A school intervention promotes compassion,empathy and social relationships in children

Abstract

There is increasing evidence to show that compassion and altruism are highly beneficial when cultivated from an early age. In the present study we explore the benefits of an intervention programme that seeks to develop affective empathy, compassion and altruism in 9-year-old children from a school of Buenos Aires, Argentina. A pretest-posttest controlled study was carried out with 48 children, half of whom carried out the intervention. The remaining children, who constituted the waitlist group, participated in academic tutoring activities conducted by the same research team. The intervention was successful in promoting children's altruistic and compassionate attitudes, evidenced by the results obtained in the universal altruism test, social integration, and affective response. Effect sizes ranged from medium to large in the intervention group. These positive findings were not observed in the waitlist group (non-significant effect sizes). This study shows that children's self-awareness and awareness of others tend to foster compassion and affective empathy, contributing to individual and collective well-being.

Keywords

Affective empathy altruism children compassion social integration

Introduction

Growing evidence suggests the need to foster caring behaviours like affection and compassion within educational contexts to alleviate psychological suffering (e.g., Potvin et al., 2022). Present day schools are plagued by severe social conflicts such as exclusion, bullying, violence, depression, loneliness, anxiety and attentional disorders (e.g., Moyano et al., 2019). This context affects social relationships in educational settings, compromising children's health and wellbeing. For this reason, the cultivation of socio-emotional skills like empathy, compassion and altruism during childhood is becoming increasingly important, and promising results have been achieved by mind–body integration programmes (e.g., Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Estévez López et al., 2009; Flook et al., 2015; Lozada et al., 2014a, 2017). The purpose of this research seeks to evaluate whether a compassionate-based-intervention promotes social integration, affective empathy and altruistic attitudes in primary school children from Argentina.

Review of terms

Empathy

Empathy has been defined as the capacity to feel and understand other people's emotions (Decety & Meyer, 2008; Decety et al., 2016). From an embodied-enactive perspective, empathy is the ability to resonate with another person by putting oneself in their place, overriding self-centeredness (e.g., Decety, 2010; Depraz et al., 2003). Empathy involves affective and cognitive dimensions (e.g., Singer & Klimecki, 2014). Cognitive empathy refers to the capacity to understand others’ thoughts and feelings without getting emotionally involved, whereas affective empathy involves feeling the emotion that another person is experiencing (e.g., Batson & Ahmad, 2001; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2017). In recognition of the suffering of others, young children tend to show the affective rather than the cognitive component of empathy (Hoffman, 1996; McDonald & Messinger, 2011).

Compassion and altruism

It has been proposed that altruism is a human capacity that can benefit both the helper and the person being helped (Lozada et al., 2011). Compassion and altruism, associated with affective empathy, require more than just feeling others’ emotions. Altruism involves the intention to benefit others and compassion can be defined as the intention to relieve others’ suffering (e.g., Halifax, 2012; Singer & Klimecki, 2014). Compassionate acts require emotional balance on the part of the person feeling compassion in order to counteract possible psychological distress. The serenity that emerges from emotional regulation tends to foster compassion and altruism (e.g., Porges, 2017).

Social integration

Peer social relationships are crucial to a child's healthy development (Eccles, 1999; Vanaelst et al., 2012). Several studies have shown that negative social interactions can significantly affect their health and wellbeing (e.g., Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Lozada et al., 2014a, 2017; Ponzi et al., 2016; Vanaelst et al., 2012). We consider social integration to be a parameter that indicates the diversity and richness of social bonds and illustrates the degree to which a student feels integrated into their school peer group (Moyano et al., 2019).

Review of interventions

Previous studies have revealed that empathy is a key factor for the development of compassion and healthy interpersonal relationships (e.g., Decety et al., 2016; Eisenberg, 2002; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011). Altruistic behaviour is highly affected by social contexts (e.g., Carro et al., 2020; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Lozada et al., 2014b, 2017; Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005, 2017), and environments that promote perspective-taking can foster the development of this human ability (e.g., Batson et al., 1988). Several studies have shown that empathy, compassion and altruism are strongly interrelated, and can improve social integration, cognitive function and general wellness in children (e.g., Carro et al., 2020, 2021, 2022; Flook et al., 2015; Lozada et al., 2014a, 2014b, 2017; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Schonert-Reichl et al., 2015; Spinrad & Gal, 2018). In particular, the positive effect of altruistic acts on the immune system and psycho-physiological wellbeing of the helper has been demonstrated (e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Cohen & Janicki-Deverts, 2009; Kok & Fredrickson, 2010; Maratos & Sheffield, 2020). All this evidence highlights the behavioural plasticity of these vital social skills, and therefore the value of promoting their development in early childhood.

