幸福悖论:比较亲社会干预和自我亲善干预对心理健康的益处。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Emotion Pub Date : 2024-11-11 DOI:10.1037/emo0001460
Maria E Naclerio, Lee Lazar, Erica A Hornstein, Naomi I Eisenberger
{"title":"幸福悖论:比较亲社会干预和自我亲善干预对心理健康的益处。","authors":"Maria E Naclerio, Lee Lazar, Erica A Hornstein, Naomi I Eisenberger","doi":"10.1037/emo0001460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A growing body of literature supports the idea that prosocial behavior, or behavior done on behalf of another person, is beneficial to well-being. However, modern society often places a greater emphasis on self-care or \"treating yourself\" in the pursuit of well-being. To understand the effects of these differing forms of kindness (to others or the self), we conducted a 2-week intervention study in December 2020. Participants (<i>N</i> = 999) were randomly assigned to an other-kindness, self-kindness, or control condition. Participants in the other- and self-kindness groups were asked to perform three acts of kindness each week, while participants in the control condition were not. Of those who completed the intervention (<i>N</i> = 781), we found that participants in the other-kindness (vs. self-kindness and control) group experienced significant decreases in depression, anxiety, and loneliness from pre- to postintervention, offering compelling evidence for the mental health benefits of prosocial behavior. Unexpectedly, we also found that participants in the self-kindness (vs. other-kindness and control) group experienced significant increases in depression and anxiety. While the self-kindness group reported enjoying their acts of kindness more, the other-kindness group felt more connected. Overall, these findings reaffirm the benefits of prosocial behavior on well-being and suggest that self-kindness might not be as positive as it feels. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48417,"journal":{"name":"Emotion","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The well-being paradox: Comparing prosocial and self-kindness interventions for mental health benefits.\",\"authors\":\"Maria E Naclerio, Lee Lazar, Erica A Hornstein, Naomi I Eisenberger\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/emo0001460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A growing body of literature supports the idea that prosocial behavior, or behavior done on behalf of another person, is beneficial to well-being. However, modern society often places a greater emphasis on self-care or \\\"treating yourself\\\" in the pursuit of well-being. To understand the effects of these differing forms of kindness (to others or the self), we conducted a 2-week intervention study in December 2020. Participants (<i>N</i> = 999) were randomly assigned to an other-kindness, self-kindness, or control condition. Participants in the other- and self-kindness groups were asked to perform three acts of kindness each week, while participants in the control condition were not. Of those who completed the intervention (<i>N</i> = 781), we found that participants in the other-kindness (vs. self-kindness and control) group experienced significant decreases in depression, anxiety, and loneliness from pre- to postintervention, offering compelling evidence for the mental health benefits of prosocial behavior. Unexpectedly, we also found that participants in the self-kindness (vs. other-kindness and control) group experienced significant increases in depression and anxiety. While the self-kindness group reported enjoying their acts of kindness more, the other-kindness group felt more connected. Overall, these findings reaffirm the benefits of prosocial behavior on well-being and suggest that self-kindness might not be as positive as it feels. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48417,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emotion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emotion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001460\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001460","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的文献支持这样一种观点,即亲社会行为或为他人着想的行为有益于身心健康。然而,现代社会在追求幸福的过程中往往更强调自我保健或 "善待自己"。为了了解这些不同形式的善意(对他人或对自己)的影响,我们在 2020 年 12 月进行了一项为期两周的干预研究。参与者(N = 999)被随机分配到 "善待他人"、"善待自己 "或对照组。善待他人组和善待自己组的参与者被要求每周做三件善事,而对照组的参与者则不被要求这样做。在完成干预的参与者(781 人)中,我们发现,从干预前到干预后,善待他人组(与善待自己组和对照组相比)的参与者在抑郁、焦虑和孤独感方面都有显著下降,这为亲社会行为对心理健康的益处提供了令人信服的证据。意想不到的是,我们还发现,自我友善组(与他人友善组和对照组相比)的参与者抑郁和焦虑程度明显增加。自我善待组的参与者表示更享受他们的善举,而他人善待组的参与者则感觉与他人的联系更紧密。总之,这些研究结果再次证实了亲社会行为对幸福感的益处,并表明自我善待可能并不像人们感觉的那样积极。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The well-being paradox: Comparing prosocial and self-kindness interventions for mental health benefits.

A growing body of literature supports the idea that prosocial behavior, or behavior done on behalf of another person, is beneficial to well-being. However, modern society often places a greater emphasis on self-care or "treating yourself" in the pursuit of well-being. To understand the effects of these differing forms of kindness (to others or the self), we conducted a 2-week intervention study in December 2020. Participants (N = 999) were randomly assigned to an other-kindness, self-kindness, or control condition. Participants in the other- and self-kindness groups were asked to perform three acts of kindness each week, while participants in the control condition were not. Of those who completed the intervention (N = 781), we found that participants in the other-kindness (vs. self-kindness and control) group experienced significant decreases in depression, anxiety, and loneliness from pre- to postintervention, offering compelling evidence for the mental health benefits of prosocial behavior. Unexpectedly, we also found that participants in the self-kindness (vs. other-kindness and control) group experienced significant increases in depression and anxiety. While the self-kindness group reported enjoying their acts of kindness more, the other-kindness group felt more connected. Overall, these findings reaffirm the benefits of prosocial behavior on well-being and suggest that self-kindness might not be as positive as it feels. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Emotion
Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
8.40
自引率
7.10%
发文量
325
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Emotion publishes significant contributions to the study of emotion from a wide range of theoretical traditions and research domains. The journal includes articles that advance knowledge and theory about all aspects of emotional processes, including reports of substantial empirical studies, scholarly reviews, and major theoretical articles. Submissions from all domains of emotion research are encouraged, including studies focusing on cultural, social, temperament and personality, cognitive, developmental, health, or biological variables that affect or are affected by emotional functioning. Both laboratory and field studies are appropriate for the journal, as are neuroimaging studies of emotional processes.
期刊最新文献
Mindfulness training fosters a positive outlook during acute stress: A randomized controlled trial. The many faces of mimicry depend on the social context. Loneliness and emotion regulation: A meta-analytic review. Regulating and emerging: Extrinsic affect improvement and the emergence of leadership. Learning to suppress what I fear.
×
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