CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 139Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCognitive Abilities and TestingPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

Differential benefits of mental training types for attention, compassion, and theory of mind

Open access
Trautwein, Fynn-Mathis, Kanske, Philipp, Böckler, Anne, Singer, Tania·2020·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104039PMC PMC6891878
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Mindfulness- and, more generally, meditation-based interventions increasingly gain popularity, effectively promoting cognitive, affective, and social capacities. It is unclear, however, if different types of practice have the same or specific effects on mental functioning. Here we tested three consecutive three-month training modules aimed at cultivating either attention, socio-affective qualities (such as compassion), or socio-cognitive skills (such as theory of mind), in three training cohorts and a retest control cohort (N = 332). While attentional performance improved most consistently after attention training, compassion increased most after socio-affective training and theory of mind partially improved after socio-cognitive training. These results show that specific mental training practices are needed to induce plasticity in different domains of mental functioning, providing a foundation for evidence-based development of more targeted interventions adapted to the needs of different education, labor, and health settings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104039

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the ReSource project, socio-affective practices led to increases in compassion and prosocial behavior and reductions in social stress.

    “socio-affective practices led to increases in compassion and prosocial behavior and reductions in social stress [31,32,33].”

    From 10-Week Trajectories of Candidate Psychological Processes Differentially Predict Mental Health Gains from Online Dyadic versus Mindfulness Interventions: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Results (‘Training effects on compassion’; page not provided) report that the ReSource Affect Module increased compassion relative to retest. The Discussion mentions a link between socio-affective processes and prosocial action, but does not report an increase in prosocial behavior from this training. The paper does not report a reduction in social stress. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the ReSource project, attention-focused mindfulness practices led to enhanced interoceptive awareness and attention control.

    “in a large-scale 9-month study, the ReSource project [29] employing three distinct intervention modules, it was shown that attention-focused mindfulness practices led to enhanced interoceptive awareness and attention control [30,31]”

    From 10-Week Trajectories of Candidate Psychological Processes Differentially Predict Mental Health Gains from Online Dyadic versus Mindfulness Interventions: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Discussion reports that the attention-focused Presence Module improved accuracy on an attention task, though not reaction time. The Introduction describes interoceptive awareness as a target of the module, but this paper does not report an improvement in interoceptive awareness as an outcome. Section labels are available in our copy, but page numbers are not. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In the ReSource project, socio-cognitive perspective-taking practices led to improvements in meta-cognitive awareness and Theory of Mind.

    “socio-cognitive perspective-taking practices led to improvements in meta-cognitive awareness and Theory of Mind [30,31]”

    From 10-Week Trajectories of Candidate Psychological Processes Differentially Predict Mental Health Gains from Online Dyadic versus Mindfulness Interventions: A Randomized Clinical Trial (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The Introduction says the ReSource Perspective Module aimed to improve metacognitive awareness and perspective taking, but it does not report an improvement in metacognitive awareness. The Results and Discussion find some evidence of improved Theory of Mind performance: the effect was significant against the Affect Module, but not against retest. The citing sentence presents both improvements as established, overstating these findings. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Holmes T. Parts work: An illustrated guide to your inner life 2007 Winged Heart Press Kalamazoo
  2. Singer, T., Kok, B. E., Bornemann, B., Zurborg, S., Bolz, M., & Bochow, C. A., (2016). The ReSource Project. Background, Design, Samples, and Measurements (2nd ed.). Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences; Leipzig.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Trautwein, F.-M., Kanske, P., Böckler, A., & Singer, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Haifa (IL)
  • Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences (DE)
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Corresponding author
Trautwein, Fynn-Mathis
ORCID
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
194
Pages
104039
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cognition.2019.104039
PMC
PMC6891878
OpenAlex
W2779975816
Cited by
139
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
16.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Research Council (205557)
  • Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
  • Seventh Framework Programme
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
mindfulness training, meditation, attention training, compassion, theory of mind, socioemotional skills, socio-cognitive skills, neuroplasticity, targeted interventions, cognitive training
MeSH terms
Social Cognition, Psychosocial Intervention, Adult, Attention, Empathy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Meditation, Young Adult, Theory of Mind, Mindfulness

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review