Interventions to foster altruism and compassion in children have been conducted mainly in developed countries (Perkins et al., 2022). Previous research has shown that empathic concern, compassion and altruism can be encouraged through the implementation of the Kindness curriculum, cognitively based compassion training (CBCT) programmes, and prosocial embodied activities (e.g., Carro et al., 2020; Flook et al., 2015; Kirby et al., 2017; Lozada et al., 2014a; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011). For example, interventions based on the Kindness Curriculum performed over 12 weeks favoured self-regulation and altruism in preschool children (e.g., Flook et al., 2015). In other studies, prosocial-based interventions contributed to the enhancement of altruistic attitudes, while reducing chronic stress (Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Lozada et al., 2014b, 2017). Moreover, CBCT has been effective in fostering compassion towards others (e.g., Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Reddy et al., 2013). These studies have shown that the promotion of empathy, altruism and compassion in children is most effectively achieved by the implementation of compassionate-based interventions together with mindfulness practices, rather than with mindfulness interventions alone (Cheang et al., 2019). These two factors were taken into consideration in this study, which involved a compassion-based intervention suitable for children inhabiting a large city in a developing country.

The polyvagal theory (e.g., Porges, 2017) proposes that interventions that encourage secure, affective, kind and non-judgmental experiences promote empathetic and compassionate attitudes towards peers. Feeling secure promotes social engagement, whereas feeling threatened elicits defensive behaviour. Safe social contexts favour inner connectedness and connectedness with others, nurturing healthy interpersonal interactions and strengthening compassion and altruism (Porges, 2017).

Description of the present study

We developed an intervention designed to cultivate warm feelings towards oneself and others. Inspired by previous studies that began to analyse the effects of promoting empathy, altruism and compassion in children (Perkins et al., 2022), in the current intervention we included 4 types of activities: (a) mindful awareness, to strengthen the ability to focus on the present moment, (b) affective empathy, to foster self-affection and feelings of warmth and benevolence towards others, (c) cognitive empathy, to strengthen the participants’ ability to recognize that their own perspective might be different from that of others and (d) kindness and compassion, to develop social skills by proposing tasks related to helping others. In the present study, we evaluated the impact of this intervention on empathy, altruism and social integration in 9-year-old children from a school in Argentina, a developing country. We hypothesized that after participating in the intervention, children would show higher levels of the above-mentioned social skills, whereas these changes would not be observed in children from the waitlist group.

Methods

Participants

The current study, which followed a quasi-experimental design with randomization of group assignment, involved 48 children (9–10 years old) who attended a private school in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Two fourth grade groups (from the same school but with different teachers) were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (N = 26, 16 girls and 10 boys) or the waitlist group (control; N = 22, 13 girls and 9 boys). That is, fourth grade A was the Intervention group and fourth grade B the waitlist group. There were no children with learning disorders and/or psychiatric concerns in either grade.

It is worth noting that since one of the aims of our study was to work on group dynamics and social integration, a previously established school class constituted our intervention group. This semi-randomized procedure has also been used in previous investigations, where similar interventions achieved improvements in social relationships within a group of peers (e.g., Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Fuentes et al., 2018a, 2013b; Lozada et al., 2014a). Thus, the fact that we focused on improving social skills in a group of classmates already interacting together precluded the use of a randomized sample. The study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee (CEIC) and was performed according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. The intervention activities were first explained to parents and school authorities, who all gave their informed consent. Furthermore, the children voluntarily agreed to participate, and were free to stop doing the activities if they so desired. The data were kept under conditions of anonymity and confidentiality.

Research procedure

The classroom teacher and two child psychologists from the research team carried out the programme during 10 weeks in the intervention and the wait-list groups. The classroom teachers played a key role, as they sustained the programme from week to week through daily implementation of the learned tasks and activities.

Waitlist group (Control group)

In this group the programme sought to develop learning strategies and study skills through academic tutoring, focusing primarily on fostering autonomous learning, effective study habits and reading comprehension strategies.

Intervention group

In this group the programme sought to foster empathy and compassion, through the practice of two nodal exercises: Connecting Pairs and Loving Kindness Meditation (LKM) (Figure 1) – performed on a daily basis throughout the entire programme.

Figure 1.

Two core exercises carried out daily: loving kindness meditation and connecting pairs.

Intervention

The intervention consisted of 10 sessions carried out in 50-min weekly encounters that took place within the school day. The programme was inspired by the Kindness curriculum and CBCT interventions (e.g., Flook et al., 2015; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011) but recreated by the researchers for the Argentinian population being studied, using storytelling books and imagery exercises, which were supported by visual, graphic and audio material as well as music, stories and role-play activities, as described below.

The intervention consisted of four lines of work: (1) Mindful awareness and emotional regulation, (2)1 affective empathy, (3) cognitive empathy, and (4) compassionate acts.

(1). Mindful awareness and emotional regulation. This aspect of the intervention, carried out at the beginning of each session, aimed to promote the ability to focus on the present moment, emotional regulation and interoceptive awareness (awareness of bodily sensations). Participants were invited to concentrate on their own breathing, to develop mindful awareness. They were guided to perceive their thoughts and their bodily sensations (interoception). At this point we intended to control the “monkey mind” (i.e., the wandering non-present mind), by trying to focus on a specific activity and be aware of when the mind wandered and interfered with the task.

