study can be identified through the following research questions:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-To what extent does the proposed structural model fit the relationships between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable, among graduate students?\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;-Do statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control exist among graduate students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e-Do statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;on cognitive control exist among graduate students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Do statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;exist among graduate students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- Can cognitive control be predicted through both Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;and triarchic thinking among graduate students?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance of the Study:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe significance of the study can be summarized as follows:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTheoretical Significance:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1-The study addresses one of the important research topics, namely the modeling of causal relationships among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2-The study examines three relatively contemporary cognitive-psychological variables in the field of educational psychology — triarchic thinking, cognitive control, and Mindfulness\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;— given their pivotal role in explaining the cognitive and academic behavior of graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3-The study further contributes new scientific knowledge by linking triarchic thinking, as an integrative cognitive style that combines analytical, creative, and ethical dimensions, with cognitive control, which represents the regulatory mechanism of higher-order mental processes, and with Mindfulness , which reflects the individual's capacity for conscious mental presence during learning and decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePractical Significance\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1-The findings may be utilized in the development of educational and counseling programs tailored to graduate students, through the cultivation of their triarchic thinking skills, the enhancement of their cognitive control capacities, and the development of Mindfulness , all of which contribute to the improvement of academic and research performance.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;2-The findings of the study may further assist universities and faculty members in designing modern teaching strategies that are attentive to the development of mindful awareness and cognitive regulation, moving away from traditional rote-learning methods, thereby fostering deep thinking and sound academic decision-making among students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3-The present study provides three instruments — the Triarchic Thinking Scale, the Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;Scale, and the Cognitive Control Scale — that are distinguished by sound psychometric properties and may be utilized by other researchers in future investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Objectives:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe present study aims to:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1-Arrive at a causal model that explains the causal relationships (effects) among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;2-Identify the direct and indirect effects (paths) of triarchic thinking (as an independent variable) on cognitive control (as a dependent variable), mediated by Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;(as a mediating variable).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Hypotheses\u003c/strong\u003e:- The present study encompasses the following main hypotheses:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e1-The proposed structural model for triarchic thinking (independent variable) and cognitive control (dependent variable), mediated by Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;(mediating variable), does not demonstrate a good fit among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e2-There are no statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3-There are no statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;on cognitive control among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4-There are no statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Delimitations:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe present study is delimited to graduate students at the University of Anbar for the academic year (2025–2026).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Terminology\u003c/strong\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst: Triarchic Thinking — Definition:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLipman (2003) defines it as\u003c/strong\u003e: a mental activity through which the individual seeks to understand situations and analyze them, drawing on emotional experience (emotions) in forming judgments and responding to situations by means of three types of thinking: creative, critical, and caring thinking (Lipman, 2003, p. 265).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOperational Definition\u003c/strong\u003e: The total score obtained by the respondent based on their responses to the items of the Triarchic Thinking Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond: Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;— Definition:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKabat-Zinn (2003) defines it as:\u003c/strong\u003e \"the awareness that arises from paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, and non-judgmentally\" (Kabat-Zinn, 2018, p. 27).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOperational Definition:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe total score obtained by the respondent based on their responses to the items of the Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThird: Cognitive Control — Definition:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eShadow and Mind (2020) define it as\u003c/strong\u003e: \"the manner in which individuals regulate their thoughts so as to remain aligned with their goals\" (Shadow \u0026amp; Mind, 2020, p. 22).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOperational Definition\u003c/strong\u003e: The total score obtained by the respondent based on their responses to the items of the Cognitive Control Scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"},{"header":"Research Methodology and Procedures","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Given that the present study aims to examine the modeling of causal relationships among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students, the researchers adopted the descriptive correlational (causal) method.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Approval :\u003c/strong\u003eThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the College of Education for Human Sciences, University of Anbar, Iraq, in accordance with institutional guidelines and regulations. The study protocol was reviewed and approved under the reference number (Not applicable). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Population and Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The research population of the present study is defined as graduate students at the University of Anbar for the academic year (2025–2026). The total number of students in the scientific specialization reached (1001) male and female students. The research sample consisted of (600) male and female students selected randomly from the graduate studies population at the University of Anbar, as illustrated in Table (1).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable (1): Research Population Distributed by Gender, Specialization, and Academic Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ctable dir=\"rtl\" border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"659\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" style=\"width: 328px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Sample\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"5\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 331px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Population\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDoctorate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaster’s\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 114px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDoctorate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 117px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMaster’s\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSpecialization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFemales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMales\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e306\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e49\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e111\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e106\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e143\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e196\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e392\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e270\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScientific\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e294\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e46\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e40\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e106\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e102\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e948\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e72\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e138\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e409\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e329\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHumanities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 46px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e600\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e95\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e80\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e217\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e208\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 49px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1949\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 63px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e225\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e334\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e791\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 52px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e599\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 99px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Instruments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst: The Triarchic Thinking Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; In light of the theoretical framework, previous studies, and a review of existing scales, and in fulfillment of the objectives of the present study, the researchers adopted the Triarchic Thinking Scale developed by (Chae and Lee ,2018), which was translated and adapted for the Iraqi environment by the researcher Nour Muhammad Hashim Muhammad Al-Sudani (2025), and which is based on (Lipman ,2003) model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScale Description:\u003c/strong\u003e The scale consists of (25) items measuring triarchic thinking across three principal domains: critical thinking, creative thinking, and caring thinking. Responses are recorded on a five-point scale (Always applies to me, Applies to me, Applies to me to some extent, Rarely applies to me, Never applies to me), with scores assigned as follows: to a very large extent (5 points), to a large extent (4 points), to a moderate extent (3 points), to a small extent (2 points), and to a very small extent (1 point).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerification of the Psychometric Properties of the Triarchic Thinking Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst: Scale Validity:\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eValidity was computed using the following methods:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea. Experts Validity:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe scale in its initial form was presented to a panel of (16) psychology faculty members, who were asked to express their views regarding the scale's dimensions, the extent to which they measure the intended purpose of the scale, the appropriateness of the scale items in relation to the intended purpose, their belonging to the designated dimensions, and the soundness of their wording. Following the incorporation of the reviewers' observations, the scale was finalized in its definitive form consisting of (25) items.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb. Construct Validity:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ePearson correlation coefficients were computed between each item score and the total scale score after removing the item score from the total score. The resulting correlation coefficients ranged from (0.297) to (0.547), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e- Pearson correlation coefficients were also computed between each item score and the score of the dimension to which it belongs, after removing the item score from the total dimension score. The values were as follows: for the critical thinking dimension, coefficients ranged from (0.444 to 0.602) and were statistically significant; for the creative thinking dimension, they ranged from (0.553 to 0.657) and were statistically significant; and for the caring thinking dimension, they ranged from (0.316 to 0.552). Additionally, correlation coefficients between the three dimensions and the total score on the Triarchic Thinking Scale were computed, yielding values of (0.863, 0.717, and 0.895) respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec. Factorial Validity:\u003c/strong\u003e Based on the theoretical framework and previous studies, it was hypothesized that a general factor of triarchic thinking exists, along with its constituent sub-factors, namely: critical thinking, creative thinking, and caring thinking.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The confirmatory factor model was tested, consisting of three independent variables (scale dimensions) and one latent variable (triarchic thinking). The three-factor model with a single latent variable was tested and subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using (AMOS 24) software. Accordingly, the model was constructed as illustrated in Figure (1).