Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGilbert, Paul
dc.contributor.authorBasran, Jaskaran
dc.contributor.authorMacArthur, Michael
dc.contributor.authorKirby, James N.
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-24T14:30:27Z
dc.date.available2019-10-24T14:30:27Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-02
dc.identifier.citationGilbert, P., Basran, J., MacArthur, M. and Kirby, J.N., (2019). 'Differences in the semantics of prosocial words: an exploration of compassion and kindness. Mindfulness, pp, .1-13. DOI: 10.1007/s12671-019-01191-xen_US
dc.identifier.issn18688527
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s12671-019-01191-x
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10545/624242
dc.description.abstractThe 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. 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. 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 kindness-based 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. 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.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipN/Aen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12671-019-01191-x#enumerationen_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectApplied Psychologyen_US
dc.subjectExperimental and Cognitive Psychologyen_US
dc.subjectDevelopmental and Educational Psychologyen_US
dc.subjectHealth(social science)en_US
dc.subjectSocial Psychologyen_US
dc.subjectCompassionen_US
dc.subjectLoving-Kindnessen_US
dc.subjectKindnessen_US
dc.subjectProsocialen_US
dc.subjectSufferingen_US
dc.titleDifferences in the semantics of prosocial words: an exploration of compassion and kindnessen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.eissn18688535
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Derbyen_US
dc.contributor.departmentThe University of Queenslanden_US
dc.identifier.journalMindfulnessen_US
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-05-30
refterms.dateFOA2019-10-24T14:30:28Z
dc.author.detailVchi583en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
Gilbert 2019_Article_Differences ...
Size:
351.3Kb
Format:
PDF
Description:
Main article

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International