After the second encounter, children were invited to perform LKM, a practice that promotes a state of unconditional kindness and compassion toward all beings (e.g., Fredrickson et al., 2008; Hofmann et al., 2011). This meditation cultivates feelings of unconditional love, affection and empathy, focusing on the progressive expression of friendly wishes, from close relationships to all humanity.

Other activities in this part of the intervention included storytelling and imagery exercises, supported by visual, graphic and audio material as well as music, stories and role-play activities, such as “How full is your bucket” by Tom Rath and Mary Reckmeyer, “The invisible boy” by Trudy Ludwig, “I wish you more” by Amy Krouse Rosenthal and Tom Lichtenheld and “The golden rule” by Ilene Cooper, in addition to developing kindness awareness programmes at school, garlands of gratitude, etc.

(2). Affective empathy (Opening our hearts). The goal of this aspect was to foster self-affection and feelings of warmth and benevolence toward others, by accepting difficult emotions, cultivating gratitude and resonating with others’ pain. We aimed to develop the ability to “read” the emotions of others by evaluating their facial microexpressions. Furthermore, context reading was promoted by paying special attention to the kind of information provided by contextual cues when faces were not seen. We used the metaphor of the detective to motivate the children to become good ‘investigators’ and identify their own and others’ emotions. Children were taught that every emotion has a meaning and expresses a message that is important to understand if we are to connect meaningfully with others.

Along the same lines, the value of emotions was explored by attempting to recognize the underlying needs they expressed. Affective empathy was fostered through empathic listening in order to connect with the emotions of others, while overriding self-centeredness. The Affective Connecting Pairs (ACP) component was the core exercise of this line of work: the children were asked to work in pairs previously assigned by the research team, considering the positive and negative elections of the group's pre-test sociogram (described below). At the start of this intervention the children were asked to play with their chosen peers (positive elections), and towards the end they were paired up with their non-chosen peers (negative elections). During the ACP exercise children were invited to share ‘white pearls’ of gratitude: the gestures of others that we feel grateful for, and ‘black pearls’, the gestures that hurt them or made them suffer. Each child took turns to share a white and a black pearl, while the partner listened empathically. ACP time took place for five minutes every day, guided by the teacher, as one of the core activities of the intervention.

(3). Cognitive empathy (Understanding others’ thoughts). The goal of this aspect was to favour metacognition skills by considering other people's points of view as well as the participants’ own, strengthening their ability to recognize that their own perspective might be different from that of others. They were invited to try to understand others’ thoughts, motives and feelings, even when these were very different from their own. This was achieved through the Perspective Connecting Pairs activity, in which each pair was given a set of cards with different characters and situations. By taking turns, each child was invited to share what the different characters might be thinking, while the partner listened empathically. The aim was to help children appreciate alternative points of view, under the premise: ‘My point of view is just one of many’. This activity, conducted for 5 minutes on a daily basis and guided by the classroom teacher, was carried out after the ACP. Both empathic instances therefore constituted the connecting pair time, a core activity of the intervention (Figure 1).

(4). Acts of kindness and compassion (Compassion kid-t): The fourth aspect focused on kindness and compassionate acts. The goal was to develop social skills by proposing tasks related to helping others (i.e., how would you help someone in need or with certain difficulties). Each session included stories and poems which exemplified acts of kindness that favoured the development of a loving disposition towards the suffering of others. This was the most thorough line of work and took place over 4 weeks. We first focused on acts of kindness and then shifted towards compassionate acts (i.e., moving away from: ‘Who did something good to me this week?’, to ‘Who did something good to someone suffering?’). Impartiality and equanimity skills were also worked on at this point. As people tend to be kinder to their loved ones, we sought to develop the aforementioned qualities towards others, which involved a true compassionate attitude (mental disposition). To this end, we proposed tasks of increasing difficulty, progressing from kindness to a dear friend to kindness to someone in need.

It is noteworthy that throughout the programme LKM and Connecting Pairs (Pearls and Cards) were carried out daily by the teacher (Figure 1).

Furthermore, the level of difficulty of the activities and tasks increased progressively throughout the programme. For example, at first children were grouped with the peers they chose to play with, while later they were grouped with children they had less affinity with. This was achieved by letting the children spontaneously group together at the beginning and then pairing them up later with their non-chosen peers.

Measurement/assessment

Before and after the intervention, children from both the experimental and control groups were individually invited by a psychologist from the research team to complete the questionnaires described below. These were administered at school in the Spanish language, and lasted approximately 15 min. The questionnaires were designed to shed light on the participants altruistic behaviour, affective empathy and social integration, which were estimated through the following dependent variables: universal altruism test, affective response, and social preference index, as detailed below.

