Izvestiya of Saratov University.

Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy

ISSN 1819-7671 (Print)
ISSN 2542-1948 (Online)

For citation:

Ryaguzova E. V. Compassion and kindness as different scenarios of pro-social behavior of the person. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2024, vol. 24, iss. 1, pp. 90-96. DOI: 10.18500/1819-7671-2024-24-1-90-96, EDN: CMHHLW

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 50)
Article type: 

Compassion and kindness as different scenarios of pro-social behavior of the person

Ryaguzova Elena Vladimirovna, Saratov State University

Introduction: the relevance problem of differentiating modes of prosocial behavior is substantiated and the main goal is determined: to identify differences in the recognition and experience of modes of prosocial behavior among psychology students and the role of subjective well-being of the person in them. Theoretical analysis of compassion and kindness made it possible to formulate a hypothesis: the empirical referents of distinguishing between the prosocial scenario of kindness, associated with concern for the future of the Other and the activation of his psychological resources, and the scenario of compassion, aimed at reducing the negative experiences of the Other by providing one’s own resources, are actualized emotions, and the facilitator is the current level of subjective well-being of the person. Empirical analysis. Participants: psychology students (N = 76; M = 24.4; SD = 9.5). Methods: Kindness and Compassion Script Scale (P. Gilbert et al.); Kindness modes technique (D. E. Youngs et al.); Methods of diagnostics of subjective well-being of the person (R. Shamionov, T. Beskova). Conclusions: differences were identified in the recognition of prosocial scenarios of kindness and compassion; emotional markers have been identified that allow them to be differentiated; differences were found in the indicators of subjective well-being of participants with different abilities to recognize kindness and compassion, and a significant connection was established between compassionate kindness and the components of subjective well-being. The results can be used in the educational process for developing the professional competencies of psychology students through training in the practices of mindfulness, compassion, and self-care.

  1. Radey M., Figley C. R. The Social Psychology of Compassion. Clinical Social Work Journal, 2007, vol. 35, рр. 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-007-0087-3
  2. Rauvola R. S., Vega D. M., Lavigne K. N. Compassion Fatigue, Secondary Traumatic Stress, and Vicarious Traumatization: A Qualitative Review and Research Agenda. Occupational Health Science, 2019, vol. 3, pp. 297–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41542-019-00045-1
  3. Binfet J.-T. Not-so random acts of kindness: A guide to intentional kindness in the classroom. International Journal of Emotional Education, 2015, vol. 7, no. 2, рр. 35–51.
  4. Binfet J.-T. Cultivating Kindness: An Educator’s Guide. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2022. 248 p.
  5. Gilbert P., Basran J., MacArthur M., Kirby J. N. Differences in the Semantics of Prosocial Words: An Exploration of Compassion and Kindness. Mindfulness, 2019, vol. 10, pp. 2259–2271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-019-01191-x
  6. Youngs D. E., Yaneva M. A., Canter D. V. Development of a measure of kindness. Current Psychology, 2023, vol. 42, pp. 5428–5440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01882-6
  7. Shamionov R. M., Beskova T. V. Methods of diagnostics of subjective well-being of the person. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniya [Psychological Studies], 2018, vol. 11, no. 60, pp. 8 (in Russian).
  8. Chang J.-H., Detrick S. M., Maas Z., Çoşkun H., Klos C., Zeifert H., Parmer E., Sule J. Cross-cultural comparison of compassion: An in-depth analysis of cultural differences in compassion using the Compassion of Others’ Lives (COOL) Scale. The Humanistic Psychologist, 2021, vol. 49, iss. 3, pp. 459–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/hum0000167
  9. Sinclair V. M., Topa G., Saklofske D. Personality Correlates of Compassion: A Cross-Cultural Analysis. Mindfulness, 2020, vol. 11, pp. 2423–2432. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-020-01459-7
  10. Gilbert P., McEwan K., Matos M., Rivis A. Fears of compassion: Development of three self-report measures. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 2011, vol. 84, iss. 3, pp. 239–255. https://doi.org/10.1348/147608310X-526511
  11. Solovyova S. L. Anxiety and anxiety: Theory and practice. Meditsinskaya psikhologiya v Rossii (Medical Psychology in Russia), 2012, no. 6 (17). Available at: http://www.medpsy.ru/mprj/archiv_global/2012_6_17/nomer/nomer14.php?ysclid=lpbdlkfbj5232054224 (accessed 28 October 2023) (in Russian).
  12. Izard C. E. The psychology of emotions. New York, London, Plenum Press, 1991. 452 p. (Russ. ed.: Izard K. E. Psikhologiya emotsiy. St. Petersburg, Piter, 2006. 464 p.).
  13. Lim D., DeSteno D. Suffering and compassion: The links among adverse life experiences, empathy, compassion, and prosocial behavior. Emotion, 2016, vol. 16, iss. 2, pp. 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000144
  14. Lim D., DeSteno D. Guilt underlies compassion among those who have suffered adversity. Emotion, 2023, vol. 23, iss. 3, pp. 613–621. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001116
  15. Andreoni J. Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving. The Economic Journal, 1990, vol. 100, iss. 401, рр. 464–477. https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133
  16. Evren O., Minardi S. Warm-Glow Giving and Freedom to Be Selfish (August 20, 2013). HEC Paris Research Paper, no. ECO/SCD-2013-1011. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2347111 (accessed 20 April 2023).
  17. Hui B. P. H., Ng, J. C. K., Berzaghi E., CunninghamAmos L. A., Kogan A. Rewards of kindness? A metaanalysis of the link between prosociality and wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 2020, vol. 146, iss. 12, pp. 1084–1116. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298
  18. Shin L. J., Layous K., Choi I., Na S., Lyubomirsky S. Good for self or good for others? The well-being benefi ts of kindness in two cultures depend on how the kindness is framed. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2020, vol. 15, no. 6, рр. 795–805. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1651894
  19. Curry O. S., Rowland L. A., Van Lissa C. J., Zlotowitz S., McAlaney J., Whitehouse H. Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2018, vol. 76, рр. 320–329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.02.014
  20. Gherghel C., Nastas D., Hashimoto T., Takai J. The relationship between frequency of performing acts of kindness and subjective well-being: A mediation model in three cultures. Current Psychology, 2021, no. 40, pp. 4446–4459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00391-x