Compassion for self versus other: A critical review of compassion training research

Pub Date : 2020-08-27 DOI:10.1080/17439760.2020.1805502
Jordan T. Quaglia, A. Soisson, J. Simmer-Brown
{"title":"Compassion for self versus other: A critical review of compassion training research","authors":"Jordan T. Quaglia, A. Soisson, J. Simmer-Brown","doi":"10.1080/17439760.2020.1805502","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT There is rapidly growing interest in Western compassion trainings that rely especially on traditional Buddhist practices. This growing body of research distinguishes between two distinct compassion constructs, namely self-compassion versus other-oriented compassion (hereafter, other-compassion). However, the Buddhist traditions from which most studied compassion practices derive emphasize the relevance of compassion for breaking down artificial barriers between self and other. We therefore conducted a comprehensive review of 94 randomized controlled trials on compassion training, examining how the dualistic division of compassion (into self- versus other-compassion) has shaped compassion training research to date. Our review finds patterns both consistent (e.g. a disproportionate focus on the self-oriented benefits of compassion trainings) and inconsistent (e.g. particular pairings of self-other emphasis across training and outcome) with the dualistic division of compassion. Overall, findings reveal the need for more research on social benefits of self- and other-compassion training, as well as less dualistic approaches to compassion.","PeriodicalId":75106,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2020.1805502","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

ABSTRACT There is rapidly growing interest in Western compassion trainings that rely especially on traditional Buddhist practices. This growing body of research distinguishes between two distinct compassion constructs, namely self-compassion versus other-oriented compassion (hereafter, other-compassion). However, the Buddhist traditions from which most studied compassion practices derive emphasize the relevance of compassion for breaking down artificial barriers between self and other. We therefore conducted a comprehensive review of 94 randomized controlled trials on compassion training, examining how the dualistic division of compassion (into self- versus other-compassion) has shaped compassion training research to date. Our review finds patterns both consistent (e.g. a disproportionate focus on the self-oriented benefits of compassion trainings) and inconsistent (e.g. particular pairings of self-other emphasis across training and outcome) with the dualistic division of compassion. Overall, findings reveal the need for more research on social benefits of self- and other-compassion training, as well as less dualistic approaches to compassion.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
同情自我与同情他人:对同情训练研究的批判性回顾
西方的慈悲训练尤其依赖传统的佛教修行,人们对这种训练的兴趣正迅速增长。越来越多的研究区分了两种不同的同情结构,即自我同情和他人导向的同情(以下简称“他人同情”)。然而,大多数研究同情实践的佛教传统强调同情与打破自我与他人之间人为障碍的相关性。因此,我们对94项关于同情训练的随机对照试验进行了全面的回顾,研究了同情心的二元划分(分为自我同情和他人同情)如何影响了迄今为止的同情训练研究。我们的研究发现,在同情心的二元划分中,既有一致的模式(例如,过分强调同情训练的自我导向利益),也有不一致的模式(例如,在训练和结果中强调自我-他人的特殊配对)。总的来说,研究结果表明,需要对自我和他人同情训练的社会效益进行更多的研究,以及减少对同情的二元方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1