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable (2): Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Single Latent Factor Model of the Triarchic Thinking Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ctable dir=\"rtl\" border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"653\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelative Fit Index (RFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparative Fit Index (CFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNormed Fit Index (NFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRoot Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGoodness of Fit Index (GFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChi-square ratio (χ²/df)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChi-square (χ²) statistical test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.821\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.974\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.838\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.016\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.953\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.961\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.159\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e315.275\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDegree of freedom\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e272\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.066\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndex value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 62px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 51px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 61px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 77px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 111px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe value of X2 must be statistically insignificant.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 82px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcceptable range of index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Table (2) reveals that the resulting confirmatory factor analysis model demonstrates acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (χ²= 315.275) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit with the data under examination. The factor loadings of the three dimensions on the latent variable ranged from (0.670 to 0.781), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level of significance, thereby confirming the adequacy of the proposed model for the sample data and indicating that the scale, across its three dimensions, measures a single underlying latent construct.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond: Scale Reliability:\u003c/strong\u003e The reliability of the scale was verified by computing Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole, which yielded a value of (0.90), while the coefficients for the three dimensions were (0.89, 0.91, and 0.87) respectively. The alpha coefficients computed after removing each item's score from the total scale score were found to be lower than the overall alpha coefficient, ranging between (0.85 and 0.89), indicating that all scale items are stable and that the removal of any individual item does not contribute to an increase in the overall reliability coefficient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond: The Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;In fulfillment of the objectives of the present study, and drawing upon a comprehensive review conducted by the researchers of the relevant psychological and educational literature and previous studies pertaining to the subject, the researchers adopted the Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;Scale developed by Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., \u0026amp; Allen, K. B. (2004), as translated into Arabic and adapted to the Iraqi environment by the researcher Zahraa Dhiaa Kareem Nasir (2025). It is noteworthy that this scale was grounded in its theoretical foundations in Kabat-Zinn's (2004) theory of Mindfulness .\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScale Description :\u003c/strong\u003eThe Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;Scale consists of (39) items distributed across four principal dimensions: Observation, comprising (12) items; Description, comprising (8) items; Acting with Awareness, comprising (10) items; and Acceptance, comprising (9) items. Responses are recorded on a five-point Likert scale as follows: Completely applies to me, Often applies to me, Sometimes applies to me, Rarely applies to me, and Never applies to me.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerification of the Psychometric Properties of the Mindfulness Scale\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;First: Scale Validity\u003c/strong\u003e :- The validity of the scale was verified using the following methods:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea. Experts Validity :\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe scale in its initial form was presented to a panel of (16) psychology faculty members, whose opinions were sought regarding the scale's dimensions and the extent to which they measure the intended purpose, the appropriateness of the items in relation to that purpose, their belonging to the designated dimensions, and the soundness of their wording. In light of the reviewers' observations and recommendations, the scale was finalized in its definitive form consisting of (39) items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb. Construct Validity:\u003c/strong\u003e Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between each item score and the total scale score after removing the item score from the total. These coefficients ranged from (0.296) to (0.578), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;- Pearson correlation coefficients were also computed between each item score and the score of the dimension to which it belongs, after removing the item score from the total dimension score. The results were as follows: coefficients for the Observation dimension ranged from (0.282 to 0.608); for the Description dimension from (0.386 to 0.606); for the Acting with Awareness dimension from (0.423 to 0.563); and for the Acceptance dimension from (0.434 to 0.593), all of which were statistically significant. Furthermore, the correlation coefficients between the four dimensions and the total scale score were (0.845, 0.863, 0.882, and 0.878) respectively.