CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 259Mindfulness and Compassion InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The effect of loving-kindness meditation on positive emotions: a meta-analytic review

Open access
Zeng, Xianglong, Chiu, Cleo P. K., Wang, Rong, Oei, Tian P. S., Leung, Freedom Y. K.·2015·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01693PMC PMC4630307
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While it has been suggested that loving-kindness meditation (LKM) is an effective practice for promoting positive emotions, the empirical evidence in the literature remains unclear. Here, we provide a systematic review of 24 empirical studies (N = 1759) on LKM with self-reported positive emotions. The effect of LKM on positive emotions was estimated with meta-analysis, and the influence of variations across LKM interventions was further explored with subgroup analysis and meta-regression. The meta-analysis showed that (1) medium effect sizes for LKM interventions on daily positive emotions in both wait-list controlled RCTs and non-RCT studies; and (2) small to large effect sizes for the on-going practice of LKM on immediate positive emotions across different comparisons. Further analysis showed that (1) interventions focused on loving-kindness had medium effect size, but interventions focused on compassion showed small effect sizes; (2) the length of interventions and the time spent on meditation did not influence the effect sizes, but the studies without didactic components in interventions had small effect sizes. A few individual studies reported that the nature of positive emotions and individual differences also influenced the results. In sum, LKM practice and interventions are effective in enhancing positive emotions, but more studies are needed to identify the active components of the interventions, to compare different psychological operations, and to explore the applicability in clinical populations.

Overview

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01693

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Flowchart for the literature search.
FIGURE 1 Flowchart for the literature search.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 Randomized control trail (RCT) studies on daily PE, comparison with waitlist control group. The highest estimation was based on high arousal positive (HAP) emotion in Koopmann-Holm et al. (2013). Subgroup analysis compared LKM on loving-kindness and LKM on compassion.
FIGURE 2 Randomized control trail (RCT) studies on daily PE, comparison with waitlist control group. The highest estimation was based on high arousal positive (HAP) emotion in Koopmann-Holm et al. (2013). Subgroup analysis compared LKM on loving-kindness and LKM on compassion.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 RCT studies on daily PE, comparison with waitlist control group. The lowest estimation was based on low arousal positive (LAP) emotion in Koopmann-Holm et al. (2013). Subgroup analysis compared LKM on loving-kindness and LKM on compassion.
FIGURE 3 RCT studies on daily PE, comparison with waitlist control group. The lowest estimation was based on low arousal positive (LAP) emotion in Koopmann-Holm et al. (2013). Subgroup analysis compared LKM on loving-kindness and LKM on compassion.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 Non-RCT studies on daily PE. The highest estimation was based on frequency of happiness (Freq) in Alba (2013), unactivated positive emotion (Unactivate) in Kearney et al. (2014) and modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES) in Johnson et al. (2011). Subgroup analysis compared LKM with course and without course.
FIGURE 4 Non-RCT studies on daily PE. The highest estimation was based on frequency of happiness (Freq) in Alba (2013), unactivated positive emotion (Unactivate) in Kearney et al. (2014) and modified Differential Emotions Scale (mDES) in Johnson et al. (2011). Subgroup analysis compared LKM with course and without course.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 5 Non-RCT studies on daily PE. The lowest estimation was based on long-term happiness (Trait) in Alba (2013), activated positive emotion (Activate) in Kearney et al. (2014), day reconstruction method (DRM) in Johnson et al. (2011). Subgroup analysis compared LKM with course and without course.
FIGURE 5 Non-RCT studies on daily PE. The lowest estimation was based on long-term happiness (Trait) in Alba (2013), activated positive emotion (Activate) in Kearney et al. (2014), day reconstruction method (DRM) in Johnson et al. (2011). Subgroup analysis compared LKM with course and without course.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 6 RCT studies for PE from on-going practice, comparison with neutral visualization. The highest estimation was based on prosocial positive emotion (OtherFocus) in Seppala et al. (2014).
FIGURE 6 RCT studies for PE from on-going practice, comparison with neutral visualization. The highest estimation was based on prosocial positive emotion (OtherFocus) in Seppala et al. (2014).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 7 RCT studies for PE from on-going practice, comparison with neutral visualization. The lowest estimation was based on self-focused positive emotion (SelfFocus) in Seppala et al. (2014).
FIGURE 7 RCT studies for PE from on-going practice, comparison with neutral visualization. The lowest estimation was based on self-focused positive emotion (SelfFocus) in Seppala et al. (2014).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 8 RCT studies for PE from on-going practice, comparison with memory training.
FIGURE 8 RCT studies for PE from on-going practice, comparison with memory training.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 50 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Fredrickson, 2008, Open hearts build lives: positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 95, 1045, 10.1037/a0013262 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Hedges, 1985, Statistical Models for Meta-analysis.
  3. Sujiva, 2007, Loving-Kindness Meditation.
  4. Wheeler, 2014, Brief compassion meditation and recall of positive-emotion words., J. Artic. Support Null Hypothesis, 11, 12

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–259 of 259

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zeng, X., Chiu, C. P. K., Wang, R., Oei, T. P. S., & Leung, F. Y. K.
Affiliations
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Nanjing Forestry University (CN)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Zeng, Xianglong
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2015-11-03
Volume
6
Pages
1693-1693
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01693
PMC
PMC4630307
OpenAlex
W2213657943
Cited by
258
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 4
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • James Cook University
  • Nanjing University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Keywords
loving-kindness meditation, positive emotions, compassion-focused interventions, meditation intervention, intervention components, individual differences, mindfulness-based interventions

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