Altruistic behaviour was assessed by means of the Universal Altruism test, an adaptation of the Dictator Game (e.g., Avinun et al., 2011), in which students had to make a decision in order to benefit unknown children. The children received 10 pieces of candy and were given the following choice: they could place as many as they desired in a box for hospitalized children or keep them all for themselves. This single-trail pre- and post-intervention task was conducted under confidential conditions, each child performing the task without being observed (by their peers or the researcher). The total number of candies donated by each group was compared before and after the intervention. This test, which consists of a single question, was previously performed in Carro et al. (2020) and proved to be valid for Argentine children of this age group.

Social integration within each group was evaluated by means of a Sociogram (Moreno, 1972). In this Sociometric Questionnaire children were asked to list peers they would choose to play with and those they would not. Playmate choice during childhood encompasses reciprocity and pro-sociality (Garaigordobil, 2005), and is a valid methodology for assessing peer acceptance (e.g., Oberle, 2018; Wentzel et al., 2004). This questionnaire, which has been found to have test–retest reliability (e.g., Kalfus & Berler, 1985), was administered pre and post-intervention in both groups. Variations in the number of chosen (i.e., positive elections) and non-chosen peers (i.e., negative elections) illustrate differences in the social preference pattern for each participant. This pattern of social relationships was compared before and after the intervention by means of the Social Preference index, which subtracts the number of peers not chosen to play with from the ones who were chosen. This methodology, widely used to assess social relationships in children, consists of spontaneously answered questions that capture social relationship dynamics between peers and can be used as an indicator of social integration within a group. Sociograms are widely applied to assess social relationships within a group of children (Carro et al., 2022; Fuentes et al., 2018a, 2018b; Lozada et al., 2014b). This sociometric instrument depicts the intricacy of social links, reflecting the structure and patterns of interpersonal relationships in a group (Moreno, 1972). In educational contexts, social interrelationships have been extensively explored and interpreted through this valuable tool (Carro et al., 2022; Fuentes et al., 2018a, 2018b; Lozada et al., 2014b).

We evaluated the children's Affective empathy by means of the Affective Response dimension extracted from the Multidimensional Scale of Empathy, a scale adapted for 9- to 12-year-old Argentine children. This scale assesses the predisposition of an individual to resonate with others’ emotions and was addressed by the following questions: (a) ‘When I see someone crying, I feel like crying myself’; (b) ‘When I see someone dancing, I feel like moving my feet’; (c) ‘When I am with someone who is sad, I also feel sad’. Participants had to indicate their agreement with each item on a scale with four options (i.e., always, often, sometimes and never). This scale showed good validity and reliability: the McDonald's omega of this dimension was 0.714 for the experimental group, and 0.78 for the control group.

Statistics

We conducted intraindividual paired comparisons, because we were interested in evaluating pre- post-intervention changes per child. In this way, we intended to go beyond interpersonal variability, which is particularly relevant for small samples. We thus precluded the effect of potential differences in initial values between groups.

Normal distribution was evaluated by means of the Shapiro Wilk test. The Wilcoxon matched pair test was used for evaluating pre-post changes for non-normal data sets, while the paired t test was used when data followed a normal distribution. The IBM SPSS Statistics 23 programme was used for statistical analysis.

Cohen's d was calculated as a measure of effect size. The effect size provides additional information about the magnitude of the differences observed while statistical significance reports the existence of a significant effect. However P value does not show the size of the effect (Sullivan & Feinn, 2012). Therefore, this quantitative measure estimates the magnitude of the intervention effect (i.e, a larger effect size indicates a greater effect), since it compares effects not biased by the sample size.

Results

Most of the data followed a non-normal distribution, except for the Social Preference Index of the intervention group (Table 1).

Table 1.

Normality test values for data set.

	Shapiro Wilk Test
	Statistic	df	p- value
Affective Response Intervention Group	0.91	25	.03*
Affective Response Control Group	0.89	25	.01*
Universal Altruism Intervention Group	0.72	25	.00*
Universal Altruism Intervention Group	0.79	23	.00*
Social Preference Intervention Group	0.94	25	.17
Social Preference Control Group	0.91	23	.05*

After the intervention, significant changes in every parameter were detected in the intervention group. The results obtained from the pre-post intervention comparison of the Universal Altruism test showed a significant increase (70%) in the children who took part in the programme (p = .031). In contrast, no significant changes were found in the control group (p = .7) (Figure 2). Cohen's d test was 0.73 for the experimental group, showing a large effect, while d = 0.1 for the control group, showing no effect. Thus, participants shared significantly more candies at the end of the intervention, expressing greater compassion for hospitalized children who were completely unknown to them. Moreover, children from the intervention group displayed a greater Affective Response at the end of the intervention (p = .05) (Table 2), a pattern not observed in the children from the control group (p = .26). This empathic concern dimension suggests caring resonance with the emotions of others. Effect size was medium for the experimental group (Cohen's d = 0.5) and small for the control group (d = 0.36).

Figure 2.

Pre- and post-intervention comparisons of the Universal Altruism test results for the intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG). Effect size for Universal Altruism was large for the IG (d = 0.73), while it was non-significant for the CG (d = 0.1).