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec. Factorial Validity:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eBased on the theoretical framework and previous studies, it was hypothesized that a general factor of Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;exists, with four constituent sub-factors: Observation, Description, Acting with Awareness, and Acceptance. To verify the construct validity of this concept, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted, whereby a model was designed comprising four observed variables representing the scale dimensions and a single latent variable representing Mindfulness . The model was subjected to confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 24 software, and its structure is illustrated in Figure (2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis procedure yielded a model with satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as presented in Table (3) below:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable (3): Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Single Latent Factor Model of the Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ctable dir=\"rtl\" border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"672\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelative Fit Index (RFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eComparative Fit Index (CFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNormed Fit Index (NFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRoot Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGoodness of Fit Index (GFI)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChi-square ratio (χ²/df)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChi-square (χ²) statistical test\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndex\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.806\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.990\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.817\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.009\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.936\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.943\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.047\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e729.158\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDegree of freedom\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e696\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e=0.186\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndex value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 71px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 83px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 54px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 65px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5-0\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe value of X2 must be statistically insignificant.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 74px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcceptable range of index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Table (3) reveals that the confirmatory factor analysis model demonstrates acceptable goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (χ²=\u0026nbsp;729.158) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit with the data under examination. The factor loadings ranged from (0.766 to 0.849), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level, thereby confirming the adequacy of the proposed model for the sample data and indicating that the scale, across its four dimensions, measures a single underlying latent construct.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond: Scale Reliability:-\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e The reliability of the scale was verified by computing Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole, which yielded a value of (0.87), while the coefficients for the four dimensions were (0.86, 0.89, 0.85, and 0.88) respectively. The alpha coefficients computed after removing each item's score from the total scale score were found to be lower than the overall alpha coefficient, ranging between (0.84 and 0.86), indicating that all scale items are stable and that the removal of any individual item does not contribute to an increase in the overall reliability coefficient.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThird: The Cognitive Control Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Drawing on the theoretical framework and previous studies, the researchers constructed the Cognitive Control Scale based on (Shadow and Mind ,2020) theory. Following its presentation to the expert panel, the scale was finalized at (30) items formulated as verbal situational scenarios distributed equally across five dimensions: Mental Discipline, Persuasion, Self-Help, Emotional Control, and Self-Respect. Each item represents a situation encountered by the student, followed by three response alternatives: the first represents high cognitive control and is assigned a score of (3); the second represents moderate cognitive control and is assigned a score of (2); and the third represents an absence of cognitive control and is assigned a score of (1). The items in their initial form were presented to two Arabic language specialists for linguistic evaluation, and the researchers incorporated their observations accordingly.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerification of the Psychometric Properties of the Cognitive Control Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst: Scale Validity :-\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe validity of the scale was verified using the following methods:\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea. Experts Validity \u0026nbsp;:\u003c/strong\u003e The scale in its initial form was presented to a panel of (16) psychology faculty members, whose opinions were sought regarding the scale's dimensions and the extent to which they measure the intended purpose, the appropriateness of the items in relation to that purpose, their belonging to the designated dimensions, and the soundness of their wording. In light of the reviewers' observations and recommendations, the scale was finalized in its definitive form consisting of (30) items.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eb. Construct Validity:\u003c/strong\u003e Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between each item score and the total scale score after removing the item score from the total. These coefficients ranged from (0.301) to (0.595), all of which were statistically significant at the (0.01) level.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;- Pearson correlation coefficients were also computed between each item score and the score of the dimension to which it belongs, after removing the item score from the total dimension score. The results were as follows: coefficients for the Mental Discipline dimension ranged from (0.433 to 0.572); for the Persuasion dimension from (0.387 to 0.661); for the Self-Help dimension from (0.488 to 0.612); for the Emotional Control dimension from (0.473 to 0.627); and for the Self-Respect dimension from (0.457 to 0.628), all of which were statistically significant. Furthermore, the correlation coefficients between the five dimensions and the total scale score were (0.759, 0.780, 0.800, 0.807, and 0.772) respectively.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ec. Factorial Validity:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eExploratory factor analysis was employed to identify the factor structure of the Cognitive Control Scale following verification that the conditions for its application were met. The analysis yielded a single factor, which was then rotated using orthogonal rotation via Kaiser's Varimax method. The results were consistent, with the eigenvalue of the factor reaching (12.434), accounting for (45.619%) of the total variance, as illustrated in Table (4).