Non-expert views of compassion: consensual qualitative research using focus groups

Baránková, Martina; Halamová, Júlia; Koróniová, Jana

doi:10.1515/humaff-2019-0002

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In novices, the magnitudes of effects are very close to those previously reported in a validation study of the experimental paradigm and stimuli (Fucci et al, 2021; see also ). More generally, the results are in line with previous between and within-subject studies on the effect of attributions on helping intentions and behavior (Baránková et al, 2019; Halkjelsvik & Rise, 2014; Kogut, 2011; Rudolph et al, 2004). They corroborate evolutionary theories on compassion and prosocial motivation as processes motivated by fostering kin-selection and reciprocal altruism (Stürmer & Snyder, 2009).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Ready to help, no matter what you did: Responsibility attribution does not influence compassion in expert Buddhist practitioners.

Fucci,

Abdoun,

Baquedano

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within western social psychology and neuroscience, compassion is described as being conditioned by costbenefit appraisals, such as the attribution of responsibility for the causes of suffering. Buddhist traditions maintain the possibility of cultivating and embodying unconditioned and universal forms of compassion. Whereas a growing body of empirical literature suggests that Buddhist-inspired compassion-based programs foster prosociality and well-being in healthy and clinical populations, there is no evidence that such compassionate disposition toward others can become unconditioned from moral judgment. To address this question, we collected and integrated self-report and behavioral data from expert Buddhist practitioners and trained novices using a previously validated within-subject experiment that manipulates contextual information to influence moral judgment toward suffering others and a newly designed approach-avoidance task. We found that context manipulation impacted responsibility and blame attribution in both groups and that experts' reported willingness to help was higher and less influenced by context, compared to novices. Partial correlation networks highlighted a negative relationship between blame attribution and willingness to help in novices, but not in expert practitioners. Self-reported willingness to help was correlated to reaction times when approaching suffering stimuli. Approach behavior was modulated by context in novice, but not in experts. This study provides initial evidence of a dissociation between moral attributions and prosocial attitude in expert Buddhist practitioners and challenges established evolutionary accounts of compassion in western psychology. Public Significance StatementThis study provides initial evidence for a dissociation between moral judgment and prosocial attitude in expert Buddhist practitioners. Findings are in line with Buddhist theories on compassion and contemplative training and expand established theories in social psychology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Ready to help, no matter what you did: Responsibility attribution does not influence compassion in expert Buddhist practitioners.

Fucci,

Abdoun,

Baquedano

et al. 2024

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In novices, the magnitudes of effects are very close to those previously reported in a validation study of the experimental paradigm and stimuli (Fucci et al, 2021; see also supplementary figure S5). More generally, the results are in line with previous between and within-subject studies on the effect of attributions on helping intentions and behaviour (Baránková et al, 2019;Halkjelsvik & Rise, 2014;Kogut, 2011;Rudolph et al, 2004). They corroborate evolutionary theories on compassion and prosocial motivation as processes motivated by fostering kin-selection and reciprocal altruism (Stürmer & Snyder, 2009).…”

Section: Self-report Measures Of Attributions and Willingness To Help...supporting

confidence: 90%

Ready to help, no matter what you did: responsibility attribution does not influence compassion in expert Buddhist practitioners

Fucci¹,

Abdoun²,

Baquedano³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within western social psychology and neuroscience, compassion is described as being conditioned by cost-benefit appraisals, such as the attribution of responsibility for the causes of suffering. Buddhist traditions maintain the possibility of cultivating and embodying unconditioned and universal forms of compassion. Whereas a growing body of empirical literature suggest that Buddhist-inspired compassion-based programs foster prosociality and well-being in healthy and clinical populations, there is no evidence that such compassionate disposition toward others can become unconditioned from moral judgement. To address this question, we collected and integrated self-report and behavioural data from expert Buddhist practitioners and trained novices using a previously validated within-subject experiment that manipulates contextual information to influence moral judgement towards suffering scenarios, and a newly designed approach-avoidance task. We found that context manipulation impacted responsibility and blame attribution in both groups and that experts’ reported willingness to help was higher and less influenced by context, compared to novices. Partial correlation networks highlighted a negative relationship between blame attribution and willingness to help in novices, but not in expert practitioners. Self-reported willingness to help was correlated to reaction times when approaching suffering stimuli. Approach behaviour was modulated by context in novice, but not in experts. This study provides initial evidence of a dissociation between moral attributions and prosocial attitude in expert Buddhist practitioners and challenges established evolutionary accounts of compassion in western psychology.

show abstract

“…The key to the distinction is indeed the degree and form of suffering included within each scenario, as evidenced in the higher scores of suffering in the compassion compared to the kindness scenarios. So our data highlights the fact that compassion is indeed thought of differently to kindness (Baránková et al 2019;Dalai Lama 1995Strauss et al 2016).When helpful acts are aimed to reduce or ameliorate suffering, people are more likely to conceptualise them as compassionate acts (Feldman and Kuyken 2011). Importantly, not only do individuals distinguish between kindness and compassionate behaviours, but they ascribe significantly different emotional patterns to them as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

Differences in the Semantics of Prosocial Words: an Exploration of Compassion and Kindness

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The study of prosocial behaviour has accelerated greatly in the last 20 years. Researchers are exploring different domains of prosocial behaviour such as compassion, kindness, caring, cooperation, empathy, sympathy, love, altruism and morality. While these constructs can overlap, and are sometimes used interchangeably, they also have distinctive features that require careful elucidation. This paper discusses some of the controversies and complexities of describing different (prosocial) mental states, followed by a study investigating the differences between two related prosocial concepts: compassion and kindness. Methods For the study, a scenario-based questionnaire was developed to assess the degree to which a student (N = 222) and a community (N = 112) sample judged scenarios in terms of compassion or kindness. Subsequently, participants rated emotions (e.g. sadness, anxiety, anger, disgust, joy) associated with each scenario. Results Both groups clearly distinguished kindness from compassion in the scenarios on the basis of suffering. In addition, participants rated compassion-based scenarios as significantly higher on sadness, anger, anxiety and disgust, whereas kindnessbased scenarios had higher levels of joy. As a follow-up, a further sample (29 male, 63 female) also rated compassionate scenarios as involving significantly more suffering compared to the kindness scenarios. Conclusions Although overlapping concepts, compassion and kindness are clearly understood as different processes with different foci, competencies and emotion textures. This has implications for research in prosocial behaviour, and the cultivation of kindness and compassion for psychotherapy and in general.

show abstract

Non-expert views of compassion: consensual qualitative research using focus groups

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

Ready to help, no matter what you did: Responsibility attribution does not influence compassion in expert Buddhist practitioners.

Ready to help, no matter what you did: Responsibility attribution does not influence compassion in expert Buddhist practitioners.

Ready to help, no matter what you did: responsibility attribution does not influence compassion in expert Buddhist practitioners

Differences in the Semantics of Prosocial Words: an Exploration of Compassion and Kindness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About