Table 2.

Mean values (±SE) of affective response, altruism test and social preference index pre-and post-intervention for both the experimental and control groups. Wilcoxon p-value.

	PRE	POST	p-value
Affective response
Intervention group	6.7 (0.48)	7.5 (0.37)	.05*
Control group	10.2 (0.32)	10.8 (0.28)	.26
Altruism test
Intervention group	1.36 (0.34)	2.32 (0.55)	.03*
Control group	2.48 (0.48)	2.61 (0.55)	.7
Social preference
Intervention group	4.24 (0.87)	6.08 (0.93)	.02*
Control group	3.43 (0.62)	3.39 (0.61)	.95

Interestingly, after the intervention a significant increase (43.3%) in the social preference index (paired t test −2.22; p = .022) was detected in the children who took part in the activities. This indicates that fewer children were rejected while more were chosen as playmates. Conversely, this trend was not observed in the control group, whose pattern of social relationships did not change substantially (Wilcoxon p = .95) (Figure 3). The effect size, indexed by Cohen's d test was medium for the experimental group (d = 0.50) while no effect was found for the control group (d = 0.02).

Figure 3.

Pre- and post-intervention comparisons of the social preference index (SPI) for the intervention group (IG) and the control group (CG). Effect size was medium for the IG (d = 0.50) while no effect was found for the CG (d = 0.02).

Discussion

This study shows that a long-term school intervention that sought to cultivate mindful awareness, emotional regulation, empathic concern, and acts of kindness and compassion promoted universal altruism and affective responses. Moreover, social integration was also enhanced within the group that took part in the programme. Thus, our intervention fostered compassionate attitudes in the participants, since their intention to alleviate the suffering of unknown hospitalized children was greatly increased, as were their positive emotions and affective empathy. In contrast, these changes were not observed in the waitlist group. Our findings indicate that when children are given the opportunity to develop self-awareness and awareness of others in a socio-affective and socio-cognitive context, feelings of compassion and caring emerge. In other words, consciousness of shared humanity could have contributed to the emergence of compassion. An overall positive affective resonance is therefore nurtured, and healthy social relationships are strengthened.

The mindfulness practices carried out at the beginning of each session have shown to play a significant role in the promotion of serenity and appeasement, as reported in other studies (e.g., Dambrun et al., 2019; Nadler et al., 2017; Wisner, 2014). This is in line with the Polyvagal Theory, which proposes that physiological states of calmness are crucial for experiencing compassion and social engagement (Porges, 2017). Furthermore, this theory posits that prosocial behaviour is influenced by vagal pathways involved in the stress response (Porges, 2017). In addition to encouraging calmness and serenity, the intervention focused on developing equanimity and impartiality, thus compassionate attitudes were enhanced, which in turn contributed to greater social integration. This was also evidenced by the fact that after the intervention participants were more prone to sharing their goods with children in need who were unknown to them. The condition of anonymity under which the intervention was conducted precluded any possible external pressure which might have influenced children's decision making, thereby highlighting the emergence of their intrinsic altruistic motivation. Compassion and altruism entail feelings of warmth and concern for others in need and willingness and action to help them (Gu et al., 2017; Halifax, 2012; Lozada et al., 2011; Singer & Klimecki, 2014). Interestingly, these human virtues display great behavioural plasticity during childhood, as shown in several investigations (Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Flook et al., 2015; Lozada et al., 2014a; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Warneken & Tomasello, 2009).

An increase in the affective empathic response, described as the capacity to perceive and share the emotions of others, was observed. This finding suggests that socio-emotional skills were enhanced through the intervention. It has been proposed that young children tend to express affective empathy, as they intend to comfort those who are suffering, rather than exhibit more detached ways of understanding others’ emotions and thoughts (Hoffman, 1996; McDonald & Messinger, 2011). Our results are in line with this developmental tendency to empathize since affective empathy was promoted by the intervention. This affective attunement with others has been associated with compassion (e.g., Halifax, 2012; Porges, 2017) and may have contributed to the increase observed in the social integration of the group of classmates after the intervention. Accordingly, previous studies have proposed that compassion and empathy result in deeper and more positive social bonds (e.g., Decety et al., 2016; Post, 2005).

Moreover, the lack of pre-post variation recorded in the waitlist group supports the possibility that the changes observed in the intervention group can be attributed to participation in the programme. However, it is noteworthy that although social preference rates were similar in both groups, the experimental group began the intervention with lower Universal Altruism and Affective Response values than the waitlist group. This might be due to group characteristics that are beyond our control, for example a certain group might evidence healthier relationships than another one. Despite this limitation, our aim was to compare pre-post changes in each individual, thus lessening the potential deviation introduced by between-person variability. The relative changes promoted during the intervention might not be affected by baseline levels. Notwithstanding, a ‘low-baseline’ effect might be possible; therefore, further research is needed to assess the benefits of this kind of intervention in a larger and more diverse sample, for example, in groups with different initial altruism and empathy levels. Since there is a lack of research involving compassion-based interventions in developing countries, this study aims to redress this situation, as it has been conducted with children living in a large city of South America. A potential limitation of the current survey might be the fact that universal altruism was measured through a single-trail pre- and post-intervention task that evaluated altruistic attitudes through a specific response which might not reflect long lasting behavioural changes. It would be interesting for future studies to include alternative measurement assessments involving tasks that could improve the methods of analysing the behavioural plasticity of this social skill.