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable (4): Eigenvalue of the Dominant Factor of the Cognitive Control Scale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ctable dir=\"rtl\" border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"535\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExplained variance ratio\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003elatent root\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of paragraphs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNumber of individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eName of the worker\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 148px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e41.445\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e12.434\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e600\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive control\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp dir=\"LTR\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; The results obtained following rotation were consistent with those of the direct analysis prior to rotation. The interpretation of the factor was based on (Guttman's Lower Bounds) criterion, which considers a factor to be statistically significant when its (Eigenvalue) equals or exceeds one. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the scale measures a single factor, namely cognitive control, as illustrated in Figure (3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFifth: Statistical Methods\u003c/strong\u003e:- \u0026nbsp;The researchers relied on \u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003eSPSS\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e(\u003c/span\u003e and\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e)\u003c/span\u003e AMOS 24 \u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e(\u003c/span\u003esoftware to extract the following:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e1- Factor analysis for the research scales\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e2- Path analysis to identify the directional pathways of the dimensions and the potential causal relationships among the selected variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e3- Goodness-of-fit indices to determine the extent to which the proposed model fits the data.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;4- Chi-square to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed model for the results and verify its conformity with the ideal level.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Study Results and Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Objective: To arrive at a causal model that explains the causal relationships and effects among triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control among graduate students.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNull Hypothesis derived from this objective:\u003c/strong\u003e The proposed structural model for the relationship between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable, does not demonstrate a good fit among graduate students.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; To test this hypothesis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) available in( AMOS 24 )was employed to model the relationships among the independent variable (triarchic thinking), the mediating variable (Mindfulness ), and the dependent variable (cognitive control). Bootstrapping was conducted to detect the significance of the direct and indirect effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable, and to test the mediating role of Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;in the relationship between triarchic thinking and cognitive control. Figure (4) illustrates the structural equation model of the causal relationships among triarchic thinking as an independent variable, Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable, and cognitive control as a dependent variable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCognitive Control (as a Dependent Variable)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe structural equation model illustrated in Figure (4) demonstrated satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value\u0026nbsp;(\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;)\u0026nbsp;was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit between the proposed model and the data under examination, as presented in Table (5).\u003cbr\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable (5): Goodness-of-Fit Indices for the Structural Equation Model of the Causal Relationships among Triarchic Thinking, Mindfulness , and Cognitive Control (N= 600)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"647\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNo.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndicator Name\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndicator Value\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcceptable Range\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChi-Square Test (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDegrees of Freedom (df)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance Level of \u0026chi;\u0026sup2;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.195\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.078\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026chi;\u0026sup2; value should be statistically non-significant\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRelative Chi-Square (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;/df)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.195\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0(zero) \u0026nbsp;to 5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGFI \u0026mdash; Goodness of Fit Index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.991\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAGFI \u0026mdash; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.987\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRMSEA \u0026mdash; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.004\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 0.1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNFI \u0026mdash; Normed Fit Index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.997\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCFI \u0026mdash; Comparative Fit Index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRFI \u0026mdash; Relative Fit Index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIFI \u0026mdash; Incremental Fit Index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.00\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 41px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 315px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTLI \u0026mdash; Tucker-Lewis Index\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 100px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.996\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 191px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFrom 0 (zero) to 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Table (5) reveals that the structural equation model of the causal relationships demonstrates satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;= 2.195) was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit between the proposed model and the data under examination. The direct and indirect effects of the variables on the dependent variable are illustrated in Figure (5).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable (5) reveals that the proposed model demonstrated satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices, as the chi-square value (\u0026chi;\u0026sup2;)\u0026nbsp;was statistically non-significant, and all remaining indices fell within the optimal range for each indicator, reflecting a good fit between the proposed model and the data under examination. Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that the proposed structural model for the relationship between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable, demonstrates a good fit among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond Objective: To identify the direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking as an independent variable on cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Null Hypothesis derived from this objective:\u003c/strong\u003e There are no statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control among graduate students.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;To test this hypothesis, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) available in (AMOS 24) was employed. Table (6) presents the results of the standardized regression weights (effect coefficients), their significance, and measurement errors among triarchic thinking as an independent variable, Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable, and cognitive control as a dependent variable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable (6): Results of the Standardized Regression Weights for the Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects Contained in the Structural Model, Accompanied by Critical Ratio Values, Measurement Error, Effect Estimates, and Statistical Significance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"center\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"657\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect , indirect and overall effects of the independent \u0026nbsp;on the mediating and dependent variables\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eType of Effect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStandardized Regression Weight\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e(Effect)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasurement Error\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCritical Ratio (CR)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSignificance Level\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTriarchic Thinking \u0026rarr; Mindfulness\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.562\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.055\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e16.646\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.562\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.055\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e16.646\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"3\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTriarchic Thinking \u0026rarr; Cognitive Control\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.302\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.024\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7.169\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIndirect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.250\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.028\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6.295\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.552\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.042\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e15.374\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd rowspan=\"2\" style=\"width: 217px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMindfulness\u0026rarr; Cognitive Control\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDirect\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.444\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.015\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11.992\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 66px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTotal\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.444\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.015\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11.992\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 96px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Table (6) reveals the existence of statistically significant positive direct, indirect, and total effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control at the (0.001) significance level, mediated by Mindfulness . The direct effect reached (0.302), the indirect effect (0.250), and the total effect (0.552), meaning that for every one standard deviation increase in triarchic thinking scores, cognitive control scores increased by (0.552). Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that statistically significant direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control exist among graduate students.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSecond Null Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;on cognitive control among graduate students.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of structural equation modeling presented in Table (6) revealed the existence of a statistically significant positive direct and total effect of Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;on cognitive control at the (0.001) significance level, with the direct and total effect reaching (0.444), meaning that for every one standard deviation increase in Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;scores, cognitive control scores increased by (0.444). Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that statistically significant direct effects of Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;on cognitive control exist among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThird Null Hypothesis: There are no statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;among graduate students.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of structural equation modeling presented in Table (6) revealed the existence of a statistically significant positive direct and total effect of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;at the (0.001) significance level, with the direct and total effect reaching (0.562), meaning that for every one standard deviation increase in triarchic thinking scores, Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;scores increased by (0.562). Accordingly, the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, indicating that statistically significant direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;exist among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpretation and Discussion of Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal a good fit for the structural model linking triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control, which is consistent with the theoretical proposition that higher-order cognitive processes do not operate in isolation but rather function within an integrated system of mental and regulatory operations. Triarchic thinking, according to Lipman\u0026apos;s model, encompasses critical, creative, and caring thinking\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003epatterns that contribute to the organized processing of information and conscious decision-making, thereby enhancing the individual\u0026apos;s capacity to regulate their thoughts and cognitive behavior.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The direct effect of triarchic thinking on cognitive control can be interpreted by the fact that individuals who possess high levels of critical, creative, and caring thinking are better equipped to analyze situations, generate alternatives, and review their thoughts prior to responding , a finding that aligns with the concept of cognitive control as a higher-order regulatory process that governs cognitive responses and directs them toward goal attainment.