↓ Skip to main content

The limited prosocial effects of meditation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Scientific Reports, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
37 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
460 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
3 Redditors

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
195 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
The limited prosocial effects of meditation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Scientific Reports, February 2018
DOI 10.1038/s41598-018-20299-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ute Kreplin, Miguel Farias, Inti A. Brazil

Abstract

Many individuals believe that meditation has the capacity to not only alleviate mental-illness but to improve prosociality. This article systematically reviewed and meta-analysed the effects of meditation interventions on prosociality in randomized controlled trials of healthy adults. Five types of social behaviours were identified: compassion, empathy, aggression, connectedness and prejudice. Although we found a moderate increase in prosociality following meditation, further analysis indicated that this effect was qualified by two factors: type of prosociality and methodological quality. Meditation interventions had an effect on compassion and empathy, but not on aggression, connectedness or prejudice. We further found that compassion levels only increased under two conditions: when the teacher in the meditation intervention was a co-author in the published study; and when the study employed a passive (waiting list) control group but not an active one. Contrary to popular beliefs that meditation will lead to prosocial changes, the results of this meta-analysis showed that the effects of meditation on prosociality were qualified by the type of prosociality and methodological quality of the study. We conclude by highlighting a number of biases and theoretical problems that need addressing to improve quality of research in this area.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 460 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 195 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 195 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 49 25%
Student > Master 27 14%
Unspecified 24 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 10%
Researcher 18 9%
Other 58 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 82 42%
Unspecified 41 21%
Neuroscience 16 8%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 4%
Other 36 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 657. 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 11 September 2019.
All research outputs
#9,557
of 13,528,068 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#169
of 66,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#547
of 348,472 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#1
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,528,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 66,036 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 348,472 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.