↓ Skip to main content

Compassion meditators show less anger, less punishment, and more compensation of victims in response to fairness violations

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
39 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Compassion meditators show less anger, less punishment, and more compensation of victims in response to fairness violations
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, December 2014
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00424
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cade McCall, Nikolaus Steinbeis, Matthieu Ricard, Tania Singer

Abstract

Fairness violations elicit powerful behavioral and affective responses. Indeed, people are willing to incur costs to sanction unfair behavior. Here we study the possible impact of long-term mental training in socio-affective capacities such as compassion on altruistic punishment and compensatory behavior in economic games. To this end we recruited a group of long-term meditation practitioners (LTPs) who had engaged in an average of 40 K h of mental training exercises including compassion-related meditation, along with a group of meditation-naïve controls. Participants played several adaptations of the dictator game in which they had the opportunity to punish the dictator both when they were the recipients of the dictator's offer and when they were third-party witnesses to the dictator's treatment of an anonymous second player. Compared to controls, LTPs were less likely to punish when they were the victims of fairness violations. However, both groups punished equivalently when they witnessed others receiving unfair treatment. In post-task questionnaires, controls reported significantly more anger in response to unfair offers than LTPs, although fairness judgments did not differ between groups. These data suggest that because the LTPs were less angered by unfair treatment of themselves, they punished that behavior less. However, when they witnessed the unfair treatment of others, they engaged in norm-reinforcing punishment. Finally, when participants played an additional game which included the opportunity to recompense victims, LTPs were more likely to do so. Together these data point to differential approaches to justice whereby LTPs engaged less in vengeful, retributive justice and focused more on norm reinforcement and the restoration of equity. These differences suggest that social preferences are plastic and that altruistic responses to unfairness may be shaped by the prolonged cultivation of prosocial motivation, altruism, and compassion.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 183 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 20%
Student > Bachelor 32 17%
Student > Master 21 11%
Researcher 20 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 8%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 35 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 104 56%
Neuroscience 11 6%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 38 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,311,939
of 25,550,333 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#211
of 3,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,047
of 369,230 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#9
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,550,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,478 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 369,230 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.