In conclusion, the present intervention enhanced children's compassionate attitudes, evidenced by the increase found in their affective and altruistic responses, positive emotions and social integration. The safe, affective environment generated by the intervention promoted a greater sense of connectedness among participants, both with themselves and with others, which encouraged acts of kindness and compassion. These positive outcomes are in line with previous studies which reveal that when compassion and empathic concern are cultivated, significant benefits to health and wellbeing can be accrued (e.g., Brown & Brown, 2015; Carro et al., 2020, 2021; Lozada et al., 2011, 2014a, 2014b; Ozawa-de Silva & Dodson-Lavelle, 2011; Porges, 2017; Post, 2005). Within the current global post-pandemic context, in which social ties have been particularly affected (e.g., Larivière-Bastien et al., 2022), fostering social integration and empathic attitudes might be of particular importance for school psychologists. The promotion of compassion and altruism in the school environment could contribute to enhanced individual and collective psychological wellbeing.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all the children who participated in the study, and their parents and schoolteachers.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. The intervention was conducted by MK, AC and MT. Data collection and analysis were performed by MK, AC, MT, PD and ML. The first draft of the manuscript was written by PD and ML, and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National University of Comahue and National Council of Scientific and Technological Research of Argentina; Fondo para la Investigación Científica y Tecnológica, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (grant number PICT-2020-SERIEA-03363, PIP # 11220170100498C).

Ethical approval

All research procedures were performed according to the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

This includes obtaining fully informed consent from the parents of children who participated in the study.

ORCID iD

Mariana Lozada

Author biographies

Andrea Czar is a clinical psychologist. She obtained a degree in psychology and psychopedagogy. She dedicates her professional clinical practice to work with children and their families. She specializes in the design of positive interventions for children focusing on the promotion of compassion and prosocial behavior.

Paola D’Adamo is a researcher at the National Council for Scientific and Technological Research and at the National University of Comahue, in Argentina. She has a PhD in Biological Sciences. Her research topics focus on cognitive and socio-affective processes related to health and well-being.

Marcela Kappelmayer is a clinical psychologist specialized in working with children and families. Her research interest is the Design of Positive Interventions for the Cultivation of Compassionate Disposition and Prosocial Behavior in Children.

Mariana Lozada is a researcher in the National Council of Science and Technology of Argentina and the National University of Comahue. She got her PhD in neurobiology. Her research topics are linked to embodied and situated approaches of social cognition in children. She is particularly interested in enactive perspectives of cognitive science, health and wellbeing.

Maria Tresca is an educational psychologist (psychopedagogue). She completed her training at the Ramos Mejía Hospital in Buenos Aires. She is an assistant professor at Favaloro University and a postgraduate professor at San Isidro University. She leads a team that treats children with learning disabilities. Her research interests include Study Skills and Learning strategies.

References

Avinun

Israel

Shalev

Gritsenko

Bornstein

Ebstein

R. P.

Knafo

(2011). AVPR1A variant associated with preschoolers’ lower altruistic behavior. PloS ONE, 6(9), e25274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025274

Batson

C. D.

Ahmad

(2001). Empathy–induced altruism in a prisoner's dilemma II: What if the target of empathy has defected? European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 25–36. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1002/ejsp.26

Batson

C. D.

Dyck

J. L.

Brandt

J. R.

Batson

J. G.

Powell

A. L.

McMaster

M. R.

Griffitt

(1988). Five studies testing two new egoistic alternatives to the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 52–77. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.52

Brown

S. L.

Brown

R. M.

(2015). Connecting prosocial behavior to improved physical health: Contributions from the neurobiology of parenting. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 55, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.04.004

Brown

W. M.

Consedine

N. S.

Magai

(2005). Altruism relates to health in an ethnically diverse sample of older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 60(3), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/60.3.P143

Carro

D’Adamo

Lozada

(2020). An effective intervention can contribute to reducing perceived stress while promoting social integration in children. EJREP, 18(1), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.25115/ejrep.v18i50.2600

Carro

D’Adamo

Lozada

(2021). A school intervention helps decrease daily stress while enhancing social integration in children. Behavioral Medicine, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/08964289.2020.1738319

Carro

Kuperman

D’adamo

Lozada

(2022). Social relationships in children: favourable influence of activities promoting self-awareness and empathic interaction. Journal of Complex Networks, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/comnet/cnab049

Cheang

Gillions

Sparkes

(2019). Do mindfulness based interventions increase empathy and compassion in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(7), 1765–1779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01413-9

10.