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The direct effect of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;can be interpreted by the fact that this type of thinking demands a high level of conscious attention to the cognitive situation and the capacity to observe thoughts and feelings during problem-solving. Individuals who employ analytical, creative, and caring thinking tend to exhibit a higher degree of mental presence and concentration in the present moment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;The direct relationship between Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;and cognitive control can likewise be interpreted by the fact that mental alertness and attention to the present moment assist the individual in monitoring their thoughts and emotions and regulating their automatic responses, thereby enhancing their capacity for cognitive behavioral regulation and more balanced and considered decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; Finally, the indirect effect of triarchic thinking on cognitive control through Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;indicates that advanced thinking contributes primarily to the enhancement of awareness and attentiveness to the present moment, and this awareness in turn elevates the individual\u0026apos;s capacity to regulate their thoughts and organize their cognitive behavior. In this way, Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;fulfills the role of a mediating variable that explains the mechanism through which the effect of triarchic thinking is transmitted to cognitive control among graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecommendations:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;1-Prioritizing the development of triarchic thinking among graduate students by incorporating educational activities based on critical, creative, and caring thinking into university curricula.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;2-Designing specialized training and counseling programs aimed at fostering Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;among students, given its pivotal role in enhancing concentration, attention, and the regulation of cognitive processes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e3-Integrating cognitive control skills into educational programs and academic activities, in view of their effective contribution to improving the academic and research performance of graduate students.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e4-Employing the scales of the present study in diagnosing students\u0026apos; levels of triarchic thinking, Mindfulness , and cognitive control, and utilizing them in future educational and psychological studies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSuggestions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;1-Examining the role of other mediating or moderating variables in the relationship between triarchic thinking and cognitive control, such as emotional intelligence and academic motivation.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;2-Conducting comparative studies across scientific and humanities disciplines, or between genders, with the aim of identifying differences in the levels of the variables under investigation.\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;3-Employing advanced statistical models such as multilevel structural equation modeling and longitudinal analysis to identify developmental trajectories of these variables over time, or utilizing the psychometric neural network model in examining the causal effects among them.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDeclarations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Availability Statement:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics Approval and Consent to Participate:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;Not applicable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAbramowitz, J. S., Tolin, D. F., \u0026amp; Street, G. P. (2001). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression: A meta-analysis of controlled studies. \u003cem\u003eClinical \u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePsychology Review\u003c/strong\u003e, 21(5), 683\u0026ndash;703. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7358(00)00057-0⁠\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Dabaa, F., \u0026amp; Mahmoud, A. (2013). The Effectiveness of Mindfulness in Reducing Symptoms of Psychological Depression Among a Sample of University Students. \u003cstrong\u003eJournal of Psychological Counseling,\u003c/strong\u003e (34), 1\u0026ndash;75.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlker, L. (2025). \u003cstrong\u003eMonitoring and cognitive appraisal as moderators of cognitive control and mental health\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e An experimental study in a geriatric population. Mental Illness, 2025, Article ID 9888704. https://doi.org/10.1155/mij/9888704\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAli, N., Alwan, B. (2025). Self-Defeating Personality Traits among Postgraduate Students in Iraqi Universities: An Analytical Study by Gender and Academic Level. \u003cstrong\u003eDragoman\u003c/strong\u003e, (19), 519-536. Antwerp: ATI. DOI: https://doi.org/10.63132/ati.2025.selfde.0167\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, N. B., Blashki, G., \u0026amp; Gullone, E. (2006). Mindfulness-based psychotherapies: A review of conceptual foundations, empirical evidence and practical considerations. \u003cstrong\u003eAustralian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e, 40\u003c/em\u003e(4), 285\u0026ndash;294. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2006.01794.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Nusairi, Q. (2015). \u003cstrong\u003eThe Effectiveness of a Counseling Program Based on Cognitive Control in Reducing Cognitive Failures Among Students of the College of Basic Education\u003c/strong\u003e. Unpublished Master\u0026apos;s Thesis, College of Basic Education, Al-Mustansiriya University, Iraq.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAl-Sudani, N. (2025). \u003cstrong\u003eTriple Thinking According to Lipman\u0026apos;s Model and its Relationship to Academic Flourishing Among University Students\u003c/strong\u003e. Unpublished Master\u0026apos;s Thesis, College of Education Ibn Rushd for Human Sciences, University of Baghdad.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, J. W. (2013). Beyond conflict monitoring: Cognitive control and the neural basis of thinking before you act. \u003cstrong\u003eCurrent Directions in Psychological Science, 22(\u003c/strong\u003e3), 179\u0026ndash;185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412470685\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrown, K. W., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being\u003cem\u003e. \u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e, 84\u003c/em\u003e(2), 822\u0026ndash;848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCardaciotto, L., Herbert, T., Forman, E., Moitra, E., \u0026amp; Farrow, V. (2008). \u003cstrong\u003eThe assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u003c/em\u003e The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204\u0026ndash;223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107311467\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChae, S. F., \u0026amp; Lee, M. S. (2018). Determinants of latent profiles in higher-order thinking skills of Korean university students. \u003cstrong\u003eProblems of Education in the 21st Century\u003c/strong\u003e, 76(4), 483.