Cited by 442Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesPsychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 69 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 25 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Short-Term Compassion Training Increases Prosocial Behavior in a Newly Developed Prosocial Game

Open access

Abstract

Compassion has been suggested to be a strong motivator for prosocial behavior. While research has demonstrated that compassion training has positive effects on mood and health, we do not know whether it also leads to increases in prosocial behavior. We addressed this question in two experiments. In Experiment 1, we introduce a new prosocial game, the Zurich Prosocial Game (ZPG), which allows for repeated, ecologically valid assessment of prosocial behavior and is sensitive to the influence of reciprocity, helping cost, and distress cues on helping behavior. Experiment 2 shows that helping behavior in the ZPG increased in participants who had received short-term compassion training, but not in participants who had received short-term memory training. Interindividual differences in practice duration were specifically related to changes in the amount of helping under no-reciprocity conditions. Our results provide first evidence for the positive impact of short-term compassion training on prosocial behavior towards strangers in a training-unrelated task.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Short-term compassion training increased prosocial helping toward strangers in a newly developed Zurich Prosocial Game (ZPG), whereas memory training did not. The ZPG also showed sensitivity to reciprocity, helping cost, and distress cues, and compassion training effects were observed two to five days after training.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1 (N = 68), helping in the ZPG was higher in reciprocity trials, low-cost trials, and distress-cue trials: main effects were reciprocity, F(67) = 73.22, p < .001, partial η² = .52; cost, F(67) = 73.78, p < .001, partial η² = .52; distress, F(67) = 7.02, p = .01, partial η² = .10.
  • ZPG helping correlated with dictator-game giving, ρ(65) = .35, p = .004, but not with memory-task performance, ρ(64) = .06, p > .05, supporting convergent and divergent validity.
  • In Experiment 2, compassion training significantly increased helping from pre- to post-training, t(26) = 1.85, p = .04, one-sided, while memory training did not, t(31) = −1.20, p = .24; the time × training interaction was F(1,57) = 4.09, p = .05, partial η² = .07.
  • Reported compassion practice hours correlated with increased helping in no-reciprocity trials, ρ(17) = .39, p = .05, one-sided, but not with total helping, ρ(17) = .27, p = .13. Dictator-game giving did not change after training, F(1,56) = .02, p = .89.

Methods

  • Two experiments with healthy female volunteers: Experiment 1 validated the ZPG in 68 participants; Experiment 2 tested compassion versus memory training in 69 participants, with 27 compassion and 32 memory participants in the reported samples.
  • The ZPG used a 2 × 2 × 2 within-subjects design: reciprocity (no reciprocity, reciprocity), cost (low, high), and distress (no distress cues, distress cues); participants navigated a maze, could help an ostensible co-player by donating keys, and could collect stars to control for attention.
  • Experiment 2 compared a one-day, six-hour compassion meditation workshop with a one-day method-of-loci memory workshop; pre-test occurred one to two weeks before training and post-test two to five days after training. Analyses used repeated-measures ANOVAs, t-tests, and correlations.

Limitations

  • The paper states that future research with longer training and bigger sample sizes is needed to determine how long-lasting the effects are and who benefits; it also notes that the study was not designed to test the distinction between compassion-based and norm-based prosocial behavior.
  • The paper states that self-reported practice data were available only from a subset of participants (n = 19 compassion, n = 22 memory), and that mechanisms such as relaxation or perceived self-other overlap were not isolated.
  • Evident from the text: both experiments included only healthy female volunteers aged 18–35 from the University of Zurich and surrounding community, limiting generalizability; the compassion-training effect was tested one-sided based on directional hypotheses.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0017798

Cites

69 of 69 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Percent helping in the different conditions of the ZPG. Error bars denote standard errors of mean.
Figure 1 Percent helping in the different conditions of the ZPG. Error bars denote standard errors of mean.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Effects of training on overall helping in the ZPG for the compassion-training and memory-training group. Error bars denote standard errors of mean. * p<.05, one-sided.
Figure 2 Effects of training on overall helping in the ZPG for the compassion-training and memory-training group. Error bars denote standard errors of mean. * p<.05, one-sided.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Labeled screenshot of the ZPG. Participants move their virtual character forward by clicking with the mouse on the field in front of it. Usage of keys in order to open the blocking gates occurs by mouse click on the key matching the gate's color. Collection of stars also occurs by clicking on them with the mouse.
Figure 3 Labeled screenshot of the ZPG. Participants move their virtual character forward by clicking with the mouse on the field in front of it. Usage of keys in order to open the blocking gates occurs by mouse click on the key matching the gate's color. Collection of stars also occurs by clicking on them with the mouse.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

46 Own result · 21 Own method · 18 Not checked yet · 16 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given

Verify all 25 references — free account

Show all 52 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 27
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 34
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
51 of 51
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    Compassion training has effects on compassion-based prosocial behavior (and not on norm-based prosocial behavior).