Cohen

Janicki-Deverts

(2009). Can we improve our physical health by altering our social networks? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 375–378. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1745-6924.2009.01141.x

11.

Dambrun

Berniard

Didelot

Chaulet

Droit-Volet

Corman

Juneau

Martinon

L. M.

(2019). Unified consciousness and the effect of body scan meditation on happiness: Alteration of inner-body experience and feeling of harmony as central processes. Mindfulness, 10(8), 1530–1544. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1007/s12671-019-01104-y

12.

Decety

(2010). The neurodevelopment of empathy in humans. Developmental Neuroscience, 32(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1159%2F000317771

13.

Decety

Bartal

I. B. A.

Uzefovsky

Knafo-Noam

(2016). Empathy as a driver of prosocial behaviour: Highly conserved neurobehavioural mechanisms across species. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 371(1686), 20150077. https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frstb.2015.0077

14.

Decety

Meyer

(2008). From emotion resonance to empathic understanding: A social developmental neuroscience account. Development and Psychopathology, 20(4), 1053–1080. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579408000503

15.

Depraz

Varela

F. J.

Vermersch

(2003). On becoming aware: A pragmatics of experiencing (Vol. 43). John Benjamins Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.43

16.

Eccles

J. S.

(1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children, 9(2), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602703

17.

Eisenberg

(2002). Empathy-related emotional responses, altruism, and their socialization. In Davidson

R. J.

Harrington

(Eds.), Visions of compassion: Western scientists and Tibetan Buddhists examine human nature (pp. 131–164). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195130430.003.0007

18.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

(1998). Prosocial development. In Damon

Fabes

R. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 701–777). New York: Wiley.

19.

Estévez López

Martínez Ferrer

Jiménez Gutiérrez

T. I.

(2009). Las relaciones sociales en la escuela: El problema del rechazo escolar. Educational Psychology, 15(1), 45–60. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=613765489007

20.

Flook

Goldberg

S. B.

Pinger

Davidson

R. J.

(2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based kindness curriculum. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038256

21.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Cohn

M. A.

Coffey

K. A.

Pek

Finkel

S. M.

(2008). Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1045–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038256

22.

Fuentes

M. A.

Cárdenas

J. P.

Carro

Lozada

(2018a). Development and complex dynamics at school environment. Complexity, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/3963061

23.

Fuentes

M. A.

Cárdenas

J. P.

Carro

Lozada

(2018b). Social network plasticity in children. Transylvanian Review, 1(11). https://transylvanianreviewjournal.org/index.php/TR/article/view/2211

24.

Garaigordobil

(2005). Programa Juego 6-8 años. Juegos cooperativos y creativos para grupos de niños de 6 a 8 años. Madrid: Pirámide. http://hdl.handle.net/11162/61134

25.

Cavanagh

Baer

Strauss

(2017). An empirical examination of the factor structure of compassion. PLoS ONE, 12(2), e0172471. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172471

26.

Halifax

(2012). A heuristic model of enactive compassion. Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care, 6(2), 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1097/spc.0b013e3283530fbe

27.

Hoffman

M. L.

(1996). Empathy and moral development. The Annual Report of Educational Psychology in Japan, 35, 157–162. https://doi.org/10.5926/arepj1962.35.0_157

28.

Hofmann

S. G.

Grossman

Hinton

D. E.

(2011). Loving-kindness and compassion meditation: Potential for psychological interventions. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(7), 1126–1132. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.cpr.2011.07.003

29.

Kalfus

G. R.

Berler

E. S.

(1985). Test-Retest reliability of sociometric questionnaire across four grade levels. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 14(4), 345–347. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp1404_13

30.

Kirby

J. N.

Tellegen

C. L.

Steindl

S. R.

(2017). A meta-analysis of compassion-based interventions: Current state of knowledge and future directions. Behavior Therapy, 48(6), 778–792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.06.003

31.

Kok

B. E.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2010). Upward spirals of the heart: Autonomic flexibility, as indexed by vagal tone, reciprocally and prospectively predicts positive emotions and social connectedness. Biological Psychology, 85(3), 432–436. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.biopsycho.2010.09.005

32.

Larivière-Bastien

Aubuchon

Blondin

Dupont

Libenstein

Séguin

Tremblay

Zarglayoun

Herba

C. H.

Beauchamp

M. H.

(2022). Children's perspectives on friendships and socialization during the COVID–19 pandemic: A qualitative approach. Child: Care, Health and Development. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12998

33.

Lozada

Carro

D’Adamo

Barclay

(2014a). Stress management in children: A pilot study for 7-9 year olds. Journal of Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics, 35, 144–147. http://hdl.handle.net/11336/26677. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000026

34.

Lozada

Carro

Kapelmayer

Kelmanowicz

Czar

D’Adamo

(2017). Fostering positive changes in health and social relationships in children. In Proctor

(Ed.), Positive psychology interventions in practice (pp. 143–161). Springer International Publishing AG. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51787-2_9

35.