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDombayci, M. A. (2014). Teaching of Environmental Ethics: Caring Thinking. \u003cstrong\u003eJournal of Environmental Protection and Ecology\u003c/strong\u003e, 15(3A), 1404-1421.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGood, D. J. (2009). \u003cstrong\u003eExplorations of cognitive agility: A real-time adaptive capacity\u003c/strong\u003e (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Case Western Reserve University.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHorikami, A., \u0026amp; Takahashi, K. (2022). \u003cstrong\u003eThe tripartite thinking model of creativity\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101026\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKabat-Zinn, J. (2018). \u003cem\u003eMeditation is not what you think\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e: Mindfulness and why it is so important\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e New York, NY: Hachette Books.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKeng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., \u0026amp; Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. \u003cstrong\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e, 31\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1041\u0026ndash;1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKoster, E. H. W., Hoorelbeke, K., Onraedt, T., Owens, M., \u0026amp; Derakshan, N. (2017). Cognitive control interventions for depression: \u003cstrong\u003eA systematic review of findings from training studies. Clinical Psychology Review\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e, 53\u003c/em\u003e, 79\u0026ndash;92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2017.02.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education (2nd ed.). \u003cstrong\u003eCambridge\u003c/strong\u003e, UK: Cambridge University Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMuhi, A. (2025). Cognitive Control Among Preparatory Stage Students. Iraqi Journal of Human, \u003cstrong\u003eSocial and Scientific Research\u003c/strong\u003e, (16), 145\u0026ndash;164.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShadow, D., \u0026amp; Mind, J. (2020). \u003cstrong\u003eMental control\u003c/strong\u003e(1st ed.). Independently Published.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShapiro, S. L., Carlson, L. E., Astin, J. A., \u0026amp; Freedman, B. (2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. \u003cstrong\u003eJournal of Clinical Psychology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e, 62\u003c/em\u003e(3), 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"discpsy","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Psychology](https://www.springer.com/44202)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Causal Modeling, Triarchic Thinking, Mindfulness, Cognitive Control","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9310446/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9310446/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Objective: \u003c/strong\u003eThis study sought to construct and interpret an optimal structural model that reveals the nature of the causal relationships and the direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking as an independent variable on cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Sample: \u003c/strong\u003eThe study was applied to a sample of (600) male and female graduate students at the University of Anbar.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Instruments:\u003c/strong\u003eThree instruments were employed. For triarchic thinking, the researchers adopted the Triarchic Thinking Scale developed by Chae \u0026amp; Lee (2018), which is based on Lipman's (2003) model. For Mindfulness , the researchers adopted the Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;Scale developed by Baer, R. A., Smith, G. T., \u0026amp; Allen, K. B. (2004). For cognitive control, the researchers constructed a scale based on the Shadow Mind (2020) theory of cognitive control.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStatistical Methods:\u003c/strong\u003e( SPSS) and ( AMOS 24) software were utilized to extract validity and reliability indicators for the research scales, along with path analysis to identify the directional pathways of the dimensions and the potential causal relationships among the selected variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResearch Findings:\u003c/strong\u003e The study arrived at the following findings: the proposed structural model for the relationships between triarchic thinking as an independent variable and cognitive control as a dependent variable, mediated by Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;as a mediating variable, demonstrated a good fit. The findings further revealed the existence of statistically significant positive direct and indirect effects of triarchic thinking on cognitive control, statistically significant positive direct effects of Mindfulness on cognitive control, and statistically significant positive direct effects of triarchic thinking on Mindfulness \u0026nbsp;among graduate students. In light of these findings, the researchers put forward a set of recommendations and suggestions.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Structural Relationships Between Triarchic Thinking Mindfulness and Cognitive Control in Postgraduate Students","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-08 09:08:20","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-9310446/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-14T23:39:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"335101846535080566223142623450280542569","date":"2026-05-04T23:52:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T02:16:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T01:56:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2026-04-13T07:13:43+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-04-12T12:42:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Discover Psychology","date":"2026-04-12T12:38:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"discover-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"discpsy","sideBox":"Learn more about [Discover Psychology](https://www.springer.com/44202)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"Discover Psychology","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Discover Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"729c7668-7184-4092-8194-76459c3ce271","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 8th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2026-05-14T23:39:09+00:00","index":40,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"335101846535080566223142623450280542569","date":"2026-05-04T23:52:47+00:00","index":39,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"19","date":"2026-04-30T02:16:40+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-04-30T01:56:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-08T09:08:21+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-08 09:08:20","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-9310446","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-9310446","identity":"rs-9310446","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}