    “Based on the suggested distinction between compassion-based and norm-based prosocial behavior, and on the assumption that the compassion training has effects on the former this correlation could possibly only arise for non-reciprocity trials.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants' self-reported time spent practicing outside of training accurately reflects their actual practice duration.

    “we calculated the correlation between participants' self-reported time spent praticing outside of the training and the change in helping from pre- to post-training (self-report data could only be obtained from a subset of the samples: n compassion = 19, n memory = 22).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants believed the cover story that they were playing with real co-players in other research institutes.

    “They were told that they would play interactive computer games via the internet with other participants in different research institutes across Europe in order to investigate cross-cultural differences in interpersonal behaviors. In reality, there were no co-players; the ostensible co-players' behavior was pre-programmed.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The compassion and memory training workshops were equivalent in all aspects other than the trained skill, including teacher characteristics and participant expectations.

    “This particular mnemonic technique was chosen for the control group as it contains most elements also needed in the compassion training workshops: People need to actively engage in inner mental processing and to create active mental images and specific associations between items. The difference is that the memory group focuses purely on improving cognitive rather than affective skills.”
4 of 4

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?

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(1, 67) = 17.73reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,67) = 17.73, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 68) = 1.89reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .174

    “F(1,68) = 1.89, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(52) = 1.78reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .081

    “t(52) = 1.78, p > .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 23.47reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(1,54) = 23.47, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 5.84reported p = .02 · recomputed p = .019

    “F(1,54) = 5.84, p = .02”

  • ConsistentF(1, 54) = 3.61reported p = .06 · recomputed p = .063

    “F(1,54) = 3.61, p = .06”

  • Consistentt(23) = 2.66reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .014

    “t(23) = 2.66, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 68) = 6.11reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016

    “F(1,68) = 6.11, p = .016”

  • Consistentt(23) = -1.94reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .065

    “t(23) = −1.94, p = .03”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • Consistentt(23) = 2.02reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .055

    “t(23) = 2.02, p = .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 57) = 4.09reported p = .05 · recomputed p = .048

    “F(1,57) = 4.09, p = .05”

  • Consistentt(31) = -1.2reported p = .24 · recomputed p = .239

    “t(31) = −1.20, p = .24”

  • Consistentt(26) = 1.85reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .076

    “t(26) = 1.85, p = .04”

    The paper states a one-tailed test

  • ConsistentF(1, 57) = 6.76reported p = .01 · recomputed p = .012

    “F(1,57) = 6.76, p = .01”

  • ConsistentF(1, 57) = 4.55reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .037

    “F(1,57) = 4.55, p = .04”

  • Consistentt(57) = 1.21reported p = .23 · recomputed p = .231

    “t(57) = 1.21, p = .23”

  • Consistentt(57) = 0.55reported p = .58 · recomputed p = .584

    “t(57) = .55, p = .58”

  • Consistentt(57) = 3.07reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(57) = 3.07, p = .003”

  • Consistentt(57) = 2.27reported p = .03 · recomputed p = .027

    “t(57) = 2.27, p = .03”

  • ConsistentF(1, 56) = 0.02reported p = .89 · recomputed p = .888

    “F(1,56) = .02, p = .89”

  • ConsistentF(1, 56) = 1.63reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .207

    “F(1,56) = 1.63, p = .21”

  • Consistentt(32) = 0.57reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .573

    “t(32) = .57, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = 1.75reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .090

    “t(32) = 1.75, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = -0.81reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .424

    “t(32) = −.81, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = 1.7reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .099

    “t(32) = 1.70, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = -0.75reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .459

    “t(32) = −.75, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = -0.79reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .435

    “t(32) = −.79, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = -0.99reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .330

    “t(32) = −.99, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = 1.42reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .165

    “t(32) = 1.42, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(32) = -0.06reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .953

    “t(32) = −.06, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(57) = 1.98reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .053

    “t(57) = 1.98, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(57) = 0.64reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .525

    “t(57) = .64, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(54) = 1.91reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .061

    “t(54) = 1.91, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(54) = 0.1reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .921

    “t(54) = .1, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(57) = 0.89reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .377

    “t(57) = .89, p > .05”

  • Consistentt(57) = 0.87reported p > .05 · recomputed p = .388

    “t(57) = .87, p > .05”

36 of 36

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Show all 69 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. H Rockliff, 2008, Heart rate variability and salivary cortisol responses to compassion-focused imagery., J Clin Neuropsychiatry, 5, 132

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 442

Metadata

Authors
Leiberg, S., Klimecki, O., & Singer, T.
Affiliations
University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Leiberg, Susanne
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2011-03-09
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e17798
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973616877
Cited by
442
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 15
FWCI
19.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (FP7/2007-2013)
  • Mind and Life Institute
  • Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung (FP7/2007-2013)
  • Universität Zürich
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (205557)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
Keywords
compassion training, prosocial behavior, helping behavior, reciprocity, memory training, individual differences, practice duration, helping strangers
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Analysis of Variance, Empathy, Female, Games, Experimental, Helping Behavior, Humans, Memory, Social Behavior, Time Factors, Young Adult

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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