Lozada

D’Adamo

Carro

(2014b). Plasticity of altruistic behavior in children. Journal of Moral Education, 43(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057240.2013.878244

36.

Lozada

D’Adamo

Fuentes

(2011). Intrinsic benefits of human altruism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 289, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2011.08.016

37.

Maratos

F. A.

Sheffield

(2020). Brief compassion-focused imagery dampens physiological pain responses. Mindfulness, 11(12), 2730–2740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01485-5

38.

McDonald

N. M.

Messinger

D. S.

(2011). The development of empathy: How, when, and why. In Sanguineti

J. J.

Acerbi

Lombo

J. A.

(Eds.), Moral behavior and free will: A neurobiological and philosophical approach (pp. 333–359). IF-Press.

39.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2005). Attachment security, compassion, and altruism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(1), 34–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00330.x

40.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2017). An attachment perspective on compassion and altruism. In Gilbert

(Ed.), Compassion: Concepts, research and applications (pp. 187–202). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315564296-11

41.

Moreno

J. L.

(1972). Fundamentos de la sociometría. Paidós.

42.

Moyano

Ayllón

Antoñanzas

J. L.

Cano

(2019). Children’s social integration and low perception of negative relationships as protectors against bullying and cyberbullying. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 643. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00643

43.

Nadler

Cordy

Stengel

Segal

Z. V.

Hayden

E. P.

(2017). A brief mindfulness practice increases self-reported calmness in young children: A pilot study. Mindfulness, 8(4), 1088–1095. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-017-0685-2

44.

Oberle

(2018). Early adolescents’ emotional well–being in the classroom: The role of personal and contextual assets. Journal of School Health, 88(2), 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12585

45.

Ozawa-de Silva

Dodson-Lavelle

(2011). An education of heart and mind: Practical and theoretical issues in teaching cognitive-based compassion training to children. Practical Matters, 4(4), 1–28.

46.

Perkins

Sehmbi

Smith

(2022). Effects of kindness-and compassion-based meditation on wellbeing, prosociality, and cognitive functioning in children and adolescents: A systematic review. Mindfulness, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01925-4

47.

Ponzi

Muehlenbein

M. P.

Geary

D. C.

Flinn

M. V.

(2016). Cortisol, salivary alpha-amylase and children’s perceptions of their social networks. Social Neuroscience, 11(2), 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2015.1045988

48.

Porges

S. W.

(2017). Vagal pathways: Portals to compassion. In Seppälä

E. M.

Simon-Thomas

Brown

S. L.

Worline

M. C.

Cameron

C. D.

Doty

J. R.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of compassion science (pp. 189–202). Oxford University Press.

49.

Post

S. G.

(2005). Altruism, happiness, and health: It’s good to be good. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 12, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm1202_4

50.

Potvin

A. S.

Penuel

W. R.

Dimidjian

Jinpa

(2022). Cultivating skillful means of care in schools through compassion practice and individual and joint inquiry. Mindfulness, 15, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-022-01867-x

51.

Reddy

S. D.

Negi

L. T.

Dodson-Lavelle

Ozawa-de Silva

Pace

T. W. W.

Cole

S. P.

Raison

C. L.

Craighead

L. W.

(2013). Cognitive-based compassion training: A promising prevention strategy for at-risk adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22(2), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-012-9571-7

52.

Schonert-Reichl

K. A.

Oberle

Lawlor

M. S.

Abbott

Thomson

Oberlander

T. F.

Diamond

(2015). Enhancing cognitive and social–emotional development through a simple-to-administer mindfulness-based school program for elementary school children: A randomized controlled trial. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038454

53.

Singer

Klimecki

O. M.

(2014). Empathy and compassion. Current Biology, 24(18), R875–R878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.06.054

54.

Spinrad

T. L.

Gal

D. E.

(2018). Fostering prosocial behavior and empathy in young children. Current Opinion in Psychology, 20, 40–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.08.004

55.

Sullivan

G. M.

Feinn

(2012). Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 4(3), 279–282. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1

56.

Vanaelst

De Vriendt

Huybrechts

Rinaldi

De Henauw

(2012). Epidemiological approaches to measure childhood stress. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 26(3), 280–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01258.x

57.

Viglas

Perlman

(2018). Effects of a mindfulness-based program on young children’s self-regulation, prosocial behavior and hyperactivity. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(4), 1150–1161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0971-6

58.

Warneken

Tomasello

(2009). The roots of human altruism. British Journal of Psychology, 100(3), 455–471. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712608X379061

59.

Wentzel

K. R.

Barry

C. M.

Caldwell

K. A.

(2004). Friendships in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 195. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.195

60.

Wisner

B. L.

(2014). An exploratory study of mindfulness meditation for alternative school students: Perceived benefits for improving school climate and student functioning. Mindfulness, 5(6), 626–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-013-0215-9